Agnostic vs. Atheist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic actually means that you don't believe it is possible to know if there is a god or not. So it actually isn't a belief or nonbelief. It's a position on whether it's possible for humans to know if there is a divine power.

But a lot of people don't seem to understand that.

Atheist is that you don't believe a god or gods exist. Period. Not that you don't think it's possible to know one way or another.

Agnostics don't think it's possible to know with any kind of certainty one way or another. They also don't believe it's a provable/disprovable kind of thing. And I agree.

That's why agnostics tend to remove themselves from the vicious debates between Christians and atheists. It's a pointless exercise.

So then would you say you're also agnostic on the existence of Santa Claus?

Good question! Different PP, agnostic, here.

I believe there's no Santa Claus. As I believe there is no god as defined/ developed by any religion. But I believe there may be some other entity, conscious or not, that influences events in ways we don't, perhaps can't, understand. I know of no way to prove or disprove the existence of such "god" and in any way that is irrelevant to my ethics as a human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agnostic actually means that you don't believe it is possible to know if there is a god or not. So it actually isn't a belief or nonbelief. It's a position on whether it's possible for humans to know if there is a divine power.

But a lot of people don't seem to understand that.

Atheist is that you don't believe a god or gods exist. Period. Not that you don't think it's possible to know one way or another.

Agnostics don't think it's possible to know with any kind of certainty one way or another. They also don't believe it's a provable/disprovable kind of thing. And I agree.

That's why agnostics tend to remove themselves from the vicious debates between Christians and atheists. It's a pointless exercise.

Atheists also don't think existence of a god is provable -- just as they don't think the existence of other unseen things are provable -- like fairies and trolls -- but they don't ponder whether or not such things exist -- they don't believe in them. They see no evidence for them.

Many people interpret agnosticism as being some middle ground about God belief -- not caring, or not being sure, or searching or trying to believe, but not being able to. I know several people for whom it was a stepping stone to being atheist, that involved getting used to the idea that they didn't believe in Gods.

Different people use the term differently , making it hard to know what people mean when they say they are agnostic. I think given its mixed usage, it's going to be hard to define it in a way that is widely accepted.

It seems easier to straighten out the meaning of atheism, which is simple lack of belief of god and says nothing about "proving" or "knowing" there are not gods. -- that is a misconception that I think has arisen from some religious people who are trying to make the atheist position seem ridiculous.

Atheists don't believe in god; religious people do -- neither can prove it. Religion based on faith. Atheism is based on lack of evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, Atheist is someone who is certain there is no God. Just like a religious person is certain there is.

An agnostic person doesn't know for sure whether there is a God.

Both generally live their lives as if there were no God.

Im an atheist and I am not "certain" there is no god and know no atheists who would say such a thing. I certainly see no evidence for gods and no reason for believing one religious story (Jesus/mohammed/moses) over the other -- I'm certain those are made up -- they certainly sound made up and involve believing in things that do not happen in the natural world - parting seas, rising from the dead,etc.

It's sort of like Santa Claus -- no grown-ups believe in him. We know people couldn't exist at the north pole, and that reindeer don't fly and no one could deliver toys to everyone in the world in one night. and we notice that Santa gives better toys to rich kids than to poor kids. We don't believe in his elves, either -- we've never seen any -- but we can't prove they don't exist in some other realm. We just don't worry about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If someone says "I don't believe an omnipotent god would kill and torture an innocent child, under any reasoning"

Does that make the person atheist, or is there still room for that person to be "agnostic"?

unless you think of agnostic (maybe not believing) as a stepping stone to atheism (definitely not-beleiving), it doesn't matter.

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, there is a lot of misunderstanding and disagreement about those terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think agnostics, while not believing in the god of organized religions, have no problem with others believing and don't doubt it's their right. Atheists are certain there is no God and think believers are wrong. There is a difference.

SOME atheists and agnostics feel as described above, but this reaction is not inherent in being either atheist or agnostic. and repeat: Atheists are not certain there is not god - they know there is no way to prove a negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If someone says "I don't believe an omnipotent god would kill and torture an innocent child, under any reasoning"

Does that make the person atheist, or is there still room for that person to be "agnostic"?

