What Is An Agnostic Atheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

I think a common misconception of atheists is what it means to be an agnostic atheist, not just here on Phatmass but within the theistic community at large. It's one of those things that we have to explain repeatedly, and so I'd like to find a way to be as clear as possible and for that I'd like your feedback. I'm not that articulate, but I'll try.

[i]Agnosticism[/i] literally translates to '[i]without knowledge[/i]' (gnosis=Greek for knowledge) and [i]atheism[/i] is '[i]without belief in gods[/i]'. You would all be atheists in regards to any other gods but the one you believe in.

Epistemologically, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or even agnostic theist. Or, on the flip side, be a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Knowledge_venn_diagram.png[/img]

If I were to guess, I would say that we look at the same proposition (god exists) very differently, and atheists who haven't taken the time to talk to theists really do see their conception of god as analogous to unicorns and the giant tea pot revolving around Saturn, because that's how we classify a belief in god, as pure mythology.

I also think that's why theists confuse the statement "I don't believe in gods" (agnostic) with "I believe that no gods exist" (gnostic), even though the two are subtly different.

[CatherineM]

I guess I haven't thought a lot about it. Where would they stand on the idea of Intelligent Design?

[Basilisa Marie]

So what you're claiming is, "I don't believe in a god, and I also believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not a god exists"?

If that's true, then it seems to me what you're saying is that you have "faith" (not in the Christian sense, but the secular sense) in the idea that no god exists, because you can't know either way. I mean no offense, but that seems a bit illogical. What's the purpose of having faith in no god existing? Wouldn't it just default to "I believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not god exists, but I'm leaning towards no god if you make me choose." Unless that's what you're saying.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.

[Little Flower]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309727261' post='2262757']
I think a common misconception of atheists is what it means to be an agnostic atheist, not just here on Phatmass but within the theistic community at large. It's one of those things that we have to explain repeatedly, and so I'd like to find a way to be as clear as possible and for that I'd like your feedback. I'm not that articulate, but I'll try.

[i]Agnosticism[/i] literally translates to '[i]without knowledge[/i]' (gnosis=Greek for knowledge) and [i]atheism[/i] is '[i]without belief in gods[/i]'. You would all be atheists in regards to any other gods but the one you believe in.

Epistemologically, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or even agnostic theist. Or, on the flip side, be a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Knowledge_venn_diagram.png[/img]

If I were to guess, I would say that we look at the same proposition (god exists) very differently, and atheists who haven't taken the time to talk to theists really do see their conception of god as analogous to unicorns and the giant tea pot revolving around Saturn, because that's how we classify a belief in god, as pure mythology.

I also think that's why theists confuse the statement "I don't believe in gods" (agnostic) with "I believe that no gods exist" (gnostic), even though the two are subtly different.
[/quote]

Hey good post! I of course disagree with idea that God is not knowable, but that was well said.

Here's what I've been wondering:

What's the difference between an Ignostic and an Agnostic atheist? Does Ignostic mean the same thing as Gnostic or Agnostic, or is there a subtle difference? Thanks!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309729727' post='2262768']
I guess I haven't thought a lot about it. Where would they stand on the idea of Intelligent Design?
[/quote]

Do you mean creation with a purpose or Intelligent Design as in the Discovery Institute's ID movement which is trying to have an unscientific biological idea taught as science by proposing that some things are too complex to have evolved?

I can only speak for myself but in regards to the former, I think that's there's the illusion of intelligent design. People are pattern-seeking by nature and things that are highly ordered can look designed.

As for the second, I think it's pure argument from ignorance and incredulity. A more sophisticated version of creationism in a poor disguise.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1309730614' post='2262771']
So what you're claiming is, "I don't believe in a god, and I also believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not a god exists"?[/quote]

Yes. I don't believe in gods (atheism), I don't know if gods exist (agnosticism) and I also think that that knowledge is unknowable (agnosticism) is how I would best describe my point of view.

The way I see it, you could take the same sentence and add another two words such a 'pink unicorn' and to me it would still be epistemologically equivalent:

"I don't believe in pink unicorns, but I don't know if no pink unicorns exist." My best guess is how you see that sentence is how I see the one about god. I hope that clarifies things a bit.

I think that any knowledge of god or gods are essentially unknowable because such a thing would be far removed from both human experience or capacity to know (as in justified knowledge, not belief or faith).

[quote]If that's true, then it seems to me what you're saying is that you have "faith" (not in the Christian sense, but the secular sense) in the idea that no god exists, because you can't know either way. I mean no offense, but that seems a bit illogical. What's the purpose of having faith in no god existing? Wouldn't it just default to "I believe that we can't have knowledge of whether or not god exists, but I'm leaning towards no god if you make me choose." Unless that's what you're saying.[/quote]

I wouldn't use the word faith, because that means believing in something even though there's no demonstrable evidence, and that's just not the case for a negative such as atheism. "Atheism" really is just a word to counter theism, deism and all other -isms wich contain a belief in gods. Using the diagram, I would say that a belief "god exists" is simply not there, not that a belief "god does not exist' is contained in the [i]belief [/i]section.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309732303' post='2262777']
I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.
[/quote]

I think you made an important distinction there, that [i]knowing[/i] or not (gnostic or agnostic, respectively) people choose to live their lives one way or the other which has to do with beliefs.

[CatherineM]

No, I mean Intelligent Design as meaning that evolution and science are completely accepted, but that there was an intelligent designer behind our evolution, and the creation of our universe.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Little Flower' timestamp='1309735311' post='2262786']
Hey good post! I of course disagree with idea that God is not knowable, but that was well said.

Here's what I've been wondering:

What's the difference between an Ignostic and an Agnostic atheist? Does Ignostic mean the same thing as Gnostic or Agnostic, or is there a subtle difference? Thanks!
[/quote]

I think the diagram helps loads...it shows a good distinction between belief and knowledge. I got it off the wikipedia site on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology"]epistemology [/url]and there are further philosophical points there.

As for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]ignosticism[/url]:

[b][quote]Ignosticism[/b], or [b]igtheism[/b], is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological"]theological[/url] position that every other theological position (including [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"]agnosticism[/url]) assumes too much about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God"]concept of God[/url] and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_Wine"]Sherwin Wine[/url], a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi"]rabbi[/url] and a founding figure of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism"]Humanistic Judaism[/url].

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God"]existence of God[/url]:

[list=1][*]The view that a coherent definition of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God"]God[/url] must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability"]unfalsifiable[/url], the ignostic takes the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]theological noncognitivist[/url] position that the [i]question[/i] of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the [i]concept[/i] of God is not considered meaningless; the [i]term[/i] "God" is considered meaningless.[*]The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.[/list] Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"]agnosticism[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism"]atheism[/url],[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[/quote]

That's me in a nutshell. It's a description I like to use rather than agnosticism because it's a statement of what I think, and not one about the knowledge I lack.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309741985' post='2262835']
No, I mean Intelligent Design as meaning that evolution and science are completely accepted, but that there was an intelligent designer behind our evolution, and the creation of our universe.
[/quote]

Well, then I would say that's the illusion of intelligent design. However to say that ordered and complex things aren't designed is wrong, but I don't agree with the intelligence part of it. I use the word design to describe something highly workable which became more complex and ordered for specific tasks over time (biological design). For instance, natural selection can be a powerful selector of solutions that work and so improve on overall workable designs over time, which are maintained because of hereditary genetics. I've heard theistic evolutionists say that god is designing organisms by manipulating the environment and other causal factors, but I find such explanations unnecessary.


As for cosmological design, I'll have to get back on you with that one, because I don't have a good argument against it. I see us as being the result of a universe rather than the purpose and so the universe is only observed because there are observers. One that wasn't fine tuned for observers would never exist in that sense.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309741663' post='2262829']
I think you made an important distinction there, that [i]knowing[/i] or not (gnostic or agnostic, respectively) people choose to live their lives one way or the other which has to do with beliefs.
[/quote]

Right- although note that I used the word 'certainty' rather than knowledge. I think that is also an important distinction. The criterion for knowledge is debatable, although the dominating criterion is absolute certainty as found in the scientific method. This has changed over the years, in the development of new and different philosophies.

The medievals or Scholastic philosophy, for example, thought that [i]being is truth[/i]. Therefore to know something was to know the four causes- material, efficient, formal, and final.

Vico made the jump, and I think that Descartes really solidified this in his thought, followed and perpetuated by Kant, to say that we can only know the formal cause (or the essence) if we [i]make or made it ourselves[/i]. So, by this standard, we can only know what we can conceive of and make (or scientifically reproduce or explain).

This thought is taken even further to say that because of the difficulties with historical interpretation and speculation, we can actually only know we [i]can[/i] make.

In both of these latter thoughts, the question of God is no longer even considered. The question itself is just absurd since we [i]can't[/i] know, given our standards for knowledge.

For Catholics, however, knowledge is not constricted to this [i]practical knowledge[/i] described above. Practical knowledge is concerned with only [i]one[/i] plane of human existence. Belief, on the other hand, is defined (by Ratzinger in 'Introduction to Christianity') as “a human way of taking up a stand on the totality of reality, a way that cannot be reduced to practical knowledge and is incommensurable with practical knowledge; it is the bestowal of meaning.” That is to say, it is concerned with a second plane of human existence, namely, meaning.

And, as your diagram shows, knowledge is defined as "true belief". So knowledge is available in the second plane... but the criterion for that knowledge [b]will not be[/b] the same criterion for practical knowledge in the first plane.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309745260' post='2262849']
Right- although note that I used the word 'certainty' rather than knowledge. I think that is also an important distinction. The criterion for knowledge is debatable, although the dominating criterion is absolute certainty as found in the scientific method. This has changed over the years, in the development of new and different philosophies.

The medievals or Scholastic philosophy, for example, thought that [i]being is truth[/i]. Therefore to know something was to know the four causes- material, efficient, formal, and final.

Vico made the jump, and I think that Descartes really solidified this in his thought, followed and perpetuated by Kant, to say that we can only know the formal cause (or the essence) if we [i]make or made it ourselves[/i]. So, by this standard, we can only know what we can conceive of and make (or scientifically reproduce or explain).

This thought is taken even further to say that because of the difficulties with historical interpretation and speculation, we can actually only know we [i]can[/i] make.

In both of these latter thoughts, the question of God is no longer even considered. The question itself is just absurd since we [i]can't[/i] know, given our standards for knowledge.

For Catholics, however, knowledge is not constricted to this [i]practical knowledge[/i] described above. Practical knowledge is concerned with only [i]one[/i] plane of human existence. Belief, on the other hand, is defined (by Ratzinger in 'Introduction to Christianity') as "a human way of taking up a stand on the totality of reality, a way that cannot be reduced to practical knowledge and is incommensurable with practical knowledge; it is the bestowal of meaning." That is to say, it is concerned with a second plane of human existence, namely, meaning.

And, as your diagram shows, knowledge is defined as "true belief". So knowledge is available in the second plane... but the criterion for that knowledge [b]will not be[/b] the same criterion for practical knowledge in the first plane.
[/quote]

I see, thanks for clarifying.

Would the 'true belief' that theists have be restriced to the individual? I ask this mainly because every religion has true believers yet not every religion cannot be true, at least in their particulars. Does this 'true belief' have to do more with purpose for existence more than anything as its underlying reason?

As you might've guessed, I'm more into the practical knowledge realm...

[stevil]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309732303' post='2262777']
I don't think that true agnosticism exists, at least practically speaking... We either live as though God exists or we live as though God does not exist. Concerning an idealogical proposition, I suppose one can hold an agnostic view point... but it is not 'belief' per se. Belief is that which gives life meaning. Practically speaking, one must take a stand on belief of one sort or another (whether in God or not in God). One might not have certainty in whichever stand they take- in fact, I'd argue that it's impossible to have certainty either way.

Still... both the believer (in God) and the unbeliever share one word: perhaps. Both experience belief and doubt, each in their respective spheres.
[/quote]
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309763481' post='2262908']
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.
[/quote]

You might find [url="http://scienceforums.com/topic/18423-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/"]this[/url] interesting, it includes some psychological explanations for the belief in gods and it seems that actually children will spontaneously develop a belief in some god.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309749254' post='2262861']
I see, thanks for clarifying.

Would the 'true belief' that theists have be restriced to the individual? I ask this mainly because every religion has true believers yet not every religion cannot be true, at least in their particulars. Does this 'true belief' have to do more with purpose for existence more than anything as its underlying reason?

