Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

Tuddrussell · Jan 24, 2012

English: They are doing it wrong.

acropolis · Jan 29, 2012

Archaeopteryx said:
For a while I believed that there was, but the more I converse with fellow atheists and agnostics the more I realise that there really aren't any points of significant difference between the two. So, atheists and agnostics, why did you decide to call yourself an atheist (not an agnostic) or an agnostic (and not an atheist)? Does your decision to stick with one label over another reflect any of the perceived differences you think exist between the two?

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Atheist don't believe in a god, so agnostics would also be atheists, with an added note that they do not believe because they do not know. An agnostic is a specific kind of atheist. If an agnostic isn't an atheist, then they should be able to answer the question "In which god do you believe?", which would be problematic since it would imply that had the knowledge to believe in one god rather than another or none, which would disagree with the premise of agnosticism.

I go by atheist because I don't believe in a god.

underpressure · Jan 29, 2012

My position is I haven't got an effin clue.

But I tend to say I'm an atheist to save time as I'm not religious and that gets the message across that I'm not granting any religions even the slightest bit of credence.

But it doesn't take that much of a stretch in the imagination to think the universe was created by 'something' intelligent and complex or 'something' relatively simple, but I'd maintain that it seems logical to me that if there is some sort of complex, intelligent creator that its origins can probably be traced back to something relatively simpler. But I couldn't hazard a guess either way right now, it would just be speculating.

I prefer "I don't know" to "I don't believe" though. And the way I understand it, is that the agnostic position is "I don't know". If we change the subject matter to "does a pen exist in the drawer of your desk in your study", and I'd never looked in your drawer before, my answer would be "I don't know if a pen exist in your drawer", rather than "I don't believe".

Since I have no way of knowing what is outside of the known universe (if anything) my answer would have to be the same; "I don't know if intelligence exists that created us", rather than "I don't believe intelligence exists that created us".

SithDoughnut · Jan 30, 2012

Atheist is easier - I use agnostic atheist if I then get the question "How do you know?"

The words are defined broadly enough that you can get pretty much any definition you want out of it.

sandwiches · Jan 30, 2012

The Paul said:
But very few theists would respond to the question "Are you a theist or an atheist?" with "I'm agnostic." Even if they are agnostic.

It's been my experience that if you manage to wring out a real response after that non-answer, 90% of people who give it are atheists who think "agnostic" means "atheist, but willing to consider evidence to the contrary."

I've also noticed that some answer "agnostic" because they dislike the stigma and connotations associated with the word "atheist."

Vanderhaust · Mar 6, 2012

I think a few a you are making it more compicated than it needs to be. Atheists are people who have a conviction, not a lack of belief, that there are no gods. While an agnostic is someone who doesn't discount that there may be a god or higher power, but as a general rule that god, if that god exists, doesn't infuence his daily life.

ranunculus · Mar 7, 2012

Vanderhaust said:
Atheists are people who have a conviction, not a lack of belief, that there are no gods.

These are gnostic atheists and the burden of proof is on them.

If you claim both absolute certainty and the knowledge that gods don't exist, wouldn't that require godlike omniscience?

The Nihilist · Mar 7, 2012

ranunculus said:
If you claim both absolute certainty and the knowledge that gods don't exist, wouldn't that require godlike omniscience?

I think the concept of a "god" is almost completely incoherent, so I'm pretty comfortable saying there aren't any. I don't think this requires omniscience.

Vanderhaust · Mar 7, 2012

ranunculus said:
These are gnostic atheists and the burden of proof is on them.

If you claim both absolute certainty and the knowledge that gods don't exist, wouldn't that require godlike omniscience?

I make the claim that it is impossibe, right now in our time, to prove or disprove the existence of God (I also can't prove or disprove the existence of The Great Spaghetti Monster), but with your logic one would need godlike omniscience to prove that god exists.

keith99 · Mar 7, 2012

I am a middle aged moralist. That is pretty much how C.S. Lewis described himself and in fact may be an exact quote.

And in a technical sense we may even mean it in the same way. At least for the first level. I maintain no God is needed to be moral and that my efforts to be moral will not increase if there happens to be a God.

I am unsure if the existance of a God can be proven. I maintain the Gods as preached by most are vile and to be opposed. But I also maintain that if any Gods do exist they may well be rather different than what is presented from the pulpit or its equavelent.

I have not seen any evidence that would convince me of the existance of any God so for now I will continue to make my choices without depending on such existance. I do not expect to either be saved or damned by any supernatural being.

Ernst Junger · Mar 7, 2012

Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

consistency

Non sequitur · Mar 7, 2012

Ernst Junger said:
consistency

Elaborate.

variant · Mar 7, 2012

You can be both, there's at the least no contradiction between the two terms, they talk about differn't things.

I am also an Atheist.

Vanderhaust · Mar 7, 2012

variant said:
You can be both, there's at the least no contradiction between the two terms, they talk about differn't things.

I am also an Atheist.

