Talk:Agnostic atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Agnostic atheism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

This article is inconsistent with the article on atheism, specifically with regards to the distinction between negative and positive atheism -- an agnostic atheist need not be an agnostic positive atheist.

I tweaked the wording, how's it now? Bryan 03:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bill Mutz's text 2 Okay, trying again 3 Another proposed modification 4 AFD debate link 5 Robert Flint 6 WikiProject class rating 7 Soft Athieism 8 Merger proposal

[edit] Bill Mutz's text

Agnostic atheism can probably be given several definitions, depending upon how one defines agnosticism and atheism.

One proposed definition is a position that holds both atheism and agnosticism to be true. A person holding such a position does not believe that any God or gods exist, and also that it is impossible to prove or disprove this position.

A second possible definition is a position that takes the meanings of agnostic and atheist a little more literally, defining agnostic as "not knowing" and atheist as "don't believe in gods" or "don't follow any religion." Therefore, to say that one is an agnostic atheist would be to say, literally, that one chooses to disbelieve in gods or to be irreligious without making a knowlege claim. This is the sort of person who rejects religion for reasons other than tenability.

It should be noted that atheism and agnosticism are not as closely linked as one might think; it is possible for an agnostic to be a theist if one assumes that it's possible to be a theist without making a knowlege claim, for agnostic is a term which means, approximately, "not knowing." It is possible to attach agnostic to nearly any belief or supposition if one does not make a knowlege claim about it.

I don't see the distinction between the two definitions you propose. How does the latter take the definitions "more literally"? And in any case, where does "choosing not to believe" enter the picture?--RLent 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want some of that included, Bill, reword and restructure your text and don't use bold text that often. Since you're new, you should also work on removing ambiguity and informality. Proper sentence structure and grammar is appreciated. Adraeus 11:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, trying again

I am unhappy with the current text for various reasons. I will put in bold the parts that bother me most and will then propose revisions.

"Agnostic atheism is the position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods, and maintains that the existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable.(1)

Atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily synonymous(2) since it is possible for an agnostic person to be an atheist, a theist, or of the opinion that neither positions are true.(3)"

1. I think that it would be better not to use a single definition of agnosticism (the most hypocritical, I might add) when there is actually quite a perplexing number of meanings for word "agnostic," so I think that it would be for the best to include three of the meanings that are proposed in the article on agnosticism. An agnostic atheist may be an open agnostic, closed agnostic, or an apatheist.

2. The words are clearly not synonymous, lest the term "agnostic atheist" would be rendered invalid due to redundancy. I think that is would be better to explain in brief how they are distinct from each other.

3. This is mostly a stylistic complaint, but it also seems to imply that an agnostic who does not endorse either of the main positions on the existence/nonexistence of god(s) actually makes the (hypocritical imho) [knowledge] claim that the answer to the question is unknowable, so I think that it would be better to restrict the wording to indicate merely an absence of actual endorsement.

Here is my proposed revision:

"Agnostic atheism is the position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods, and either maintains that the existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable, denies the importance of whether or not it is knowable, or merely forbears making a claim of knowledge.

Atheism and agnosticism are distinct from each other in that Atheism is generally defined as a lacking of belief in god(s), and Agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowlege or any claim of knowlege, so it is possible for an agnostic person to be an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

Feel free to edit and tweak the proposed revision for grammer and suchlike. User:Bill Mutz

With a few grammatic tweaks, this is a nice revision. I like it. Here's a somewhat enhanced version:

---

Agnostic atheism is the philosophy that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Due to definitional variance, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods and by extension holds true one or more of these statements:

1. The existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable.
2. Knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant.
3. Abstention from claims of knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is optimal.

