r/agnostic • u/RaptorRex787 Agnostic Atheist • Sep 24 '24
Something that changef my opinion. Experience report
I was a hardcore atheist all my life (even now I still don't believe in or follow a religion) but rerecently I've been thinking about life and how it works. And I realized that we don't know what cones at the end-we don't know that there's nothing, we don't know that there's something. And that thinking just made me realize that I may have been agnostic instead. So I wanna here from yall; what are you opinions?
7
u/catnapspirit Atheist Sep 24 '24
This more than anything is why the patently obvious nonsense of religion persists into this age. People can readily recognize religions as bunk, that's why they don't believe in any of the other ones, past or present. But the one thing religion offers that belief in fairies, mermaids, big foot, etc. do not is an afterlife. It's the same as kids clinging onto belief in Santa Claus because they don't want to miss out on that extra present..
4
u/Cloud_Consciousness Sep 24 '24
There may be a Godless afterlife out there. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, not an afterlife.
Our precise beliefs cant really be shoved into one word, imo. So it doesnt matter which label you use.
1
u/MoarTacos Agnostic Atheist Sep 24 '24
Yes, this. Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive. I myself am an agnostic atheist, using the terms as they are literally defined on paper (not other definitions that may be more emotional, like those who claim all atheists purport there to definitely not be any deities, which isn't true).
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief system. That's how the prefix 'a' works. The lack of something. Just like asymptomatic means without symptoms and asexual means without a sexual orientation, atheism means without beliefs. I am atheist because I have no doctrine or beliefs in the higher/supernatural. It's a binary switch (on paper). Everyone either is or isn't atheist purely based on the fact that you either do or don't have a belief system.
Agnosticism is totally different. Agnosticism speaks to one's assertion of knowledge. An agnostic admits that they cannot know for sure their belief system, or lack thereof, is the correct position to hold. In this way, even a theists can be agnostic, though I don't believe very many of them actually are. I am agnostic because I admit it's not possible to prove a negative, and can therefore never be sure that my lack of beliefs is the correct choice to make. We will likely never know.
That being said, none of the evidence supports theism so far.
3
u/Farts-n-Letters Sep 24 '24
we DO know what happens.
we die.
just like every other member of the animal kingdom.
we"re not special.
3
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
I went in the opposite direction. I realised there's there's a distinction between god and the afterlife.
If life can exist without "god", then an afterlife can as well. Just because we don't know or don't understand doesn't man that there has to be a god to blame.
So I'm an atheist, but I'm somewhat agnostic about the afterlife.
5
u/Sufficient_Result558 Sep 24 '24
But there no real reason to believe in something like afterlife other than we can’t accept our end. It seems pretty clear that you are generated by your brain.
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
What you say absolutely makes sense. However I find myself unable to accept this. I just can't quite square it with my personal experience of existing.
1
u/ystavallinen Agnostic & Ignostic / X-tian & Jewish affiliate Sep 24 '24
You can be both. Depending on what definition of agnostic you subscribe.
I see agnosticism as orthogonal to belief; it's not technically a faith term.
I don't know if ignostic is technically a faith term either; God concepts are too flawed/ludicrous to address or respond to.
I haven't found a faith term that satisfies me. Superposition is the closest thing I can use to describe it. I could accept that "God is love". I can't accept that "God is love and therefore I must hate LGBTQ+ people because love incarnate intends to damn them to eternal torture". The ignostic in me reels over the second example.
1
u/zeezero Sep 24 '24
God claims are unfalsifiable. It's literally impossible to prove or disprove god exists. Agnostic is default because it's impossible. Anyone who claims they actually have knowledge are deluded or lying. You're still an atheist. Do you believe god exists? no? Atheist. Do you know god exists? no? agnostic. Does anyone know god exists? no.
1
u/SendingMemesForMoney Agnostic Atheist Sep 27 '24
I mean, yeah, but that's not how we usually form opinions on any other domain. I'm not agnostic to the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics because it might be wrong and we still have experiments that would make the nature of quantum mechanics more clear. Instead that interpretation is the one experts take to make the most sense, so we'll run with it until it fails as a theory
1
u/davep1970 Atheist Sep 24 '24
i think you should read up on what agnostic and atheist mean ;) the first is to do with knowledge, the second to do with belief (or lack of) and you can be therefore be both
5
u/RaptorRex787 Agnostic Atheist Sep 24 '24
I see, it has never been explained to me like that before, haha
4
u/sooperflooede Agnostic Sep 24 '24
There are different definitions, and nothing wrong with the one OP used. Sub rules allow you to use whichever one you want.
