Defined this way, there is no reason to struggle with the implicit XOR
frequently associated with these terms. I am both an agnostic AND an
atheist; while I acknowledge that it is impossible to _know_ (i.e.,
prove) god's (non)existence, it is my belief, based on an absence of
evidence for a god, that god does not exist.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T0Morrow [mailto:T0Morrow@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 9:35 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Subject: Re: Why Atheism Beats Agnosticism
>
>
> Steve Butts very helpfully recapitulates George H. Smith's
> comments on the
> distinction between atheism and agnosticism. George does
> great work, but I do
> not agree with him (or Max, who offered a similar argument)
> that we should
> define "atheism" so as to equal "without belief in god." As
> I noted to Max,
> that definition would make an atheist one who had never even
> encountered the
> notion of god. George apparently embraces this oddity:
>
> > when a baby is born it (probably) has no concept of God or any
> > other form of theistic beliefs, therefore it is an atheism.
>
> At the same time, however, George would have "atheist"
> embrace the ardent
> rationalist who has scrutinized and forthrightfully rejected
> the possibility
> of any divine existence. I think this range of meanings
> gives the word an
> unhelpfully broad definition, not to mention one that does
> not jibe with
> common usage. Dictionaries typically define "atheist" as
> "one who denies
> God's existence" or the like.
>
> What about the linguistic argument? Proponents of the broad
> definition of
> "atheism" miss there, too. The roots of "atheism" do not, contrary to
> George's claim, mean "without theistic belief." Rather, the
> word comes from
> "atheos" which means "without god."
>
> "Atheos" refers the (non)existence of god--not about the
> prescence of a
> belief. And "atheists" are people who consider themselves "a
> theos." A baby
> thus does not qualify; rather, only one who consciously
> denies the existence
> of gods qualifies as an "atheist."
>
> Given that agnostics have so often faced the claim that they
> are "atheists
> without the courgage of their convictions," I find it curious
> that some
> atheists are trying to assume the diffident attitudes of
> agnostics. It would
> fit common usage and etymology better, I think, for atheists
> to suck it up and
> claim they disbelieve in gods.
>
> My advice to wavering atheists: Ignore the agnostic's claim
> that you cannot
> disprove the existence of god, arguing instead that you have
> as much proof as
> you need. After all, reasonable people believe a variety of
> things without
> logical or scientific backing; common sense works well
> enough, and it simply
> does not support the notion that gods exist.
>
> I'm not saying an atheist would convince me with this claim.
> All I'm saying
> is that I'd respect the atheists for sticking up for his/her
> (dis)beliefs.
>