Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

[Lethe]

Atheist/theist are positions: lacks a belief in god(s)/ belief in god(s)
Agnostic/gnostic are degrees: does not claim knowledge (evidence) for belief/ does claim knowledge of belief.

There is actually an etymologically tight relationship between the words "knowledge" and "gnostic." They even sound similar.

Examples:
I am an agnostic atheist with regards to some deities, but a gnostic atheist with regards to deities whose properties directly conflict with observation. That is, I hold no beliefs in a deity and I claim this is backed by knowledge for certain deities.

 

[Vanderhaust]

I stand corrected on the definition of agnostics and now, thanks to all your comments, I believe that the terms agnostic and gnostic are most useless as prefixes to any religious or non religious titles.

 

[secondtimearound]

This whole mixing the definitions of atheism and agnostism is nothing more than an Ad Hoc attempt to make it so you don't have to defend your position. It is intellectually dishonest. Here is an article from Stanford Encyclypedia of Philosophy, note this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Non sequitur]

This whole mixing the definitions of atheism and agnostism is nothing more than an Ad Hoc attempt to make it so you don't have to defend your position. It is intellectually dishonest. Here is an article from Stanford Encyclypedia of Philosophy, note this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I don't know of any atheists or agnostics who have a problem or issue with defending their position(s).

 

[variant]

This whole mixing the definitions of atheism and agnostism is nothing more than an Ad Hoc attempt to make it so you don't have to defend your position. It is intellectually dishonest. Here is an article from Stanford Encyclypedia of Philosophy, note this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Denial

3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denial

If a lack of a belief can be considered a denial I don't think your definition is problematic.

Any thorough lack of theism is however atheism.

 

[quatona]

This whole mixing the definitions of atheism and agnostism is nothing more than an Ad Hoc attempt to make it so you don't have to defend your position.

I don´t see how definitions/redefinitions would help me with that.
Personally, I would prefer to defend my position without using such labels.

It is intellectually dishonest.

Rather, I think, it´s intellectually dishonest to attack a word in a definition you have chosen, and then assuming you are attacking my position.
If you´d have any interest in my position you would ask - instead of telling me what you think certain words mean.

 

[Vanderhaust]

Here is an article from Stanford Encyclypedia of Philosophy, note this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

I disagree with the statement,
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Atheism isn't about the 'denial' of God. They should have stated it as a dis-belief. Denial implies that you consider it a possibility but then discredit it as being fact. I know it sounds similar, but allow me to illustrate. If I told you there were invisible undetectable elves living in your butt, how would you respond? Would you say I deny that they live my butt? All you would have accomplished is saying that they exist but not in my butt. Or would you respond by saying that I don't believe in the existence of butt elves? The latter implies that you don't believe there are butt elves in your butt or any other butt.

I know were on the same page, but I wanted to make that distinction.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

Agnostics are weak Atheists.

Same thing !

They both believe in the flying spaghetti monster
​

 

[secondtimearound]

The problem is before Flew's idea of changing the definition there was already a definition, moreover they never changed the definition based on Flew's contention. Had Flew never brought up the idea, you would still be going by the original definition. That is what I find dishonest. The definition was and is sufficiant, anything else is as I said, Ad Hoc.

 

[secondtimearound]

Agnostics are weak Atheists.

Same thing !

They both believe in the flying spaghetti monster
​

Agnostists are agnostics. They fall into the catagorey of don't know or can never know. If anything atheists these days are agnostics.

 

[secondtimearound]

I don´t see how definitions/redefinitions would help me with that.
Personally, I would prefer to defend my position without using such labels.

Providing you have a position do defend. I see you have "God??? What do you mean?" under your handle, this is something that is screaming logical positivism and/or verificationism. A view that considers such qustions as "does God exist?" to be worthless. It is also a self-refuting view.

Rather, I think, it´s intellectually dishonest to attack a word in a definition you have chosen, and then assuming you are attacking my position. If you´d have any interest in my position you would ask - instead of telling me what you think certain words mean.

