Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Darat]

Is there any meaningful difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

This argument has cropped up in a

...snip...

Depends on your definition of the word "agnostic" - if you are like me and use the definition that is about knowledge there is a huge difference, i.e. the agnostic position is that it is in principle not possible to have the knowledge of whether God exists or not.

 

[Yoink]

Depends on your definition of the word "agnostic" - if you are like me and use the definition that is about knowledge there is a huge difference, i.e. the agnostic position is that it is in principle not possible to have the knowledge of whether God exists or not.

Aren't you then claiming (rather strong) knowledge about God? I.e., that s/he will never reveal her/himself/itself to you?

I don't see how this position can be defended as a principled position fundamentally different from "we don't know anything yet." If you know that you never will know anything, then you are claiming to know A) that there is a god and that s/he's shy or B) that the only possible type of god--who may or may not exist--would be a shy one. A would be logically defensible, but would be theism. B) might be logically defensible but just seems to be a special case of atheism: "I haven't any evidence of a god, but here are the limits to what a god could be like."

 

[Apology]

When I called myself an atheist, I was 99% sure God didn't exist, even though I couldn't prove it.

By the time I decided to call myself agnostic, I was only about 75% sure, but it was enough of a difference in my mind to change labels. I was, after all, 100% sure that I didn't know if there was a God or not, and 100% sick of trying to figure it out myself.

What had made me unsure was my research into Deism, in which a completely non-personfied God existed, different from Christianity in every way. It occurred to me one day, while reading a lengthy deistic tome full of constructs of hypothetical Gods, that if God were so qualified away, unable to affect us in any discernable, detectable way, that it really didn't matter if God existed or not, so there was no reason why I should care. I put down the book and took a 20-year nap. When I woke up, I was still divided, and did not care to waste any more time figuring it out. I channeled the spirit of Rodney King even though he's still alive somehow and decided to take another crack at seeing if we all couldn't find a way to get along. The end.

 

[fls]

Is there any meaningful difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

No, except for the tiny minority who really do use "agnostic" to refer to whether God can be known. Which is acceptable because it's ironic, and I like irony.

Linda

 

[Bikewer]

Some wag said that an agnostic was an atheist who still craved social acceptability....

There appear to be several definitions of "agnostic" in common parlance; I prefer the one that says we cannot know. In other words, that human intellect isn't up to the task.

That being said, I don't consider myself agnostic, but rather atheist. I use the definition as cited above from the Rationalist standpoint; no compelling evidence equals no belief.

Even Dawkins has said that we cannot "prove" there is no God, and therefore from a strict interpretation we should consider ourselves agnostic. Like me, however, he prefers the "atheist" term.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If everybody else feels the matter is decided then the thread will wither and die. If others feel like having a discussion, you don't have to join in, do you?

1. Having spent much of my adult life as an agnostic, I can only respond to your rubbish on that topic as "you are full of crap." I find your desire to define others' positions for them to suit your own biases both anal, and useless.

ETA: if this matter has been settled satisfactorily in previous discussion, it should be easy for somebody to give a quick definition of two distinct, logically tenable and internally consistent positions that would fairly describe a large number of self-labeled "atheists" and "agnostics." Anyone?

2. If you are too lazy to take a look, I can't, and won't, help you. Others might.

Having tried civil with you, I note it merely evokes a greater assholiness from you. Glad to see you show your true colors.

I wish you the joy of your thread.

DR

 

[Apology]

Some wag said that an agnostic was an atheist who still craved social acceptability....

It's been said before, but it's actually not true. People see you as open for recruitment to either side, or argue for you to take up either side (I got called a liar on this very board for refusing to pick a side ). It's less socially acceptable than being atheist or Christian because everyone suspects that you're secretly opposing them and won't admit it. "I don't know" is a surprisingly unacceptable answer.

I am, more than anything, an apologist for both sides. Since neither side can win, I'd like to see both sides get along better. I see liberal Christians being discounted far below their actual worth in society. I see agnostics like myself being treated with suspicion and disdain by Christians just like atheists.

I grew up as an atheist so I've been spared no indignity that a modern atheists suffers, and a couple more that are illegal now. I can tell you that I get no better treatment from Christians now than I did as an atheist. It's ironic that Christians gave me this username a few years ago by calling me an "atheist apologist" when I tried to explain the tenets of agnosticism to them.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Well, that gives me a definition of "agnostic" that is different from the definition of "atheist"--but again it's a definition of an absurd position. How can the agnostic know that evidence will always remain unavailable? If that isn't what you meant--if, i.e., agnostics are simply those people who believe that no evidence has yet appeared, how do they differ from the atheists in your example?

