In my first post, "The Default Position," I discussed the meanings and uses of labels of theism and gnosticism. I just got done reading a post where several self-proclaimed agnostics claimed they weren't atheists. Now, I normally don't care about labels people choose to put on themselves. In fact, I would prefer that we didn't need labels at all. The only reason why this label irks me is because it is an unnecessary segregation of two groups of people who have far more in common with each other than they even realize.
First of all, consider this question: do you believe in a god or gods? If the answer is yes, then you are a theist. Any other answer (including "I don't know") makes you an atheist. That's right, agnostics, most (if not all) of you are actually atheists. Remember, atheism is no belief in a god, not belief there is no god. Sure, some atheists take a stronger stance than others on the existence of a god, but the label of atheist still applies to those that take the less certain stance.
Agnosticism is not a step down to a nicer, easier-to-digest form of atheism. No, it is an entirely separate category that identifies something different than belief in a god: knowledge. In fact, someone who was truly "agnostic" to the existence of gods would have to believe that all claims were equally viable. Zeus is just as likely to exist as Yahweh, or Neptune is just as likely to exist as Anubis. It is clear that not all claims are equal.
Perhaps someday we will live in a world where these labels are no longer necessary. After all, atheism is only a necessary label because of theism. It is a response position to theistic claims, and the term would not be necessary if there was no theism. Because theists exist, people who do not support the claim of the existence of a god must therefore be atheists. My message to people who call themselves to agnostics: remember, the label of atheist most likely applies to you, too. I understand that the term atheist can provoke stronger feelings in the minds of certain people - images of evil devil worshippers conspiring against God - and that using the label atheist for yourself can be frightening. But the sooner we vanquish this old misunderstanding of what atheism is, the sooner we can start working together for our common goals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree really.
While I am an atheist, I still feel agnostics are a separate group.
Because I will not bring myself to admit the possibility of a god, they do.
Do you think you could find one atheist who WOULD admit they believe the existence is possible?
I don't think you will, because agnostics are not atheists nor theists, they are agnostics. If they were indeed atheists we'd have no need of the word agnostic now would we? lol
Maggie,
thank you for your comment.
Atheists are people who lack belief in a god, not people who believe that there is/are no god/gods, though a great deal of atheists would probably say they're pretty sure there are no deities.
A great deal of agnostics are agnostic atheists, who don't understand what the labels mean.
I am an atheist who thinks that the existence of a deity is possible but unlikely to such a high degree that it is silly to believe that one actually exists. Do I think unicorns exist? No, but that doesn't mean I know there are no unicorns, just that their existence is so highly unlikely that I don't need to qualify my answer.
The label "agnostic" has grown to mean something entirely different, and most agnostics just consider themselves more "open minded" than atheists. They've missed the point entirely; one either believes or disbelieves claims about a deity. If you disbelieve all claims for the existence of deities, that makes you an atheist, whether or not you rule out the possibility of existence.
Post a Comment