That person could be someone who believes in another kind of God -- not the vindictive, angry god as he is sometimes depicted in the Bible, but a nice, loving God, who may or may not answer prayers, but never actively does anything bad, like hurt children, or send people to hell for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think agnostics, while not believing in the god of organized religions, have no problem with others believing and don't doubt it's their right. Atheists are certain there is no God and think believers are wrong. There is a difference.

SOME atheists and agnostics feel as described above, but this reaction is not inherent in being either atheist or agnostic. and repeat: Atheists are not certain there is not god - they know there is no way to prove a negative.

You're wrong - that is precisely what agnostics believe, and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist isn't a dirty word. Heck, Obama even shouted out to non believers. That said, you are correct that an agnostic ascribes to the concept of a higher power, a true atheist does not.

What does Obama have anything to do with this?

b/c he "shouted out," it's oK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We could all be living in a huge computer (?) simulation. No way to know. So, on narrow epistemological grounds, I'm an agnostic.

the Matrix

scare me to think this might be true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Can we define "God" here, for the content of the discussion as say, a being whose intent crated reality and who has a say in the occurrences in our daily lives?

Do you then still consider yourselves agnostic, or do event eh agnostics think, that's not the case?

But that to me is totally different than a higher power or force. I frankly don't know if I'm an atheist or agnostic. I say I'm an agnostic when I think it would be an affront to someone to say I'm atheist. So, I sort of think I am an atheist. But, I'm also not 100% sure there is not some reason we are on the planet / higher guiding force / something we humans can't explain /etc so sometimes I think the better label is indeed agnostic. Yet, I do think it is not likely that there is a being whose "intent created reality".

Despite not knowing, I do think I am a moral human able to raise well mannered children and do good in world. So does it really matter what I am?

[Anonymous]

I've always thought that people who call themselves agnostic use it as a cop out. Too chicken shit to just not believe in god, like they want to give themselves an out just in case. I mean, if you're getting all philosophical, we should all technically be agnostic about everything... like whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or summer will come, but c'mon...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought that people who call themselves agnostic use it as a cop out. Too chicken shit to just not believe in god, like they want to give themselves an out just in case. I mean, if you're getting all philosophical, we should all technically be agnostic about everything... like whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or summer will come, but c'mon...

THAT is a cop out. Comparing what we know about the solar system, vs whether there's some kind of "god" out there?

Science starts with good questions and with awareness of the limits of one's knowledge, you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think agnostics, while not believing in the god of organized religions, have no problem with others believing and don't doubt it's their right. Atheists are certain there is no God and think believers are wrong. There is a difference.

SOME atheists and agnostics feel as described above, but this reaction is not inherent in being either atheist or agnostic. and repeat: Atheists are not certain there is not god - they know there is no way to prove a negative.

You're wrong - that is precisely what agnostics believe, and why.

SOME agnostics think that way, but not all. Maybe you or the agnostics you know think that way, but that doesn't make it a definition of agnosticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought thatpeople who call themselves agnostic use it as a cop out. Too chicken shit to just not believe in god, like they want to give themselves an out just in case. I mean, if you're getting all philosophical, we should all technically be agnostic about everything... like whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or summer will come, but c'mon...

THAT is a cop out. Comparing what we know about the solar system, vs whether there's some kind of "god" out there?

Science starts with good questions and with awareness of the limits of one's knowledge, you know?

Some may be copping out - it's also likely that they are on a point in a journey that may or may not lead to a stronger sense of where they personally stand. Some people never go through an agnostic stage - religious belief never "takes" or they're not exposed to religion as children, and when they find out about it, it's not appealing. They may have a harder time understanding people who have had different experiences with religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought that people who call themselves agnostic use it as a cop out. Too chicken shit to just not believe in god, like they want to give themselves an out just in case. I mean, if you're getting all philosophical, we should all technically be agnostic about everything... like whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or summer will come, but c'mon...

Well I was not raised with religion and have never been a member of any church, so I'm not sure how this "just in case" would apply to someone who was not raised to fear hell. I don't believe in hell, so I'm clearly not worried about ending up there. I think some of us as agnostic are just more comfortable with ambiguity. And rather than being "chickenshit" we are not afraid to admit what we think: that nobody on this earth can "know" anything about God... in my case because I recognize that God can be a very individualized concept.