You can subdivide agnostics into two categories. Those who feel that there is currently insufficient evidence to know whether or not a god or gods exist, and those who feel there is no possibility that we can ever know whether or not a god or gods exist.

Agnostics (of either type) may differ with atheists in regard to beliefs. Just because an agnostic believes one can't know whether or not there is a god doesn't necessarily preclude them from making a leap of faith and believing anyway. It's entirely possible for a person to be an agnostic theist: having faith that there is a god while also believing that one can not know such a thing with certainty.

 

[slingblade]

Does it "resemble agnosticism" or is it, in fact, exactly the same as agnosticism? If it merely "resembles" agnosticism, could you tell me how it actually differs from agnosticism?

Y'know, I really don't know, and I don't really require that level of analysis.
I just...don't believe in god. I don't know if he exists, but I don't think he does.

You can call me whatever you like. The label won't change my opinion.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

If I had a vote, I'd vote to get rid of the term "agnostic," because I think it serves no purpose.

I don't really like the term either. Agnosticism (the weak form of it at least*) does little more than clarify that a person is generally sane and does nothing to answer the question of whether they hold a belief in god or not. Furthermore, people tend to misuse it as some (nonexistent) third way between theism and atheism.

*Like you, I find the strong version of agnosticism untenable since it ignores a potential deity's potential ability to reveal itself to humanity.

 

[Apology]

I don't really like the term either. Agnosticism (the weak form of it at least*) does little more than clarify that a person is generally sane and does nothing to answer the question of whether they hold a belief in god or not. Furthermore, people tend to misuse it as some (nonexistent) third way between theism and atheism.

*Like you, I find the strong version of agnosticism untenable since it ignores a potential deity's potential ability to reveal itself to humanity.

I stand in that spot and I refuse to move. I don't have to choose. I don't have enough evidence to choose either side with conviction. Your disdain for my position does not sway me.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I stand in that spot and I refuse to move. I don't have to choose. I don't have enough evidence to choose either side with conviction. Your disdain for my position does not sway me.

You may be using differing definitions than I am, but if you agree that...

Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = absence of a belief in a deity or deities

...then that covers 100% of humanity. You either have such a belief or you do not.

 

[Apology]

You may be using differing definitions than I am, but if you agree that...

Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = absence of a belief in a deity or deities

...then that covers 100% of humanity. You either have such a belief or you do not.

I don't know which one to believe. I will never know which one to believe.

 

[Apology]

Actually I just assume I'll never know. If someone managed to prove there was a God, then I would know. I'll never know that there isn't one. I feel no need to pursue any proof myself. I doubt it would make any difference in my life whatsoever.

Sorry I don't fit into your philosophy, NorfolkAtheist, but I'm in the dictionary by which you define your life under "agnostic".

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I don't know which one to believe. I will never know which one to believe.

Only one of the options (theism) requires any sort of a belief. Atheism (the weak variety) is the lack of a belief not the presence of one.

 

[Apology]

Only one of the options (theism) requires any sort of a belief. Atheism (the weak variety) is the lack of a belief not the presence of one.

I don't know that there isn't one.

I don't know that there is.

I don't know.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I don't know that there isn't one.

I don't know that there is.

I don't know.

You're answering a question that isn't being asked.

Nonetheless, I diagnose you as an agnostic weak atheist. Which means you do not hold the belief that there is a god, you do not hold the belief that there is not a god, and you do hold the belief that you can't know if there is or is not a god. That about right?

 

[Apology]

You're answering a question that isn't being asked.

Nonetheless, I diagnose you as an agnostic weak atheist. Which means you do not hold the belief that there is a god, you do not hold the belief that there is not a god, and you do hold the belief that you can't know if there is or is not a god. That about right?

I'm not weak or atheist, I'm just agnostic. If I was weak or atheist, I would give up and agree with you. Sorry you have a problem with accepting that.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I'm not weak or atheist, I'm just agnostic. If I was weak or atheist, I would give up and agree with you. Sorry you have a problem with accepting that.

Please tell me what is wrong with this part:

Which means you do not hold the belief that there is a god, you do not hold the belief that there is not a god, and you do hold the belief that you can't know if there is or is not a god. That about right?

 

[Apology]

Please tell me what is wrong with this part:

The part that you have wrong is the part where you say that there is no place between theism and atheism, and that there is no agnosticism. That place is full of people whether you think it should be or not.