A definition I have chosen? I did not write that article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, nor have I defined atheism over the centuries. I used the classical definition and not the contrived definition in use today. Quite simply, I believe God exists, you don't, let's talk about it. But with the "new definition" it's, I believe God exists, you lack belief, now I have to prove my case and you can sit back and play the role of the skeptic. Bull'ish.

 

[secondtimearound]

I don't know of any atheists or agnostics who have a problem or issue with defending their position(s).

What is your position, that you lack belief, that is not a position, that is a pshycological state. If you believe God does not exist, that is a position and something worth debating.

 

[secondtimearound]

Denial

3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

Denial | Define Denial at Dictionary.com

If a lack of a belief can be considered a denial I don't think your definition is problematic.

Any thorough lack of theism is however atheism.

LOL! I can roll with denial in regards to God and atheists! Thiesm isn't something you have, it's not a disease, it is something you believe and the only way to counter a belief is with a belief.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What is your position, that you lack belief, that is not a position, that is a pshycological state. If you believe God does not exist, that is a position and something worth debating.

Bear in mind that you can also have a position on the arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Non sequitur]

What is your position, that you lack belief, that is not a position, that is a pshycological state. If you believe God does not exist, that is a position and something worth debating.

position:
6. mental attitude; point of view; stand
9. the act of positing a fact or viewpoint
10. something posited, such as an idea, proposition, etc

 

[Non sequitur]

LOL! I can roll with denial in regards to God and atheists! Thiesm isn't something you have, it's not a disease, it is something you believe and the only way to counter a belief is with a belief.

Lack of belief =/= belief

 

[sandwiches]

LOL! I can roll with denial in regards to God and atheists! Thiesm isn't something you have, it's not a disease, it is something you believe and the only way to counter a belief is with a belief.

If you believe my car is blue and I show you my car and you realize it's red. What belief did I use to show you wrong and to make you change your belief? None. Evidence can be used to counter a belief.

Now, I get that you are really desperate to think that we're equally unjustified in our disbelief or that you're equally justified in your beliefs but we both know it isn't true.

 

[variant]

LOL! I can roll with denial in regards to God and atheists! Thiesm isn't something you have, it's not a disease, it is something you believe and the only way to counter a belief is with a belief.

No, a belief is something you either have or you don't have.

I don’t think you have a “belief” in the absence of fairies or Zeus for instance, or, at least I think it is improper to term it that way.

 

[quatona]

Providing you have a position do defend.

What makes you think I might not have positions to defend?

I see you have "God??? What do you mean?" under your handle, this is something that is screaming logical positivism and/or verificationism.

You manage to read that into a question? Wow. Unfortunately, your conclusions are wrong.

A view that considers such qustions as "does God exist?" to be worthless.

Again: does not only not follow, but is a wrong wild guess on our part.

It is also a self-refuting view.

That´s funny: You read a question of mine, make up a position for me that doesn´t follow from the question, and then call this position "self-refuting" without even explaining why. That´s rich.

A definition I have chosen? I did not write that article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, nor have I defined atheism over the centuries. I used the classical definition and not the contrived definition in use today. Quite simply, I believe God exists, you don't, let's talk about it.

Well, before I can talk about (before I can even make a statement as to whether I believe God exists or not) you would have to tell me what you mean when saying "God".

But with the "new definition" it's, I believe God exists, you lack belief, now I have to prove my case and you can sit back and play the role of the skeptic. Bull'ish.

No, you´ve got that wrong. My position is and was unaffected by the meanings of such terms and their changes. It has remained the same. And - to tell from your misrepresentations so far - chances are that you don´t know what it is.

Btw. I don´t think you have any burden of proof for simply believing something. You only have a burdon of proof if claiming something.

 

[Ken-1122]

This whole mixing the definitions of atheism and agnostism is nothing more than an Ad Hoc attempt to make it so you don't have to defend your position. It is intellectually dishonest. Here is an article from Stanford Encyclypedia of Philosophy, note this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think that is a rather broad brush you are painting with my friend. I am what you would probably call an atheist and I have no problem explaining my opinions and beliefs. Some atheists (as well as theists) may have such a problem, but I doubt you are gonna find many of them on this site.

Ken