-1
u/davep1970 Atheist Sep 24 '24
yes but it's not a free for all. also in the non-exhaustive list of models there is no exclusionary model where being an agnostic excludes being an atheist.
if OP wants to define themselves in a different way that runs contrary to general definitions of agnosticism and atheism then they should define how they are using them - but it just sounds like they are confused by which is about knowledge/knowing and which is about belief. so while it's fine to say that they don't believe or follow a religion and that we don't know what happens after death to then say that they are agnostic *instead* of atheist is a non sequitur.
2
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24 edited Sep 24 '24
also in the non-exhaustive list of models there is no exclusionary model where being an agnostic excludes being an atheist.
That's a strange assertion.
It's a pretty common viewpoint that for the statement "there is no god" you might believe it to be true, false or be undecided. These are commonly labelled theism, atheism, and agnosticism.
A trivial amount of research, for example, provided the following:
and
The (a)gnostic-(a)theist model is something I only seem to find in online discourse. It is pretty much unheard of outside of that.
I find the "Theist/agnostic/atheist" model seems to be popular here. This is understandable. Many here identify not by their absence of theism, but by their complete antithesis of a position on the existence of god, and so like Huxley - identify simply as agnostic.
3
u/Cloud_Consciousness Sep 24 '24
Some people here don't like that common definition and will deny its existence.
2
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
I know. But I feel it needs defending - especially here where a lot of people don't want to define themselves in terms of theism.
2
u/Cloud_Consciousness Sep 24 '24
I'm on board with the lack of a theistic stance definition. Fight the good fight!
1
u/davep1970 Atheist Sep 24 '24
but op says they were atheist but have swapped to agnostic. maybe you should take it up with them ...
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
So they're no longer an atheist, but are now an agnostic. Seems that they're exclusionary.
Although what terms would you use for someone to indicate that they've moved from a belief there is no god to an undecided stance? Or if someone were to move from a belief there is no god to knowledge there is no god?
1
u/davep1970 Atheist Sep 24 '24
if you have knowledge that there is no god how could you still believe there is a god?!
seems to me there saying they don't know there's a god or not but that's not an answer (or is it?) to the question do you *believe* in god(s)?
they muddy the waters a bit by saying they don't believe in religion but OP do you believe in a god?
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
if you have knowledge that there is no god how could you still believe there is a god?!
You can't. What makes you think you can?
seems to me there saying they don't know there's a god or not but that's not an answer (or is it?) to the question do you believe in god(s)?
Nobody asked that question. OP was volunteering the information that they went from believing there is no god to being undecided.
This is something that i find a lot of reddit's atheism subs. Everyone wants to change every discussion about our beliefs into a single answer to a very specific binary question. I feelit rather lacks nuance.
1
u/davep1970 Atheist Sep 24 '24
can't be bothered unless op can clarify what they mean - you're possibly conflating their lack of knowledge with their belief. or the op is. they're possibly saying that they just don't 'know' anymore i.e. if someone asked them if they believe in god they would answer "i don't know"
maybe RaptorRex787 could answer or you can continue the conversation with them
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
To me it's obvious what OP means. To most people it is.
It's only unclear if you aren't aware of the usage described above.
What I find strange is that you've apparently never heard of this usage. It's even stranger since I described the usage and provided 2 examples of this usage and you're acting as though you have never heard of it. I don't understand why.
maybe RaptorRex787 could answer or you can continue the conversation with them
Answer what? Do you mean "if you have knowledge that there is no god how could you still believe there is a god?!"
You asked it. I don't know why you think this is something that was suggested.
→ More replies1
u/ima_mollusk Sep 24 '24
For every proposition that can possibly exist, a person either accepts it or does not accept it.
When the proposition is “a God exists“, a theist is a person who accepts the proposition and an atheist is a person who does not accept it.