As you might've guessed, I'm more into the practical knowledge realm...
[/quote]

These are interesting questions... let me think about them a little bit more before giving a full response.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309763481' post='2262908']
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.
[/quote]

This is also interesting. I'm not sure what the 'default position' is, to tell you the truth, although, from my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is the 'default'. My parents are not religious and never have been. Both my brother and I grew up in an atheistic household... God simply wasn't spoken of in the house. I remember as a child, as I was trying to fall asleep, that I would often try to think what life after death might be like... and all I could picture was never-ending darkness. I don't think I even knew that anybody believed in this idea named "God" until I was nearly ten years old. The same could certainly be said for my brother, who remains an atheist with the rest of my family.

I lived as though God did not exist, even though the question of God's existence never crossed my mind. When it finally did, I reaffirmed my 'non-belief' and came to 'own' my atheism.

Either way, I think my original premise still holds true... that, practically speaking, there is no true agnosticism. One lives, whether one knows it or not, as though God exists or does not exist.

I don't think it matters, though, whatever the 'default' might be. St. Thomas teaches that revelation was necessary to show God's existence because, without it, man would have much difficulty discovering God. He taught that human reason alone [i]could[/i] lead to God, but only by a few men, after a long time of searching, and with many errors. (See the first article of Q. I, I-II of the Summa)

Catholicism fits with this model. We believe that grace enables true faith, and that parents hand on their faith to their children. So, in many ways, yes- "theists become theists because they are taught about God and religion." Except I would add that theists become theists because they are handed on the gift of faith, from their parents, through baptism.

[stevil]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309766342' post='2262916']
This is also interesting. I'm not sure what the 'default position' is, to tell you the truth, although, from my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is the 'default'. My parents are not religious and never have been. Both my brother and I grew up in an atheistic household... God simply wasn't spoken of in the house. I remember as a child, as I was trying to fall asleep, that I would often try to think what life after death might be like... and all I could picture was never-ending darkness. I don't think I even knew that anybody believed in this idea named "God" until I was nearly ten years old. The same could certainly be said for my brother, who remains an atheist with the rest of my family.

I lived as though God did not exist, even though the question of God's existence never crossed my mind. When it finally did, I reaffirmed my 'non-belief' and came to 'own' my atheism.

Either way, I think my original premise still holds true... that, practically speaking, there is no true agnosticism. One lives, whether one knows it or not, as though God exists or does not exist.

I don't think it matters, though, whatever the 'default' might be. St. Thomas teaches that revelation was necessary to show God's existence because, without it, man would have much difficulty discovering God. He taught that human reason alone [i]could[/i] lead to God, but only by a few men, after a long time of searching, and with many errors. (See the first article of Q. I, I-II of the Summa)

Catholicism fits with this model. We believe that grace enables true faith, and that parents hand on their faith to their children. So, in many ways, yes- "theists become theists because they are taught about God and religion." Except I would add that theists become theists because they are handed on the gift of faith, from their parents, through baptism.
[/quote]
I am not sure what your expectation of a true agnostic would be.
I think xSilverPhinx was pretty clear in her articulation that agnosticism does not define whether a person believes in god or not. It is merely a position of whether there is knowldge of the existence or not. One could admit that there is no knowledge but that they still hold a belief that god exists. One could instead admit that there is no knowledge but that they hold a belief that there is no god. One could instead admit that there is no knowledge and hold that they neither believe that god exists nor believe that god does not exist.

For example, we could think about whether life on other planets exists.
Some people believe that there is life on other planets, some people believe that there isn't life on other planets, some people do not hold a belief either way (although these people might fit in the category of there probably is life or there probably is not life or they might sit completely in the middle and be totally unsure). But we are all agnostic with regards to not having knowledge of alien life.

With regards to gods I sit very much on the "there probably isn't a god" side of the scale, but I can't say for sure because I don't know for sure. With regards to life on other planets I would be on the "there probably is life on other planets" side of the scale, but again, I can't say for sure.
With this regard I do not pray to god, I do not follow scripture or church teachings as I don't have the belief required to do such things. My default position is that of an Atheist which is probably why I tend towards "there probably isn't a god". I am very comfortable not having a belief in an after life, and not having a fear of going to hell. Maybe there is an after life, maybe there is a hell. i just don't believe it at this stage and pascalls wager is not enough of a push for me.

Edited July 4, 2011 by stevil

[Brother Adam]

Paschal's Wager though is not a proof in a classic sense. It should be enough to force someone to explore further the idea of the supernatural, but would not convince any reasonable person to believe in God. If one relies solely on the physical sciences I can see why the position of "not knowing" would often come up as an answer for dealing with truth. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html"]The physical sciences though cannot answer all questions, and are not meant to[/url]. We also know how often scientific theory and fact changes. Oddly enough, the world is not flat. That is one of the things I love about being Catholic - unlike fundamentalists we do not fear science nor do we find a need to try to prove science wrong.

