On False Definitions of the Agnostic and Atheist Positions

UPDATE: There used to be a diagram here from an atheist group "ActOK.org". Rather than engage on my arguments they cut off my access to the diagram. That is their right I suppose, but it indicates they lack a good argument for the points I make. But what isn't OK is that "ActOK" also hijacked this page so that people who come here are re-directed to their page, and in my case a message saying "account suspended". A group called "ActOK" yet they act like that! Truly, those who reject the LORD reject reason as well!

Balderdash- why this diagram is misleading, though it pretends to clarify

The definition of atheism which atheists prefer, and have been able to finagle into the dictionaries (yes, they got it changed, check out Webster's 1828 edition on it) is....

Atheism - a lack of belief in God or gods.

I have found that almost all persons who claim to be atheists quickly move to an agnostic position in actual discourse. The latter position is at least somewhat intellectually defensible, and it is part of a little rhetorical dance that they do to, in their own minds, put the "burden of proof" on theists. But its not the position that goes with the label. They have to jump back and forth between two conflicting labels to pull off this rhetorical trick. They want to be in two mutually contradictory states at once in order to maintain the illusion. It is really hard to have honest and open dialogue with people who begin by muddying the waters like this. I have found they don't like to engage unless they get to define all the terms of the discussion so that they have a favored position before the dialogue even begins in earnest.

The actual atheist position, not the agnostic position which most atheists I have met shift to when confronted with the irrationality of their true position, doesn't require all knowledge but it does require knowledge which is far beyond human capacity to know. One would have to know to a reasonable degree of certainty for example, that all claims by all persons of direct encounters with God or His angles are false either through deceit or mistake. This would include the claims of the New Testament. One would have to know to a reasonable degree of certainty that God isn't to be found anywhere not only in the vastness of this universe but in whatever realm lies beyond it.

That's not "all knowing" but it does arrogate  the proponent to a level of knowledge which is wildly unbelievable. That's just part of why the position is foolish. I know the definition above is that which atheists prefer, but it is, like their real position, dishonest in the extreme. It deliberately confuses atheism with agnosticism. It is part of this ever-shifting vibration between two states at once that they wish to do in order to make their position appear like the rational one. 

Here is the problem with the definition of atheist that they want to use: Someone might have a "lack of belief in God or gods" for two reasons. One is that they don't know if God or gods exist. That's an agnostic. Their definition for "atheist" also applies to agnostics, confusing the categories. The agnostic only knows that they don't know. Maybe someone else knows but they don't. They are only claiming a lack of knowledge for themselves, and unless they are claiming that the true evidence is unknowable, they do not possess either a negative or a positive conclusion on the question. The atheist goes beyond simply not knowing. The reason they "lack belief in God or gods" is because they believe they don't exist.. They have an opinion on the question. They have come to a conclusion. They think they know the answer, and their answer is in the negative. There is no rational evidence for the existence of God.

These days it is like trying to nail jello to a wall getting atheists to define their position in a way that isn't also applicable to agnosticism. This is the dishonesty that I and others complain about. Why do we have such difficulties in our dialogue? Many reasons, but one of the starting points is we can't even seem to get a straight answer out of them as to what their position entails.

I have heard them reply with something like the following: "there's a separate label because they answer two different questions. Atheism/theism is about what you believe. Gnosticism/agnosticism is about what you know, or claim to know (or not know.)" That's the basis for the diagram at the top of this article. That such a diagram has even been concocted demonstrates the extreme lengths they will go to in order to make separate and unconnected categories of these things so that they may hop back and forth as needed to avoid being pinned down.

Perhaps you have spotted their sleight of hand? The chart is constructed so as to justify their definition of atheist. It does this by separating what you "believe" with "what you think you know" as separate categories rather than points along a spectrum. But given naturalist suppositions, how are these terms different in anything other than as points along the same spectrum? Only in a theistic context where "believe" means to "have faith in, trust" are they different things in kind, not just quantity. So then the Devil would be a "atheistic gnostic" in the sense that it knows that God exists but has no faith in Him. But under the definition in their chart, which uses the natural definition of "believe" for something that you think is true but with a lower level of confidence than what you know, the Devil would be a theistic gnostic. It both believes and knows that God is. The Apostle Paul would be in this same category with the Devil, which might give you some indication of how useless the table is except as a rhetorical trick to keep atheism superficially defensible and attempt to keep the "burden of proof" on the theist side!

That's more intellectual chaos because in naturalistic terms (excluding the definition of "believe" that implies faith and trust in a religious sense) believing and knowing are in kind one and the same thing. They simply express varying levels of confidence.  If there are no gods, nothing beyond nature, then all our truth is held provisionally with varying confidence levels which never reach 100%. In fact "knowing" is used loosely in the natural sciences. It is just something we believe very strongly is true. Atheists should not hop back and forth between a metaphysical definition of "know" and the more provisional version of knowing drawn from naturalism. The defense of this view of atheism and agnosticism leans on a metaphysical/religious view of knowing when they constantly deride the idea of the metaphysical and religion! I cry foul.

All of this hopping back and forth and twisting of words serves a purpose. Part of that purpose is so they can pretend that the "burden of proof" is on "the person making the positive claim". By pretending "believing" and "knowing" are different categories (in the natural sense) rather than a spectrum along a single category, naturalists can pretend that "atheists" and "agnostics" are also different categories rather than a spectrum along a single category. Everything must be fudged and confused and obfuscated lest the truth be shown too clearly: Both theists and atheists are making positive claims. They both take positions on the evidence. In the case of the theist, the evidence favors the existence of God, in the case of the atheist, the positive claim is that it is lacking (or that they are not rational, since if the evidence existed, it would be irrational of them not to accept it). The only position on the spectrum which truly doesn't make a positive claim is the agnostic (unless they are claiming that no one can know in which case they too are making a positive claim).

I have heard them say things like, "To me, the position that something doesn't exist seems like the most logical position to start with if nothing relevant is known."

In this case, something relevant is known. There is an effect, we are here. The universe exists. Therefore it isn't rational to assume "nothing" when you see an effect. The rational position is to assume a cause, and we debate over what that cause is. Those who contend this cause is unknown are making a positive claim, and those who contend that God created the universe are making a positive claim. Evidence on such a great question may be difficult, but no one side has the "burden of proof". They are both making positive claims about the evidence and they both have an equal burden to support their claims. The only one who doesn't is the one who makes no claim about the sufficiency of the evidence, that is, the true agnostic who just says that they personally don't know (which is different from the positive claim that no one knows, that the answer is unknown to any).

Speaking of evidence that the scriptures are inspired by the one true God, this conclusion is a natural consequence of the Christ-centered model of early Genesis described in my book. Christ made an astounding claim, He said that Moses, who lived over a thousand years before Christ, wrote about Him! Obviously this claim could not be true unless Christ was God. Once you understand the Christ-centered model, it becomes clear that not only is Christ's claim true, but seeing the material through the lens of Christ also makes the narrative much less contentious with evidence from the natural sciences and history than the traditional view of the material does. If they demand evidence, we have it. Early Genesis is about the work and person of Christ.

Get the book.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".