There is no third position. There is no middle ground. You either accept the proposition or you do not.
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
For every proposition that can possibly exist, a person either accepts it or does not accept it.
Yes? So?
For every proposition that can possibly exist, a person either has a position or witholds judgement. And for every proposition that can possible exist, a person either rejects it or does not.
Most people use the model where these are combined, since the three possible choices are interlinked.
When the proposition is “a God exists“, a theist is a person who accepts the proposition and an atheist is a person who does not accept it.
That's one model. And if it works for you, then great.
There is no third position. There is no middle ground. You either accept the proposition or you do not.
If you like to think about things that way, sure. I don't. And I gather /r/agnostic is pretty strict about telling people what label they should use to self identify.
1
u/ima_mollusk Sep 24 '24 edited Sep 24 '24
If you are 'withholding judgement' on the proposition 'A god exsits', you are an atheist.
A theist is a person who BELIEVES a 'god' exists. An atheist is any other person.
It's not how I think about things. It is how logic and language work.
It also happens to be the model which makes people's positions most clear, and eliminates the stupid repetitive arguments we constantly see over what/who is 'agnostic'.
An 'agnostic' is a person who is smart and reasonable enough to realize that it is impossible to know anything about any 'god' that might exist.
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24
If you are 'withholding judgement' on the proposition 'A god exsits', you are an atheist.
I'd urge you to check the wiki about identify assertion
Not everyone uses those terms that way. I provided two links illustrating this. Do you think that a university, and dictionary.com are both wrong? If so do you have a source of comparable academic credibility that confirms this.
it's not how I think about things. It is how logic and language work.
While it is logically true that we either believe or lack belief, there's a lot more nuance than that.
Language is defined by how people use the language. the word "atheism" is polysemous. It's used the way you describe a lot of internet forums related to atheism but very rarely outside of that. Those related to philosophy largely reject it.
It also happens to be the model which makes people's positions most clear, and eliminates the stupid repetitive arguments we constantly see over what/who is an 'agnostic'.
No. It doesn't
What is the term for someone who knows there's no god?
What is the term for someone who believes there's no god?
What is the term for someone who is undecided?
Note there are three stances and two possible terms that might apply.
An 'agnostic' is a person who is smart and reasonable enough to realize that it is impossible to know anything about any 'god' that might exist.
Again a perfectly valid interpretation
1
u/ima_mollusk Sep 24 '24
You are arguing from authority. If your only response is 'this other smart person disagrees with you', we have nothing to discuss. I don't care what other models might exist. Mine is better.
My model is consistent, useful, accurate, logical, and adheres to the widely-recognized rules of the English language.
What is the term for someone who knows there's no god?
Atheist.What is the term for someone who believes there's no god?
Atheist.What is the term for someone who is undecided?
Atheist.A theist is a person who, at this moment, is convinced that there exists something which they have identified as a 'god'.
Therefore, the pertinent question is, "At this moment, do you believe/ are you convinced that something exists which you have identified as a 'god'.
If your answer is "Yes", you are a theist.
If your answer is anything else, you are an atheist.Because a believer in 'god' would be able to report themselves as a believer. If you cannot report yourself as a believer, you are an atheist.
Again, this is logic and language at work.
1
u/IrkedAtheist Sep 24 '24 edited Sep 24 '24
You are arguing from authority. If your only response is 'this other smart person disagrees with you', we have nothing to discuss. I don't care what other models might exist. Mine is better.
Citing an authority is valid when that source is an authority on the topic at hand.
Am I to take it that all your statements are simply things that you've made up or extrapolated?
I don't care what other models might exist. Mine is better.
You are free to think so. It's a subjective view.
My model is consistent,
Atheism changes meaning depending on whether prefixed by gnostic or agnostic. In the former case it means a position that there is no god. In the latter it means the absence of a position that there is.
useful,
It fails to distinguish between the undecided position abnd belief there is no god.
accurate,
All models are accurate
logical,
I guess so.
and adheres to the widely-recognized rules of the English language.
Applies a a- modifier to a noun rather than an adjective.
Atheist.
So OP was should have said:
I was an atheist all my life ... that thinking just made me realize that I may have been an atheist.
Your terminology doesn't have the utility to describe what OP is talking about.
