I found this nifty little diagram that illustrates the different shades of certainty and belief about the existence of god(s). I am squarely in the ‘agnostic atheist’ category. Where are you?
I found this nifty little diagram that illustrates the different shades of certainty and belief about the existence of god(s). I am squarely in the ‘agnostic atheist’ category. Where are you?
If I choose Agnostic Atheist, I would have to accept that I can’t prove any God doesn’t exist, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and/or any other God anyone ever proposes to me.
If I choose Gnostic Atheist, I can freely reject all Gods.
I would change my mind if some actual proof could be provided to show that some God does exist, but I think it is more sane to equally reject all gods, and accept the ease of creation of a God such as the FSM as proof that no God actually exists.
But by saying that you allow for future evidence to allow for proof of God(s) then you are saying that you don’t have absolute knowledge of your stance, therefore you are Agnostic Atheist (like me!). The stance of the Gnostic Atheist is of unmovable faith.
Even Dawkins described himself as Agnostic Atheist because as a scientist he cannot say with 100 percent certainty that God does not exist. Just that there’s a 99.999999% change that (s)he doesn’t.
Considering that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t a god, but is a hypothetical material, limited being, the comparison doesn’t really follow.
Nevertheless, you *don’t* have proof that the FSM doesn’t exist.
I guess I’m an agnostic theist. I don’t know if I believe in God(s), and I don’t know if proof exists.
That would make you an agnostic atheist: the default for belief in anything is always “off.” So, you’re not a theist until you’re convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
(I think. I’m pretty sure.)
Jeez… I bounce from one to the other. Sometimes I really believe and other times not all but I definitely know there is no proof.
>Considering that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t a god, but is a hypothetical material, >limited being, the comparison doesn’t really follow.
So If I decided to follow a version of the FSM that does match God’s attributes, would that not be the same?
>Nevertheless, you *don’t* have proof that the FSM doesn’t exist.
And I don’t have proof that any God doesn’t exist. Must I be a Agnostic to all the hundreds of thousands of Gods that have been created by man? No, I will choose to be a Gnostic Atheist to all of them.
Of course, then it wouldn’t be an FSM. It would be the God that yes, many people do find warrant to believe in. That’s the thing many atheists do not get. They are not capturing relevant distinctions between real posited gods and the impostors like FSMs and IPUs and celestial teapots. The atheists don’t think about these distinctions because to them, the distinctions do not matter. But to theists, the distinctions make any comparison a non sequitur.
I for one don’t *choose* whether to be agnostic or gnostic. I don’t choose what I perceive to know or not know, just like I don’t choose what I believe or do not believe. For me, it’s a matter humility, intellectual rigor and precision. To say I know something doesn’t exist based merely on the lack of current evidence (when that something need not, by any means, conform to our current worldview) is a pretty sketchy position. That does not mean I find that something compelling to believe in (because again, lack of evidence isn’t compelling). But I certainly wouldn’t be proud to have such a low threshold for “knowledge.”
I wish this set of definitions would spread to the general public. Unfortunately, every time I describe myself as an agnostic atheist I have to basically describe this little chart to whoever I’m talking to.
Also, this venn diagram is definitely prettier, but I always thought a two-column, two-row table was easier to read.
How does Ignosticism fit in here?
Image: ©2010 Dean Reeves II (FYI)
Feel free to leave it up though.
Sorry that I didn’t leave you credit! I just found this on reddit.com where there wasn’t attribution.
I’ll go with “agnostic atheist”, but I think there’s one more level of subtlety that you haven’t captured:
Some say that “agnostic” means that proof either way is a priori impossible. I don’t claim to have a proof, but I’m open to the idea that one might exist…
Pingback: The problem with atheism and agnosticism « Irresistible (Dis)Grace