Shedding the ‘Agnostic’ Label

[rug]

September 10, 2013
By Hemant Mehta

Troy Fitzgerald just published a book last month called Cults and Closets in which he referred to himself as a “devout agnostic.”

And now, in the span of a few weeks, he’s ready to shed that label, too:

… when atheists would tell me I was sitting on the fence by calling myself agnostic, I just didn’t get it. It ticked me off, just like when gay guys would say I was fence-sitting by calling myself bisexual… even though I’ve just published the book, I’m already finding myself compelled to come out of, yet, another closet. Not because I never acknowledged I was an atheist or that because I am ready to come out as an atheist now. I already have. But I’m “coming out” because I’m ready to give up the title “devout agnostic” and even just “agnostic.”
…

So, I now get why atheists would get annoyed when guys like me would call ourselves “agnostic atheists” just as I get why some gay guys would get annoyed when I — a guy who almost never thought about women sexually — could call myself bisexual. I believe the possibility of a God or a deity existing is about as likely as a Flying Spaghetti Monster or magical purple ponies. So, I am truly without a belief in God. I am by definition an atheist. And I’m no more agnostic about God than I am agnostic about my sexuality. I am no more agnostic about the existence of God than I am agnostic about magic purple ponies.

Troy’s whole story is fascinating — it’s about how he grew up the son of a pastor in a religious cult, and how he came out as gay after being married and having three sons. As his book’s subtitle notes, he came out of chaos and it feels exhilarating. His post and book are definitely worth checking out.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/10/shedding-the-agnostic-label/

[arcane1]

1. This is going to be a fun read. I hate the term "agnostic"

I hate it all the more because it seems like a response to an unwarranted negative view of the word "atheist". For some people, that word is instinctively thought of as "bad" and thus try to avoid it.

[longship]

2. I am increasingly reticent to get into the label argument.

I have bookmarked this and will read this and comment later.

So my take may be different than some others here.

Glad for the post, rug.

[xfundy]

3. I disagree.

Once I read the entire bible and found it full of talking snakes and donkeys, slavery, lust, senseless killings, bullshit, cruelty & jealousy--especially from "god," insanity, lies and unbelievable nonsense, I declared myself an atheist. But, lacking proof on either side of the equation, I had to admit I'm agnostic, which is to say I don't/can't know for sure either way.

This new term, "Atheist/agnostic" is yet another attempt at "rebranding" rational people who don't want to live under the theocratic tyranny of those claiming to have the Batphone to Baby Jeebus. I'd rather be left alone to live my life without Mrs. Kravitz peeking through the windows.

[cbayer]

9. How about apatheist? Does that sit better with you?

I think there are people who don't know if there is a god or not and don't care whether there is a god or not.

I would agree that some of these people do not want to be identified as atheist. It's not necessarily that the word carries some bad connotations in some circles, but that they don't want to take a position on theism at all.

One of the reasons that I think some otherwise religious people are identifying as "no religious affiliation" is because they don't want to be associated with what the general public has come to associate with christianity. I think the same may be true of atheism, where some prominent anti-theists have come to represent what the public sees as atheism.

When the pendulums swing back, things may change.

[LostOne4Ever]

4. This is just one of those issue that annoys me to no end

I am both an agnostic and an atheist. To me, those are two labels depend on two different questions.

Do you believe in any gods?

Yes->Theist
No or maybe->Atheist

Do you think mankind can know one way or another if god exist with any degree of certainty?

Yes->gnostic (though this is different from Gnosticism)
No or maybe-> Agnosticism

Agnostics themselves can be either theist or atheists as well.

The atheist label can be further divide by the question "Do you believe there are no gods?"

Yes->Explicit atheist
No-> Implicit atheist


So what is it that annoys me about the term agnosticism? I find that many conservative Christians try to insist that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism in order to try and force us into box that does not fit us and to ascribe to atheism positions we do not take.

Similarly, many people either have a misunderstanding about what it actually means to be an atheist or have negative connotations about the word "atheist." When these people use the word agnostic as a middle ground between atheism and theism, even if it is not their intention, they are doing the same thing while also furthering the negative connotations around the word "atheist."

They may simply not want to be labeled in a way that they don't feel fits them (and I think that in and of itself is fine) but by substituting their own definitions and labels they are doing exactly that to others.

Words have common definitions and meanings for a reason. Without having a common understanding of these definitions it would not be able to communicate with one another and would at best lead to constant misunderstandings.

[xfundy]

5. Acknowledging the inability to know for sure is, for me, a factual statement

Because it is just fact. I tried, for many years, to believe, but was coerced and scared into it because of the "punishments" most xians are scared of so they accept the BS based on fear.

I would suspect that most "belief" is based on that "fear," because that has been the primary focus of the brainwashers who've been indoctrinating kids for 80 or more years.

Who wouldn't want to "worship" a "god" who gave you "free choice" to choose what is falsely claimed as "unconditonal love" while inventing an eternal torture for you to burn in, as your skin is apparently regenerated day after day just so he can burn it off again if you don't accept the "loving" offer from the psychopath? In that case you only have to become his slave to avoid that punishment. But even being an "angel" under this authority means you must occasionally murder, among other things distasteful.

WTF is the point of being conscious of life if it sends you out to commit atrocities?

The more I hear "apologetics" from Christers the more I am sure they never even read the damn book.

[LostOne4Ever]

6. Yeah I am with you on what you are saying

I think most people would find that to be a factual statement. In a world where our every experience could be nothing more than an hallucination or a detailed dream I don't see how anyone could ever be certain about anything.

Maybe I should take Samuel Johnson's advice and go kick a few rocks?

Anyway, hell is one of the major issues I had with Christianity even as a young child. I could not, can not, and shall never accept the idea that a good and loving good would punish someone for all eternity.

It made no sense to me. No matter how repentant a person became they would continue to suffer for all eternity with no chance of reprieve. That was the characteristic of an evil god in my opinion.

But you are hitting one of my sore points with religion and out of respect for the believers here in the religion forum I will keep my criticism to that. I am sure you have seen some of my more jaded replies on original sin, salvation by faith, and hell in the A&A forum.

[center] [/center]

In fact, I think calling me jaded when it comes to hell would be an understatement.

[skepticscott]

7. I have no problem with someone saying

"Man, I just can't decide if there's a good reason to believe in a god or not" and calling themselves an agnostic as a result. But when self-identified "agnostics" take the smug and superior position that theirs is the only worldview worthy of intellectual respect, when they lie and say that atheism involves absolute certainty, or when they try to argue the bankrupt and self-contradictory notion that "god" is unknowable...that's when they become tedious and deserve a smack down.

[cbayer]

8. I think the guy has serious identity issues, which is not surprising in light of his background.

I'm guessing he will change identities in all kinds of ways before he reaches a final resting place, if he ever does.

FWIW, some people really are bisexual and some people really are agnostic, imo. This need to brand yourself to some "team" is really just important to those who see things as a team sport - the "with us or against us" crowd.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Technically an agnostic IS an atheist.

However, with the behavior of Anti-Theists self-identifying as just Atheists, I can understand the desire to disassociate from that baggage.

[cbayer]

11. That is a "technical" argument that I completely disagree with.

I don't think agnostic is just a modifier of atheist. I think it can be a noun all by itself.

I am familiar with this argument and reject it. While some people don't want to be associated with anti-theists and reject the label for that reason, others really don't know and don't want to take a position. Saying one is an atheist is taking a position, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Maybe if I phrase it another way...

I am technically an agnostic. Since I accept that I cannot prove there is no god, I have to accept the possibility that there is, even if I find it probabilistically unlikely, or unsupported by evidence.

The two concepts overlap, excluding of course, anti-theists.

[cbayer]

13. I think there are all kinds of shades of grey here.

I see no reason for someone to have to take one position or another. The degree to which one believes or doesn't may change or fluctuate over time.

Labels are only for those that feel pretty sure, imo. For the rest, agnosticism is a perfectly legitimate place to be.

In the end it's all semantics and really only matters to those keeping score.