Are Agnostics also Atheists?

[ENominiPatri]

They lack belief in deities right?

 

[acropolis]

No, since they don't assert that there are no gods.

 

[ENominiPatri]

No, since they don't assert that there are no gods.

Atheism is also a lack of belief in deities is it not? Agnosticism fits under that right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some (probably most) agnostics lack belief in deities, and are therefore also atheists.

However, some self-declared agnostics believe in deities, and yet claim that they don't "know" such deities exist, and are therefore also theists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

Atheism is also a lack of belief in deities is it not? Agnosticism fits under that right?

If someone believes there are no deities, then they are an atheist. It's likely there are many self-identified agnostics that should be calling themselves atheists. But agnosticism is still a different set of beliefs than atheism, since it makes no statement about the truth or untruth of deities, other than stating that the truth or untruth can never be determined.

 

[brightlights]

Depends on the agnostic.

An agnostic theist would be a person who believes in a god yet has no knowledge of this god -- who it is or what it would be like or even if it for sure exists.

An agnostic atheist would be a person who doesn't hold a god belief and has no knowledge concerning a god.

 

[Washington]

Depends on the agnostic.

An agnostic theist would be a person who believes in a god yet has no knowledge of this god -- who it is or what it would be like or even if it for sure exists.

An agnostic atheist would be a person who doesn't hold a god belief and has no knowledge concerning a god.

Here's what the creator of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley, said.

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) came up with the word ‘agnostic’ while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself “an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian…” and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately. His difference with​

The essential problem was that Huxley believed the problem was unsolvable. And thus far, despite the existence of famous thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and David Hume who philosophically agreed with him on the matter, there wasn’t a name for someone who believed you could never know the source of, nor reason for existence.​

Huxley got the term “gnostic” from the early Christian Gnostics, whom he said, “professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant”, and created the word ‘agnostic’, with the prefix giving the new word the opposite meaning of the core word, which means, "knowing". This is close to the meaning that most modern day people associate with the word. It is used to mean a person who is not certain whether God exists or gods exist. It is subtly different from the original meaning in that the term started out to mean that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you’re considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely. ​

Throughout his life, during which the word ‘agnostic’ caught on and became commonly used, Huxley tweaked his term, and adjusted its meaning. He ultimately came to describe agnosticism as a method of thinking, in the way science is a means of thinking, not a belief in and of itself. His ideal was that everyone should be able to give a reason for his faith, or simply not claim it as his own. He said it this way: “In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable”.​

There was a moral edge to Huxley’s agnosticism. “That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.” There was an implied call for an honest intellectual decision in terms of belief. To put it into brief, modern words, he might have said, “Don’t claim it if you cannot explain it”.​

Huxley understood and accepted that the new term would have different meanings depending on the understanding and intellect of the individual. Furthermore, he knew that the meaning for each individual would change as time goes on, to incorporate new findings in understanding or in science. He said, “That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow.”​

Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the truest definition of the term today: “… it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively define his belief, whether in God or in anything else. ​

Huxley was a gifted speaker, and was known, in the course of his many debates, to quietly state that he knew nothing about the supernatural about which his opponents claimed firm belief, then, somewhat louder, to add, “And neither do you.”​

source​

 

[ranmaonehalf]

They lack belief in deities right?

you can be both.

agnostism deals with knowlege so you can be an agnostic christian or and agnostic atheists.

the other deals with belief.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

These difficulties with agnosticism is why I don't care to define it. Atheism and theism are terms that succiciently sum up all possible stances as to the existance of deities.

That said, I think an agnostic is someone who asserts that belief in the existance of a deity can never be justified. But it's a frivolous notion.

 

[peter22]

I thought it was pretty simple. An agnostic doesn't believe in there being no god, an atheist does.

Personally, I find agnosticism more honest than both atheism and theism in that saying, "I don't know" is in this case, probably the best answer since neither the existence or non-existence of God can be proven. I guss a rationalist might disagree with me here, but thems the brakes.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I tend to think of an agnostic, as someone who is less dogmatic about the non-existance of God, or even the existance of God, and is more like half and half. Half the person entertains the idea there is a God and the other half doubts it. However there are agnostics who feel that it is better to just reserve judgement, which is probably a good stance to take anyways.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought it was pretty simple. An agnostic doesn't believe in there being no god, an atheist does.

Personally, I find agnosticism more honest than both atheism and theism in that saying, "I don't know" is in this case, probably the best answer since neither the existence or non-existence of God can be proven. I guss a rationalist might disagree with me here, but thems the brakes.

What you call an agnostic, I call a weak atheist. What you call an atheist, I call a strong atheist. In my experiance, most people (including self-proclaimed atheists) share my terminology.
Apart from that, we are in agreement .

 

[Braunwyn]

These difficulties with agnosticism is why I don't care to define it. Atheism and theism are terms that succiciently sum up all possible stances as to the existance of deities.

That said, I think an agnostic is someone who asserts that belief in the existance of a deity can never be justified. But it's a frivolous notion.

Why is it frivolous?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why is it frivolous?

Because I feel agnosticism is an unnecessary distinction. Evidentially, the term causes more confusion than clarification. In my opinion, such terms don't serve much use.

 

[peter22]

What you call an agnostic, I call a weak atheist. What you call an atheist, I call a strong atheist. In my experiance, most people (including self-proclaimed atheists) share my terminology.
Apart from that, we are in agreement .

At least we're only disagreeing on terminology. However, there's a lot of crossover between a weak atheist & an agnostic, so I'd say we are in agreement unless one wants to be really pedantic.

 

[R3quiem]

The terms overlap considerably.

I consider myself agnostic first and foremost because I have no knowledge of gods and even doubt that this kind of knowledge is truly possible. Secondly, I could be considered an atheist in some ways because I doubt the existence of deities and therefore it can't be said that I believe in them.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Then there is someone like myself who tries to remain a little more agnostic towards a God, but has a hard time doing so, mostly because of the problem of evil.

 

[Braunwyn]

Because I feel agnosticism is an unnecessary distinction. Evidentially, the term causes more confusion than clarification. In my opinion, such terms don't serve much use.

You're drawing a line in the sand that some are not interested in committing to. The term may cause confusion but since such topics as gods, religion etc are largely based on subjective experience, there's little hope that it won't be confusing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're drawing a line in the sand that some are not interested in committing to. The term may cause confusion but since such topics as gods, religion etc are largely based on subjective experience, there's little hope that it won't be confusing.

Perhaps, but most discussion about major theological divisions revolves around the distinction between atheism and theism. Agnosticism, I feel, is an unnecessary distinction for most purposes (though, obviously, one could concieve a discussion where it is useful). It's just my personal preference, I guess

 

[Braunwyn]

Perhaps, but most discussion about major theological divisions revolves around the distinction between atheism and theism.

True, and in this context you are correct. In such discussions I would call myself an atheist.

Agnosticism, I feel, is an unnecessary distinction for most purposes (though, obviously, one could concieve a discussion where it is useful). It's just my personal preference, I guess

How I interact with people in RL puts me in an agnostic position since I tend to consider beliefs as personal preferance. For example, I think killing animals for food is wrong. Most disagree with this but that doesn't mean my world-view is incorrect because it's my world view. And while I find the practices of killing animals to be abhorrent, it's obviously not wrong for the majority so I'm left entertaining the fact that what's real for me isn't real for you. If that makes sense.

The theistic vs atheistic arguments seem to be about determining an almost absolute reality that we all share. In the realm of science, I agree with atheism. Outside of that however, anything goes as far as I'm concerned.