What you claim seems to be a contradiction. Can you elaborate?

variant · Mar 7, 2012

Vanderhaust said:
What you claim seems to be a contradiction. Can you elaborate?

I am an Atheist, because I have no belief in any God or Gods.

I am Agnostic because I do not claim enough knowledge to either support God or rule it out as a possibility (no matter how remote), and further I don't think such knowledge is either likely or possible.

Vanderhaust · Mar 7, 2012

variant said:
I am an Atheist, because I have no belief in any God or Gods.

I am Agnostic because I do not claim enough knowledge to either support God or rule it out as a possibility (no matter how remote), and further I don't think such knowledge is either likely or possible.

I agree with your statement on atheism, but not on agnostics. When did anyone ever get the idea that agnostics was about knowing or not knowing that God exists? If faith was based on emperical evidence they wouldn't call it faith, but rather a conviction based on evidence. How would anyone know that God exists except by faith? To date I don't know of any living being that can claim that they know God exists without relying on his own gut feeling that God does indeed exist, which is not the same as knowing due to emperical evidence. I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know and I will clarify.

As a secondary point, I propose with your logic on agnostism that everyone on the planet is an agnostic and thereby rendering your definition pointless.

variant · Mar 7, 2012

Vanderhaust said:
I agree with your statement on atheism, but not on agnostics. When did anyone ever get the idea that agnostics was about knowing or not knowing that God exists?

It's the definition of the term. It implies in my case both the lack of knowledge and feel that the possibility of knowledge is lacking.

I consider myself an atheist because I lack belief, rather than dis-believe (so the two don't really contradict).

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

Agnostic | What is the Definition of Agnostic? | Dictionary.com

If faith was based on empirical evidence they wouldn't call it faith, but rather a conviction based on evidence. How would anyone know that God exists except by faith?

There are people who claim to have come to "know" spiritual truths regardless of how many believers will say they have "faith" instead. I differ with these people epistemologically and metaphysically, but I can't just define them out of existence. A justification by "faith" is also somewhat confined as well to a more modern interpretation of mostly Christians that I have experienced.

I also don't really think people in general feel that God is "unknowable" as I know plenty of people who accept certain things as evidence for the divine. People present "miracles" all the time, they present scriptures as evidence, and the fulfillment of prophecy. My own parents are charismatic who feel they commune directly with god through speaking tongues and direct prayer through the laying on of hands.

I believe they think god is evident, it implies some gnosis suppositions antithetical to my claims that God is indeed unknowable.

To date I don't know of any living being that can claim that they know God exists without relying on his own gut feeling that God does indeed exist, which is not the same as knowing due to empirical evidence. I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know and I will clarify.

As a secondary point, I propose with your logic on agnostics that everyone on the planet is an agnostic and thereby rendering your definition pointless.

Although you make an interesting case, apart from the above, It is really not my responsibility to present people who don't fall under the definition of agnosticism.

I think everyone on the planet "should" be agnostic. I don't think they are.

Ken-1122 · Mar 8, 2012

Vanderhaust said:
I agree with your statement on atheism, but not on agnostics. When did anyone ever get the idea that agnostics was about knowing or not knowing that God exists?

Agnostic has always been about knowing or not knowing that God exists. If you dont believe me, grab a dictionary and look it up! Or better yet, go to dictionary.com

Vanderhaust said:
If faith was based on emperical evidence they wouldn't call it faith, but rather a conviction based on evidence.

Just because a person knows something to be true, doesnt mean they have empirical evidence to back it up. To know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. You can know and still be wrong.

Vanderhaust said:
How would anyone know that God exists except by faith?

That is how most people know that God exists! By faith.

Vanderhaust said:
To date I don't know of any living being that can claim that they know God exists without relying on his own gut feeling that God does indeed exist, which is not the same as knowing due to emperical evidence.

That may also depend upon the idea of God that they claim to know exists! What about those who worship nature? Does nature exists?

Vanderhaust said:
I hope that makes sense, if not, let me know and I will clarify.
As a secondary point, I propose with your logic on agnostism that everyone on the planet is an agnostic and thereby rendering your definition pointless.

Actually many people are either atheist agnostics; those who lack belief in God but admit they have no way of knowing for sure, and theist agnostics; those who believe in God but admit they have no way of knowing for sure. Hope that makes sense, if not let me know and I will clarify

Ken

KCfromNC · Mar 8, 2012

Vanderhaust said:
I make the claim that it is impossibe, right now in our time, to prove or disprove the existence of God (I also can't prove or disprove the existence of The Great Spaghetti Monster), but with your logic one would need godlike omniscience to prove that god exists.

Or at least godlike omniscience to claim that only one god exists. After all, a second god could be hiding just beyond the last place you looked for him.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 8, 2012

I might be an agnostic beliver, as Huxley was. He believed in an "unknown God".

Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

The Dreamer of the Darkness

so rad

Newbie

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Member

sola dosis facit venenum

Junior Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Happy Cat

Member

Happy Cat

Member

Happy Cat

Newbie

Regular Member

Muslm Humanist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency