What is an atheist/agnostic?

The word 'a-theist' literally defines itself. The prefix 'a' means 'without', such as the word 'a-symptomatic' which explains a lack of symptoms.

Likewise, an 'a-theist' is without theism (from the Greek word, 'theos' or 'god'). Therefore, one who lacks god-belief or a belief in gods is an atheist, quite literally. This tells us nothing about what views the person holds, whether he or she enjoys long-walks on the beach, prefers fuschia over mauve or is an omnivore or vegetarian. When you discover an atheist, all you know by definition is that person has told you they lack a belief in a god or gods.

Similarly, the word 'a-gnostic' defines itself too. This term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800's regarding his personal views about god-claims. Huxley was one of Darwin's most vociferous supporters of evolution and referred to as 'Darwin's Bulldog'.

A-gnostic literally means 'without knowledge', as the word 'gnostic' comes from the Greek, 'gnosis' which is, 'knowledge'.

Some atheists make a distinction between what you can or cannot know empirically, and what you actually believe or disbelieve. Either way, claiming 'not to know' a god-claim logically results in atheism just as positive rejection of said claim would. Let me explain:

If you cannot empirically know a proposition because it doesn't deal in the natural world, then there's no reason to abstain from rejection of that claim. With god-claims, the claim is 'all there is'. Thus, if the claim fails due to internal logical inconsistency or incoherence, then it's safe to reject the claim on its face.

That said, once you've heard a particular claim, you are by definition no longer agnostic, for you know the claim (which is all there is). You can be empirically agnostic about a god hiding behind Venus when we look behind Mars, but that would entail accepting that there even *is* a god who could flit around the Universe at will.

For instance, if I present to you the properties for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all knowing, all seeing, all noodly, ever-present, mostly good and tasty, you would be forced to deal with the claim on its own merits. You cannot escape into 'agnosticism' because you know the claim now. Ask where it is, and I might tell you it's invisible, undetectable. Ask for measurements, and I would claim it's incorporeal and again, undetectable, and furthermore, lives outside of the known Universe. Of course, how do I know this creature even exists if I admit he is outside the known Universe?

The claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as described is ridiculous, and thus can be rejected out of hand. There is no agnosticism, because the claim, which is 'all there is' is now known to you and subject to review.

Thus, 'agnostic' is not a third position as it applies to god-claims. An agnostic as self-described is necessarily 'without knowledge' of a given god-claim and thus cannot ascribe belief to that which he claims not to know. When one calls himself an agnostic, one necessarily embraces atheism by way of lack of knowledge.

Sometimes, the agnostic simply misrepresents his lack of knowledge (purposely or not) even though the ridiculous claims are there for review, and thus is not agnostic about a given claim. If the agnostic holds a belief *in spite* of admitting he 'doesn't know', then he's really a theist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'agnostic', which is quite common. This is often why agnostics as self-described are often hostile to atheists, or theists, or both!

A major reason people use this term lies with the demonization of the word 'atheist'. Some dictionaries list atheism as being 'wicked' in a third or fourth definition of the word. The word atheist is misunderstood, slandered and viewed with shocking disdain by the general public, and atheists are often referred to as 'the most hated minority group'. Sadly, this contributes to confusion surrounding this simple, self-defining word, causing some to discard it in an effort to use a 'friendlier' term.

An atheist is not a devil-worshipper, it's not a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex, it's nothing other than a lack of god-belief. Some atheists, feeling pressure to avoid this term have resorted to 'agnosticism', but some of those think they are somehow agnostics without being either theists or atheists, but this is no different than the person who at once claims neither belief or nor disbelief in invisible pink unicorns...change the claim to something less culturally sensitive and the evasive semantics of self-proclaimed agnostics (who deny atheism) start to become clear.

Atheism or theism simply deals with a rejection or acceptance of god claims. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, but if you've heard the claim of god you're tasked with accepting or rejecting, you are by definition *not* agnostic about that particular god-claim.

If you reject all claims of god, even if you allow for evidence (which any reasonable person would), you're an 'atheist'. If you accept any kind of god idea, whether it's liberal pantheism or fundamentalist young-Earth creationism, you're a believer, a 'theist'.

Either way, the god-claimants have the burden of proof. Maligning the innocent skeptical non-believer doesn't prove any god or further the case of the believer, but thousands of years of oppression have bullied some into a state of silence.

The claims are there. Lean on them with the full weight of your intellect. If an idea has any merit, it will stand scrutiny and those who profess those ideas won't need to resort to slander.

Until then, if you call yourself an agnostic, you're also an atheist. If you have any kind of belief in any kind of god, you're by definition a 'theist'. Anything else is semantic trickery, evasive shell-games and simple ignorance.

-dB-