Am I an agnostic or an atheist?

I'm a skeptic. Not just about god, but dice selling setting, roulette wheel influence, or anything. My position is that unless there is convincing evidence to support that an assertion is true, it should be assumed to be not true. That does not necessary mean false, but I'm going to assume that anything is false unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.

Before going further, here are some definitions from Websters.

ag·nos·tic -- noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

a·the·ist -- noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

The following can be found under the subheading "Synonyms" for the Webster's for atheist,

Quote: Websters

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Based on the above definitions, I find it hard to tell the difference, and could fit into either camp. One thing that bothers me about the agnostic definition is the part about it being impossible to know. That kind of cockiness is what I find objectionable about religion to begin with. Maybe I will dig up some golden plates in the desert tomorrow that reveal the real truth. I rule nothing out.

One thing that bothers me about saying I'm an atheist is most people incorrectly believe that it means to specifically believe that there isn't a god. That is not what the word means, as I've shown above.

To summarize, my position on god is similar to that of dice setting. I see no convincing evidence of either, and see all kinds of flaws in the evidence put forward for both. Nevertheless, I don't 100% rule out either one.

I had an interesting conversation a while ago with a good friend and local shop owner. He told me that philosophically he is an atheist because he is burdened by the idea if there is a God it is inescapable that he would have to focus on and obey this deity and he did not want to do that. Scientifically he was an agnostic because while science certainly leaned to the presence of a creator of the universe there was not clear and beyond a doubt proof, nor will there ever be. Morally he said he was a Christian because in his own words, "is there really any other way to live?"

I identify with him and with your question Wizard. It is hard for us to believe in God because of the logical consequences that follow including dreaded obedience, yet at the same time we can sense scientifically and otherwise that there is something beyond our comprhension. We can't shake the feeling, no matter how hard we try, that there is more to this life than what we can see, observe, and understand. We also know that there is right and wrong and that somehow these are objective truths. We cannot imagine a world where it is okay and good to be a dishonest murderer, there is something beyond us that set up these moral rules and we are powerless to change them without disasterous results.

What leads me to be a believer is not the hidden golden plates or some type of smoking gun proving without a reasonable doubt that God exists, but rather the converging and convincing arguements taken together as a whole and from every possible type of knowledge: science, philosophy, literature, art, nature, history, theology, metaphysics, natural law, and personal experience. This overwhelming avalanche of information and arguements (none of which is a proof) lead to the confidence to pour out my heart, soul, mind, and strength in loving and humble service to God.

I dissagree with the definition given by Websters. An atheist is one who has come to the conclusion that there is no God. An agnostic is the one who keeps his/her mind open to the possibility either way but is not ready or able to make a decision. I would define someone who believes that it is impossible to know either way as both stupid and a coward.

Thanks for your comments, Padre. What the shopkeeper said is pretty much my position too. I too struggle with the question of "why are we here?" I believe there is an unknown answer to the cause of the universe. My personal hunch is the Big Bang is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is some force or place much bigger than everything we know of about so far.

The Webster's definition of atheist is what the word is supposed to mean, but not the way it is commonly used. If you break it down, atheism = a theism. The greek "a" means not. So atheist would mean not a theist. However, the perception of atheists are religion-hating angry people who specifically say there isn't a god with the same kind of conviction that theists have that there is a god. That is not me.

I've run into this issue with Spanish all the time, where the dictionary definition is just not how a word is actually used.

Normally if one has to ask, they are agnostic, because one cannot be sure either way. I think you're an agnostic and have no problems with that as long as it is genuine. I am probably agnostic myself, because I both believe there is a God/afterlife and can also believe at the same time there isn't. I have dual competing beliefs, but that is ok. If there was a creator, he wouldn't be very all powerful, if we could take away his power by proving he existed, if he didn't want to be discovered.

<sigh>

Again: the mere claim of the existence of something is not evidence. It's also not up to those who disbelieve in the absence of evidence to find evidence of absence.