While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occassionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

---

As you said, feel free to edit and tweak for grammar, etc. By the way, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~! Adraeus 00:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, that's excellent. It addresses all of my complaints, and I find it much more readable. You might as well go ahead and put that in the article, but...now this is just me, but I think that "irrelevant" comes off sounding kinda bad to me. I think that a possible reason I'm getting this itch is that "irrelevant" seems too strong a word. I liked "unimportant" a bit better because the apatheist might say that it's unimportant but wouldn't neccessarily say that there is no connection. I'm mostly an abstentive agnostic atheist, but I can see how the apatheistic atheist would see the existence or nonexistence of god(s) as more of an object of interest than anything else but wouldn't actually think that the question totally lacks relevance. He might say in response to the whole atheist v. theist controversy, "I mostly find atheism more compatible with my way of looking at the world and better suited to my structural-functionalist views on morality, but you raise a very good question to which I would be interested in knowing the answer." You see what I mean? Bill Mutz 08:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deal. Adraeus 09:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another proposed modification

Okay, I'm going to try a few new ideas here:

Agnostic atheism adds a modifying term, agnostic, to atheism. "Atheism" will be given here the instrumental definition of the absence of belief or disbelief in transcendental beings or powers of any kind, chiefly God, gods, Buddhas, and Brahman. "Agnosticism" has many accepted and highly distinctive definitions, chief of which are denial of knowability, abstention from claims of knowlege, and apatheism. Given this, an "agnostic atheist" may be described, as any of the following:

1. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but believes that humanity lacks the means to adequately determine the veracity of this conclusion.
2. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but abstains from claiming to have the ability to adequately determine the veracity of this conclusion.
3. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but considers the veracity of this conclusion secondary or unimportant.

While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occassionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

Given the heated dispute over exactly what makes one an atheist, I think that the article would be more effective if the meaning used in it were posited as instrumental. The exact definition of atheism is not highly important to the article and mostly discusses what happens to it when "agnostic" is put in front of it. Also, I think that "veracity" is a cool word and happens to be particularly handy in this particular article. Lastly, I think that "transcendental beings or powers" should replace "God or gods" for the reason that Buddhas are certainly transcendental but do not, by definition, qualify as "gods" in the strictest sense of the word.

Questions, comments, suggestions, gripes, complaints, flames, and death threats are all very welcome. --Bill Mutz 07:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Emphasizing that agnostic is an adjective is redundant and unneeded. If a reader is unaware that agnostic is an adjective, I suggest that reader enroll in elementary English at an education center.
2. The second sentence is wordy and too specific. Save the types of deities for later in the article. A principle of good writing is to not use everything you have at once. KISS.
3. The third sentence is wordy and ambiguous. Denial of what? Abstention from claims of knowledge of what? I don't think knowability is a word either.
4. The fourth sentence is extremely wordy and questionably attributive. Despite its complexity, its attributive properties are simplistic and allows zero variation. "But" is also a terrible term to use in any commmunication unless your objective is to influence the reader or listener to forget what you just communicated.

• I reject the motion that we include the term "instrumental" for it is redundant and unneeded. All definitions are inherently instrumental.
• I reject the motion that we change "God or gods" to the much longer "transcendantal beings or powers" for the definition of "god" is "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force." We could, of course, use "deities"; however, if a reader does not acknowledge god's definitional variance, I'm uninterested in appeasing their intellectual arrogance or ignorance.
• You do have some good ideas but I think those ideas would be best implemented as extensions to the article instead of a modification to the introduction. The introduction should be generally applicable to the following explanation. For instance, when writing an essay you wouldn't make all your points in the introduction; otherwise, you would not have anything important or useful to say in the body. Adraeus 09:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I am a bit embassed that I'm having to remind myself that I said in no mistakable terms that I was open to harsh criticism, but on reflection and upon closer analysis of your objections, I am glad that I did. However, I'd like to contest one of your objections. Buddha is certainly a transcendental being, and I doubt that there are many who would identify themselves as atheists or the same under different names would argue that the existence of Buddhas or anything in the nature of Nirvana are significantly more tenable than the existence of gods. However, Buddha, at least in most forms of Buddhism, certainly doesn't follow most accepted definitions of "god" or "deity," and neither, neccessarily, does Nirvana. If you do not think that I make a valid point here, I would be most appreciative if you would unburden me of my curiosity as to why. Thank you for being as candid as you have been with your objections, and note that I agree completely, mostly, or partially with all of them. Thank you very much for your criticism, and I thank you immensely for being considerate of my inexperience. --Bill Mutz 21:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition, I apologize for having apparently invented a new word. Please read "knowability" to mean "verifiability" which I have determined upon studying various dictionaries does happen to be a word. --Bill Mutz 21:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Princeton University's WordNet, "Buddha" is defined as:

• Buddha, the Buddha, Siddhartha, Gautama, Gautama Siddhartha, Gautama Buddha -- (founder of Buddhism; worshipped as a god (c 563-483 BC))

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Buddha" is defined as:

• The title given by the adherents of one of the great Asiatic religions, thence called Buddhism, to the founder of their faith, Sakyamuni, Gautama, or Siddartha, who flourished in Northern India in the 5th century b.c. Sakyamuni is regarded as only the latest of a series of Buddhas or infallible religious teachers, which is hereafter to be continued indefinitely. When applied to Sakyamuni, Buddha is in English use treated as a proper name, and even when used in a general sense, it is always written with a capital B.

The OED also provides a some quotes:

• 1681 R. Knox Hist. Ceylon 18 The Buddou, a great god among them.
• 1853 Wayland Mem. Judson App. II. 410 A Buddh is a being who by virtue of certain austerities becomes the object of supreme adoration.

These definitions and quotes suggest that Buddha (or state of Buddha) is regarded as being a god among men, a living god or a man worshipped like a god.

Another definition of "god" provided by WordNet (the OED has similar, yet longer, definitions):

• god -- (a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men")

That, of course, is purely perceptual rather than existential and I think Buddha is irrelevant to this article. Although, some atheists, indeed some agnostic atheists, may be without belief in gods/God and without belief in godlike men. I think there are godlike men... because, well, I'm one of them! :) Adraeus 02:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that you may have missed my point. I don't think that I said anything about "god-like men." My main point was that atheists generally reject all things supernatural. This is to include ghosts, magic, afterlife, Nirvana, ley lines, and any similar nonsense, and I'd think that most are at least agnostic about such things as ESP, especially in regard to such foolishness as remote viewing, astral projection, and precognition. Bill Mutz 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Flint

I'm surprised that nobody has cited one of the oldest definitions of "agnostic atheism" - that of the influential theologian Robert Flint, back in the nineteenth-century. It establishes that the terminology was used in the literature nearly a century before the earliest of other references. I have therefore added Flint in order to give what seems to be a much needed historical depth to the article. I hope that's OK. --Dannyno 09:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Athieism

I didn't think that Atheism was doubt about there being a God, I thought it was a belief that there isn't a God. To me, those are very different outlooks. In the sense of belief, belief in God, and belief that there isn't a God are both not possible for an Agnostic, who claims not to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.4.218 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. Never in the history of the universe has anyone actually had to know something in order to believe or in this case disbelieve. I do not have any knowledge that there is or is not a god and hence am an agnostic. However I have despite this made the choice not to believe. As such I am also an atheist. Hence agnostic atheism. It is just as possible for an agnostic to also be an atheist in the same sense that a ball can be both a sphere and green at the same time. Just as shape and color are two different things so is knowledge and disbelief. MAd HaTtEr2k (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I'm proposing a merger of this page and Atheistic agnosticism, as they both outline exactly the same concepts, but with a different word order. I'm unsure as to what name the merged page should fall under, which is why I'm using merge and not mergefrom/to. Anyone who can definitively find which is the more accurate/widely-used term, please edit the pages. --Ω (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I always hear it referred to as "agnostic atheism" and as such prefer it be worded that way. MAd HaTtEr2k (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)