I do disagree that atheist is a default position. I have worked around enough children and shocked atheist parents whose children struggle for an answer to what they know is true without ever having any religious instruction. There is one famous conversation between a daughter and her atheist father. After a long explanation as to why there is no god the father asks her if she understands why we don't believe in "Jesus", a name she had not heard before. Her eyes lit up and she exclaimed "That's it! Jesus! That's God's name. I knew you were lying to me and that God is real but I didn't know his name." (The story is recounted fully in the book "The Religious Potential of a Child". We can know of God' existence through natural law and through the natural proofs. St. Thomas, which TB has been quoting is an excellent resource: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm. Dr. Meg Meeker, a pediatrician with no need to prove anything without religion in her text "Boys Should Be Boys" also talks about the built in sense for God children have and how it is necessary for their development.

If there must be a default position to an adult inquirer I believe the default position is "I do not know". We should not approach any new idea with a bias of either "this is true" or "this is false" or "this is good" or "this is bad". The default position of "there is no God" seems unreasonable, that too, we must be taught.

[img]http://discerningthetimes.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bigbang-m-51whirlpool-galaxy-core-cross1-300x218.jpg[/img]

[stevil]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309789177' post='2262962']
If there must be a default position to an adult inquirer I believe the default position is "I do not know". We should not approach any new idea with a bias of either "this is true" or "this is false" or "this is good" or "this is bad". The default position of "there is no God" seems unreasonable, that too, we must be taught.
[/quote]
"I do not know" would be an Agnostic viewpoint
"I do not believe" would be an Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know and I do not believe" would be an Agnostic Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is no god" would be an Agnostic strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I know that there is no god" would be a strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is a god" would be an Agnostic Theist viewpoint
"I know that there is a god" would be a Theist viewpoint

So in someways you could say the Agnostic label is beside the point. Alone it does not tell you whether a person is a Theist or Atheist, and with regards to Atheist it does not tell you if the person is a strong or weak Atheist.

If you are keen to distinguish an Atheist as being strong (I believe there is no god) or weak (I lack a belief in god) then I think you should know that there functionally is not a lot of difference. Neither of them pray, worship, love or fear god.
I guess the position of weak Atheist is that lacking belief is the default position and to move away from that requires proof to substantiate the god theory. These people put the burdon of proof onto the theory.
With a strong Atheist, I guess they don't care what the default position is because regardless, they accept that they have a belief (or knowledge) that there is no god.

But whether there currently is a belief of not, it doesn't really matter. If some conclusive proof does come to light then both the weak and strong Atheist will know that there is a god.

Edited July 5, 2011 by stevil

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309856400' post='2263207']
"I do not know" would be an Agnostic viewpoint
"I do not believe" would be an Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know and I do not believe" would be an Agnostic Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is no god" would be an Agnostic strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I know that there is no god" would be a strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is a god" would be an Agnostic Theist viewpoint
"I know that there is a god" would be a Theist viewpoint

So in someways you could say the Agnostic label is beside the point. Alone it does not tell you whether a person is a Theist or Atheist, and with regards to Atheist it does not tell you if the person is a strong or weak Atheist.

If you are keen to distinguish an Atheist as being strong (I believe there is no god) or weak (I lack a belief in god) then I think you should know that there functionally is not a lot of difference. Neither of them pray, worship, love or fear god.
I guess the position of weak Atheist is that lacking belief is the default position and to move away from that requires proof to substantiate the god theory. These people put the burdon of proof onto the theory.
With a strong Atheist, I guess they don't care what the default position is because regardless, they accept that they have a belief (or knowledge) that there is no god.

But whether there currently is a belief of not, it doesn't really matter. If some conclusive proof does come to light then both the weak and strong Atheist will know that there is a god.
[/quote]

Just to add:

An atheist can be a 'strong atheist' in relation to some versions of gods but not others since atheists don't have a starting belief in any gods, it really depends on the claims made by theists, deists and other people with beliefs in other types of gods.

For instance I have less reason to believe in (any) theistic god but less for deistic gods. The claims made by deists are simpler, not as contradictory or branched out in many differing opinions.