Given your comments over the about 4 years now I have talked with you I would say you are agnostic. And from online discussions I can say you have caused me to examine the difference between the two.

Atheism is itself a religion. And if is one of the most intolerant ones. Agnostics take more of a live and let live attitude while atheists will sue and complain to get every mention of God stricken from society and the record. I don't see that in you.

Atheists come to their belief for different reasons. Some think no god would allow hardship on earth so if we have hardship there must be no god. Some believe we should believe in man as supreme and not God. Some do not like that religion has "inconvienient rules" about behavior they would rather not follow. Some dislike people who live by a code of any kind, thinking it is silly.

I've seen all kinds from an atheist professor who was on the board of his church (no kidding) to a co-worker who said I should not make religious statements when I said boats breaking down are God's way of telling us we were not meant to be on the water (a tounge in cheek statement). When I asked what was religious she said "that word" as if to say "God" would somehow have a negative effect on her.

But the common thread was they had a positive belief there was no god. Religion will anthropogically pop up in most societies. This is something they take offense to. If you find such offense consider yourself an atheist. I don't think you do.

Quote: Wizard

I'm a skeptic. Not just about god, but dice selling, roulette wheel influence, or anything.

Dice selling is real. I have bought dice. And not just once, but many times. it stands to reason if I purchased dice, someone was selling them.

Quote: AZDuffman

But the common thread was they had a positive belief there was no god. Religion will anthropogically pop up in most societies. This is something they take offense to. If you find such offense consider yourself an atheist. I don't think you do.

I am atheist. I don't take offense to religion. That's someone's belief system. I think it's misguided, but most Christians I know think my lack of belief in God is misguided. That's fine too. I also believe I could be wrong, but doubt is apparent in all belief systems.

I don't view it as a religion (I don't go to Church for it, for example), but I can see it being seen as that way. I do think the world would be better off without religion. I don't think I am here for any special purpose (and questioning that is what led me to atheism). I don't think atheism is intolerant. I think there are intolerant people who are atheists. I do think the state should not have any say in religion, or give any special privileges to churches (like tax deductions merely for having a building where people gather to worship), or seats in the House of Lords (the Bishop seats in the UK government), but on the list of things wrong with society, it's pretty minor stuff.

I do find indoctrination, brainwashing cult and cult-like activity morally wrong, especially the exertion of power over the defenceless and weak (and the creation of the defenceless and weak via various nasty methods). I don't equate religion to cult, just to be clear.

Quote: TheCesspit

I don't view it as a religion (I don't go to Church for it, for example), but I can see it being seen as that way.

I can't.

It would be like caliming not collecting stamps as a hobby, or not studying or practicing medicine as a career.

Quote:

I do think the state should not have any say in religion, or give any special privileges to churches (like tax deductions merely for having a building where people gather to worship), or seats in the House of Lords (the Bishop seats in the UK government), but on the list of things wrong with society, it's pretty minor stuff.

How about oppressing minorities on religious grounds, or indoctrinatig children in religion at public (ie government) schools, or legislating according to scripture?

That's not minor at all.

Quote: TheCesspit

I am atheist. I don't take offense to religion. That's someone's belief system. I think it's misguided, but most Christians I know think my lack of belief in God is misguided. That's fine too. I also believe I could be wrong, but doubt is apparent in all belief systems.

I don't view it as a religion (I don't go to Church for it, for example), but I can see it being seen as that way. I do think the world would be better off without religion. I don't think I am here for any special purpose (and questioning that is what led me to atheism). I don't think atheism is intolerant. I think there are intolerant people who are atheists. I do think the state should not have any say in religion, or give any special privileges to churches (like tax deductions merely for having a building where people gather to worship), or seats in the House of Lords (the Bishop seats in the UK government), but on the list of things wrong with society, it's pretty minor stuff.
.

Here is a question on that. I knew an atheist once who stated that a religious schol group should not even have the right to use the school facilities for meetings same as any other group. My reply was they paid the same taxes so should have same right as say the chess club to use facilities. I know the scotus said they do but out of curiosity what say you?