Hacker News Reader

Comment by raydiatian | Hacker News Reader

Agnosticism is atheism++. Accepts that we don’t know what’s on the ‘other side’, which is more consistent with reality. I used to think I was atheist. “Believing” that the scope of life is finite is functionally a religion (or perhaps a pessimistic death cult), albeit one probably without overt practices and ceremonies. However, those fleeting inner meditations that “I’m going to die and then that is it” is an asceticism of your ‘soul’ (existence, ie the abstract scope of all you could be), which is practically a contradiction, like saying “I’m not here” even though you clearly are (even if reality is an illusion or something, we all agree you’re illusion is here).

View on HN

I like the acknowledgement that we don't know what's on the other side, but it is not an important part of my belief system.

I don't think accepting our own demise, and believing that it is a final ending, means you're in a death cult. I want to live an exciting life, enjoy what earth has to offer, and be a part of society and make some kind of positive contribution, but I accept that my time is limited, and in my belief system death is truly the end of me. Making peace with this is not easy, but it is an important part of living for me.

I do not mean do demean anyone else's beliefs. I wouldn't try to have this conversation in church, and it is socially risky where I am to discuss this kind of belief. I think I was looking for kindred spirits, or at least understanding.

The way I think of it: I have experienced non-existence for billions of years, I will experience it again after my death.

Many people, religious or atheist, believe that the scope of life is finite in one direction: it starts at birth. Death is essentially the same thing, backwards.

Now, there are some people who believe their existence is eternal in both directions. For example, Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and I think the question of the first incarnation and even the very notion of a "beginning" is left open.

> The way I think of it: I have experienced non-existence for billions of years, I will experience it again after my death.

sorry but that's extremely silly. Go read up Parmenides at the very least. If you don't exist, you don't exist, period; there's no experiencing, no you, no anything.

What you're describing is not really atheism. Atheism is not a positive statement about anything, it's a lack of religion/belief in gods.

I don't know if there's anything for us after death, but I have no good reason to think that there is. My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact.

Positive atheism is a thing. It is the strongest form of atheism, where one believes that no god exists. It contrasts with negative atheism, where one does not believe that god exists. There are other forms of atheism, like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god and therefore can't be believers, people who want to stay out of any kind of religious belief, etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

> like people like very young children who are not aware of the concept of god

This is so absurdly profound. I remember being like 4 years old and taught about god. My first distinction was “I have no idea what you’re talking about, man with white beard in the clouds? Show me.” Wonder who has gone the longest without being exposed to religion.

It’s a vanishingly rare thing though, AFAICT.

> My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact.

There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. Both are willful imaginations of what happens after death. One difference between theists and atheists is that atheists think science is on their side in this debate (the whole ‘lack of evidence’ argument), when it’s not, because physics is meant to measure this world[•], not “the next one”. Furthermore a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary. In fact if anything, some theistic notions of heaven and hell seem to be closer approximations, given the end of life DMT flood and seeing your family in your fleeting moments, and anecdotal accounts of white lights, etc. How does one even experience a final moment? Can you ever truly die? These are all super metaphysical/philosophical questions. Of course, if we all die in nuclear hellfire, there are no pineal glands around to dump the DMT, and so reality is you may be right: the majority of our consciousnesses will literally just cease to exist. No pretty light show, just purgatorial nonbeing for all of nontime.

Agnosticism gets it right by saying “the truth is I don’t have the answer and I’m smart enough to acknowledge that. I’ll know when I get there, I’m not trying to sell you anything.” Atheism is like like picking only the worst squares in Pascal’s wager, while agnosticism is telling Pascal to politely shove off altogether.

Also, separate but related, Newton was trying to be closer to God when he invented/discovered mechanics.

[•] Theist beliefs in mystical forces having physical interactions in this universe is a completely separate discussion, which I highly doubt, but then again we don’t have an answer for how to measure dark matter, and String theorists are allowed to pedal their observationless theories.

> There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none.

I agree, but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon seriously.

> a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary

I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary, but there is as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for fire-breathing dragons, yet I am not required to declare agnosticism or a fence-sitting position on that front. Instead I am permitted to say “I don’t believe in those absent evidence, and I will happily change my mind when some is found”

> Agnosticism gets it right ...

As an agnostic atheist, I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. Agnosticism and atheism are two separate axes. One is a declaration of knowledge (there's no evidence, so I am agnostic) the other of belief (there's no evidence so I have no belief either).

> but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon.

This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model.

How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least.

> I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary

By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care.

> agnostic atheist

This is by definition, an oxymoron

Atheists believe there are no gods. [1]

Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2]

> I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided.

There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.

> his is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty

Only if you're making definite proclamations, which I'm not. I'm not claiming complete knowledge here, simply that there's been no evidence presented that supports the belief in such a thing, so I don't hold belief in one. There's no assumption there. To dip into physics as you seem so keen on bringing it up - there's no evidence that dark matter is really the corpses of ancient aliens, so that's not a working hypothesis for me either. I don't know what it is, I'm not sure anyone does, until we hold evidence I am a-it's-the-corpses-of-ancient-aliens-ist. I don't hold that positive belief, and I would find it weird if people came along and told me that I was making strong claims in the other direction if I said I didn't believe it.

> How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes

Most appear to be unfalsifiable propositions, and as such it seems a pointless quest. But I don't need to go looking in an exhaustive fashion to hold the position that I don't believe in one, given current evidence, because I'm not making an assertion that there is definitely not an afterlife, or that there cannot be one. It is sufficient that there's no evidence for one, so I don't hold the positive belief that there is one.

Could there be some sort of afterlife? Sure, conceptually, but so far there's no reason to think there is one, any more than there's reason to believe in fire-breathing dragons or invisible unicorns.

> By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife

I don't have "a belief that there's no afterlife". There's the flaw in your thinking.

Thought experiment - I claim that that I can travel to another planet, instantaneously, and live a year of my life there because time works differently, and then travel back, all in the time of a blink of the eye. I just did it now! Anyone can do it, in fact lot's of people do! Do you believe me? No? How do you know I didn't do that? You're making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe there! Your belief that I can't do that is unevidenced!

Or... you can say that since there's no evidence, that seems pretty weird and unlikely, I'm going to go with the working assumption that humans can't do that until such time as some sort of evidence is presented. This is atheism, to me.

> This is by definition, an oxymoron

First line of the wikipedia link on atheism - "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities"

First line from the one on agnosticism - "Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

These do not contradict one another. I don't claim concrete knowledge, so in the absence of evidence I hold no positive religious beliefs. If the existence of the divine is either unknown or unknowable then there's no reason to give it much thought. I don't believe in it. Which is distinct from "I believe it is impossible" or "I believe it is definitely not present", positions that you seem to want to force on me.

> There’s no need to be condescending

I'm not convinced - when someone is busy labouring to create a straw man and to tell you what you mean by your own words, I think it's probably an apposite response.

I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism and agnosticism are different, you’re right, I’m using the concepts wrong.

Hadn’t previously considered that positive atheism and general “not-taking-sides” atheism weren’t the same thing.

Atheism just seems like a dumb concept the closer I look. Seems to be more than a dry classification system more than anything. Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. It seems like agnostic atheism is really just (what I’d consider) agnosticism.

My argument that agnosticism is atheism++ is wrong, but atheism as a concept is worth discarding altogether.

Thanks for listening, and sorry for the snark levels - I haven't delved into this for some years and I got a bit riled up just like I used to on usenet and fark ...

(edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!)

> Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it.

I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!

I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK).

In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me.

And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”.

But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com