Talk:Agnostic atheism/Archive 2

Richard Dawkins quote
I just saw the Dawkins quote "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." I notice it's used as an example of agnostic atheism, and I don't think that's really the best example. I wonder if there's another Dawkins quote that's more relevant. While he may feel that way about God, it doesn't seem a very agnostic stance to take. In fact, in the book, he makes it clear at that point that he's very very near certainty that God does not exist. That seems to me more like "theist" atheism in that he almost actively believes that God does not exist.

I'm fairly certain that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden because I've been to the bottom of my garden and I've never seen any fairies or evidence of fairies there. In contrast, I can't tell whether or not God exists just by looking. It seems to me that part of the essence of agnostic atheism is the idea that one may never tell definitively whether or not God exists no matter how hard you look. You should be able to tell by observation if s/he has influence over day-to-day life, but if God was merely responsible for fashioning the laws of physics and setting the universe in motion, why would we ever know? That is by definition an unanswerable question in lieu of evidence, and that seems to me one idea that defines agnostic atheism in contrast to other forms of atheism, which define them as such.

It seems to me that agnostic atheism is the absence of active belief in a God, combined with an acceptance that we'll probably never be able to know whether there actually is a God. Perhaps Richard Dawkins fits that description, but the quote doesn't seem to fit very well at all. Haridan (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

oxymoron?
Isn't agnostic atheism an oxymoron? atheism: the belief that there is no god. agnosticism: the belief that one does not or cannot know if there is a god or not. If you believe that one can't know if a god does or does not exist, claiming you know a god does not exist is surely a contradiction of this belief! Or am I missing something here? --LeakeyJee (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing something, and the thing you're missing is explained in the article. Atheism is the lack of belief in a (personal) god, not necessarily the belief that such a god does not exist. Furthermore, it is possible to believe something is true and still maintain that it is impossible to know for sure whether that thing is true. Agnostic theists fall into this category. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Atheism states nothing, ever, regarding a belief that no deities exist. 203.206.48.80 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It is not an oxymoron because atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of God(s), and agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is either unknown or unknowable. These are consistent positions to hold. Defining atheism as an "absence of belief" makes atheism into a psychological state, rather than a philosophical position, and it also implies that babies and animals might be rightly classified as atheists. On the whole, while defining atheism this weakly gives true atheists a convenient way to avoid epistemic burden and rid them of the need to justify their position at all, it is philosophically unhelpful and unprecedented. The definition of atheism as positive disbelief what one will find in philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"absence of belief" atheism is not this. Atheism is the absolute belief that there is no God. I marked this article for deletion. It is a stub with hardly any objective souces and is an oxymoron.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What about belief that faith is harmful?
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, and I think an important part of that is the belief that belief in any omnipotence or superiority is harmful. Did I miss this in the article? If not, shouldn't it be there? 217.20.20.85 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to introduce it if you have reliable sources showing a link. However, I'm not convinced it belongs here. To illustrate: I'm a non-astrologer. I also happen to believe astrology is junk... but this is clearly not true universally for all non-astrologers (such as those unfamiliar with the concept of astrology). That one chooses not to ascribe to a certain worldview or label, and also maintains certain beliefs outside of that label doesn't necessarily show a correlation, even if the two are similar. Your belief that "faith is harmful" is not a necessary product of this label; in fact, the two are entirely separate things. Jess talk&#124;edits 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Agnostic Atheism" is an OXYMORON. This does not make any sense whatsoever. At the very least, if you don't take this article down, please add a section to it explaining that it's technically an oxymoron. Not only that, near the very beginning of the article it defines atheist incorrectly, and it did so for the purpose of making "agnostic atheism" make sense, when it does not. It's very upsetting to see this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.23.68 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Agnostic Atheism described as a believe system?
I do not understand why the very first sentence makes the claim "Agnostic Atheism" is a belief system. It is actually the absence of a believe system. Look: 1) No believe in a personal God 2) No believe that such a God can be proved or disproved

If that isn't absence of a believe system, what is? I think it is the default position. (I don't dare to edit it yet before I see a response.)

83.163.233.207 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Erwin Moller

Cline Austin
Cline Austin is an insufficient reference for an article of this sort. Also, his references lack any sort of peer review. Use of him as a reference is holding back the Wikipedia philosophical section in regards to atheist philosophy. This article should be marked for deletion unless a better source can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.83.135 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent and Inaccurate Definitions
Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of God(s), and agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is either unknown or unknowable. Defining atheism as an "absence of belief" makes atheism into a psychological state, rather than a philosophical position, and it also implies that babies and animals might be rightly classified as atheists. On the whole, while defining atheism this weakly gives true atheists a convenient way to avoid epistemic burden and rid them of the need to justify their position at all, it is philosophically unhelpful and unprecedented. The definition of atheism as positive disbelief what one will find in philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias. Here are two examples:

"Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought." Encyclopaedia Brittanica

Furthermore, the Wikipedia entry for agnostic theism states, "An agnostic theist believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but per agnosticism also believes that this proposition is unknown or inherently unknowable." This is not congruent with this article's very weak definition of agnosticism as the "absence of knowledge." Strictly speaking both atheism and agnosticism are positive claims for negative states of affairs. If any self-identified "agnostic atheist" has a problem with these definitions, he should take it up with the most authoritative sources on the issue. I do not possess a subscription to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or I would have cited its definitions as well. As it stands, I believe rhetorical POV has led this entry into factual inaccuracy. I have attempted twice to modify the article to reflect the more accurate philosophical meanings of these terms and to make it more consistent with its sister article, agnostic theism, but twice have my edits been immediately and indignantly reverted. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many sources (for example, the Wiktionary) that define atheism as either the rejection of belief or the absence of belief. I believe that the current wording encompasses both of these stances and is therefore the best way to go. However, if you feel that "philosophical position" is not an accurate term for this, I don't see why you couldn't change it to "psychological state" or whatever else you feel is appropriate. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually should apologize for reverting the entire edit and will attempt to restore the parts that are not controversial. However, I think you're being especially restricting on the agnostic position, sometimes recognizing only the "unknowable" part and ignoring the simply "unknown" part, such as in the celestial teapot section. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now restored the various improvements you've made, but left out the parts that restricted the definitions. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)