The Honest Atheist?

[Cow Poke]

In my experience talking and debating with non-Christians over the past decade, there really is no difference between an atheist an agnostic. They both effectively live as if God doesn't exist. Let's put it this way: when was the last time you ever heard of an agnostic considering his actions in light of whether or not they're pleasing to God on the chance that he really does exist?

So, maybe an agnostic is simply an atheist who doesn't have the courage to admit what he believes? (or doesn't believe?)

[Mountain Man]

So, maybe an agnostic is simply an atheist who doesn't have the courage to admit what he believes? (or doesn't believe?)

I think it's for the same reason that atheists claim that they merely "lack belief": they don't want to bear the burden of proof in a debate, which is, of course, cowardly and intellectually dishonest. I've even heard atheists and agnostics go so far as to unreasonably claim that lack of belief in God is the default position and that the burden rests entirely on the theist to disprove it.

As an aside, I wonder which is more appropriate for an agnostic: To look for reasons to believe, or to look for reasons to disbelieve?

[JohnnyP]

So, maybe an agnostic is simply an atheist who doesn't have the courage to admit what he believes? (or doesn't believe?)

I don't run into too many who describe themselves as agnostics, I think today's soft atheist is yesterday's agnostic, where opinions on who is what may differ but in general:

Soft atheism: gods are possible but I tend not to believe it without more evidence.

Hard atheism: all the evidence is in, there are definitely no gods.

Of course you may get those who consistently argue for hard atheism but when pressed seem to partially concede to soft atheism, "sure anything is possible, so are fairies and unicorns." But this is because they know hard atheism is as much a religious type of faith and belief in no gods as the theism is in gods. To me they still walk and quack like hard atheists.

[Cow Poke]

I think it's for the same reason that atheists claim that they merely "lack belief": they don't want to bear the burden of proof in a debate, which is, of course, cowardly and intellectually dishonest. I've even heard atheists and agnostics go so far as to unreasonably claim that lack of belief in God is the default position and that the burden rests entirely on the theist to disprove it.

As an aside, I wonder which is more appropriate for an agnostic: To look for reasons to believe, or to look for reasons to disbelieve?

I was being SOMEWHAT tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. I think it's more a matter of "I want to do what I want to do and I don't want to be accountable to a higher power". Therefore, there IS no higher power, or I'd have to deal with the fact that I am either for or against Him.

[Mountain Man]

I was being SOMEWHAT tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. I think it's more a matter of "I want to do what I want to do and I don't want to be accountable to a higher power". Therefore, there IS no higher power, or I'd have to deal with the fact that I am either for or against Him.

Which comes back to the point I made earlier: People ultimately reject God because of sin and pride.

[Jedidiah]

Which comes back to the point I made earlier: People ultimately reject God because of sin and pride.

That is certainly true, but I want to hear from one of those atheists about how he or she is different than an agnostic. I suspect you are right when you suggest that "they don't want to bear the burden of proof."

[Doug Shaver]

Most of us who call ourselves atheists disagree. If you're not one of us, what entitles you to tell us what we are?

Atheism is not a lack of belief, that's a cop out. The etymological and historical of atheism is a-no, theos -god, that is the claim of atheism. It doesn't say lack belief.

Etymology and history do not determine a word's meaning. Its usage does.

[JohnnyP]

Etymology and history do not determine a word's meaning. Its usage does.

You would agree though that there are some "hard atheists" like The Rational Response Squad who are very much antitheism, even though most may be "soft atheists" simply lacking belief, right?

[Mountain Man]

Etymology and history do not determine a word's meaning. Its usage does.

This is what you basically said, "A word's usage doesn't determine its meaning. Its usage does."

[Jedidiah]

Atheist, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

[JohnnyP]

This is what you basically said, "A word's usage doesn't determine its meaning. Its usage does."

I kind of agree with him just on the general point here, for example Semites can include various groups from the Middle East, but in modern usage we know that antisemite refers only to Jews.

Still we all know some atheists are also very much antitheists, not simply lacking belief in theism, so there's not any relevance to that point anyway as applied to this issue.

[Doug Shaver]

You would agree though that there are some "hard atheists" like The Rational Response Squad who are very much antitheism, even though most may be "soft atheists" simply lacking belief, right?

Yes, we make that distinction when it is relevant to whatever is being discussed.

[Doug Shaver]

This is what you basically said, "A word's usage doesn't determine its meaning. Its usage does."

Etymology and history are descriptions of past usage. Current meaning is determined by current usage.

[Tassman]

Which comes back to the point I made earlier: People ultimately reject God because of sin and pride.

Nonsense! “Sin" (and "pride" in this context) are theological concepts which are meaningless in the absence of a god.

What is being rejected is not God. There’s no credible evidence for a god so how can you reject that for which there’s no credible evidence? Answer: you can’t. E.g. do you "reject" invisible pink unicorns? Of course not; there's no good reason for believing in them in the first place. What’s being rejected is ‘belief’ in that for which there is no substantive evidence.

[Mountain Man]

Nonsense! “Sin" (and "pride" in this context) are theological concepts which are meaningless in the absence of a god.

What is being rejected is not God. There’s no credible evidence for a god so how can you reject that for which there’s no credible evidence? Answer: you can’t. E.g. do you "reject" invisible pink unicorns? Of course not; there's no good reason for believing in them in the first place. What’s being rejected is ‘belief’ in that for which there is no substantive evidence.

We're not even talking about arguments and evidence for God but merely the concept that he could exist. Atheists actively reject and argue against this proposition, so I find their claim that they merely lack belief to be disingenious.

Oh, and I already pegged your argument several pages back: "Every self-declared atheist you will ever meet has, at some point, been presented with the idea that God exists and has rejected that idea for one reason or another. They will claim that it's a rational conclusion based on a supposed lack of evidence. The scripture tells us it's because of their sin and pride. I know atheists don't like it, but I have to go with scripture on this."

You say there's no evidence for God. What you're really saying is that you have rejected whatever arguments and evidence you've encountered meaning that you can't claim a passive disbelief in God's existence.

I guess what it comes down is how do you have an honest conversation with someone who won't even be honest about what he really believes?