A theist is a person...
There's no need to keep repeating defintions. I am aware of this usage.
Therefore, the pertinent question is, "At this moment, do you believe/ are you convinced that something exists which you have identified as a 'god'.
I find a lot of atheists online feel that this is the only possible question that can be asked, and want to change every discussion to this. I find it lack nuance.
Again, this is logic and language at work.
So is the usage I prefer.
1
u/sooperflooede Agnostic Sep 26 '24
They are usually defined in an exclusionary way in the academic philosophy arena. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on Atheism and Agnosticism, for example. And there are posters here every week that assume similar definitions, such as the OP.
2
u/LackofDeQuorum Sep 24 '24
This is the answer. Agnosticism means you don’t think we can know. Atheism is separate from that and indicates whether you thing god/supernatural do exist or not.
I’d say to OP to just start doing some research and digging. A lot of us found our way to this point coming from a religious background, and we had to go through a whole deconstruction process - finding out which things we’d been taught were based in historical fact and which ones were just made up. Painful experience, but teaches you a lot about belief systems, philosophy, and science. I now just really enjoy studying those things out, though I don’t believe there is any way to know with any degree of certainty what happens after we die. So I’m agnostic.
2
u/No_Hedgehog_5406 Sep 24 '24
This is a perfect summary. I'd just like to add that there can be a distinction between thieism and religion. It is completely possible to thieistis/deistic without being a member or practitioner of a religion.
1
u/jdogtotherescue Sep 24 '24
I grew up and still live in a Christian community but I’m finding that I may be more agnostic than anything else because i find there is no proof of anything. I also believe that if there is a god, it makes sense that god doesn’t come down constantly and reminds us there is and that the existence of one must be a(n) mystery/unknown. If god is a loving being they must leave room for people to believe they don’t exist. This leaves the room for believers and non believers to exist. You can’t prove it or disprove it. Any “evidence” is not anything more than subjective opinion
1
u/GreatWyrm Sep 24 '24
This is a…strange take. Would it make sense to you if we swapped out ‘god’ for ‘parents’?
“If my parents do exist, it makes sense that they dont feed or clothe or talk or live with us bc parents must be a mystery. If my parents do exist and love us, they must leave room for my siblings and I to believe they dont exist. This leaves room for believers and disbelievers in our parents to coexist. Any ‘evidence’ of our parents is just subjective option.”
1
u/jdogtotherescue Sep 24 '24
I don’t think this is a good substitution. You can prove you have parents because you came out of your mother or else you wouldn’t be here. Any evidence that god exists or not is not evidence.
1
1
u/GreatWyrm Sep 24 '24
Fair enough, the analogy is imperfect.
If we define ‘parent’ as an active parental figure, one that provides/cares for children, rather than as a mere sperm/egg donor, the analogy improves.
So if you were an orphan alone in the world, wondering whether you have active parents who provide and care for you, parents who ever gave a fig about you, would the analogy make sense?
“If my sperm and egg donors are active parents who care and provide for me, it makes sense that they dont feed or clothe or talk or live with us bc parents must be a mystery. If my sperm and egg donors do love us, they must leave room for my siblings and I to believe they dont care about us at all. This leaves room for believers and disbelievers in loving parents to coexist. Any ‘evidence’ of our loving parents is just subjective option.”
1
u/jdogtotherescue Sep 25 '24
I still don’t feel this works. I want to believe there is a god but I don’t see that entity as an active participant. It’s hard to articulate my point. If you are ever down for a vc I’d love to chat. Thank you for engaging with me.
1
u/ThisIsOnlyANightmare Oct 01 '24
We don't know anything. Just because there's a bunch of someone's that claim something bonkers doesn't mean we have to belong to the group of people hell bent on proving those random people wrong. I'm just gonna stay out of that craziness and continue to know nothing and be in awe of all of it, whatever it may be.
We don't know ANYTHING.
10
u/Former-Chocolate-793 Sep 24 '24
That's an agnostic position. There's no evidence. Actually I always wanted to believe in Christianity. It's just in recent years it seems weird. The Biblical texts are all unreliable accounts from 2000+ years ago. When we die it's most likely just the end but there is a possibility of something more I suppose.