What's the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, this is what I thought I have heard, from some of the very Atheists in this forum. In which case it sure sounds like Agnosticism to me.

Yes, but the point is that there is room for overlap. Lack of belief in God can characterize both atheists and agnostics, to some extent.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
That is correct, but only as a consequence of my belief that the gray area of atheism was really agnosticism. I was confusing the overlap for exclusion, but my ideas changed. I made a faulty distinction and I retracted it.

Excellent then, and I do appreciated you saying this. Being able to change our ideas through a forum such as this is a good thing. Being able to say we have is at least as good.

Peace

Fine, but the meanings of words oftentimes evolve from their root meaning. As it stands currently in the English language, both definitions of atheism are valid.

Ok, to turn the topic now to the agnostic/atheist angle;
I have laid out my view as best I can as to the difference. If the meanings of words can be changed than I would argue that it is time to change the meaning of atheism away from the concept of a belief system. I consider this post my own personal and insignificant attempt to do exactly that.
I like how the author describes things at the following site;

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_strongweak.htm

LOL, woo funny haha!

I failed to include it because I didn't scroll down, not because I was being biased. The point is that the definition of atheism as being denial of God in addition to being lack of belief in God is listed in numerous dictionaries, so we can't say that it isn't an equally valid definition (without reference to a specific context of course).

Teehehe, I’m glad you could see the jab. I would not have mentioned it except that because you have persisted so strongly that I began to suspect you may actually have down it on purpose, or would have done it on purpose had you scrolled down. I will accept now that it was not intentionally done merely to present but one definition.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, this is what I thought I have heard, from some of the very Atheists in this forum. In which case it sure sounds like Agnosticism to me.

Iacchus,
I think you could benenfit from reading the link I posted above. It isn't too long, in case you're interested.

 

[Zero]

I like your link, BH...I considermyself a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist when it comes to the specific claims of major religions. Does that make sense?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
From Merriam-Webster:
"One who denies the existence of God"?? First off, the definition assumes the existence of a diety, and secondly, it apparently assumes the existence of the Christian mythological figure. As a definition, it begins on the wrong foot.

When I 'deny the existence of Santa Claus', it doesn't mean it assumes the existence of Santa Claus.

I think you're picking nit's here.

There are two types of atheists, those that simply lack a belief in god(s) and those that have the positive belief that there is no god(s). Denying the existence of God(s) is synonymous with the second.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Iacchus,
I think you could benenfit from reading the link I posted above. It isn't too long, in case you're interested.

Okay, I checked it out. It sounds like what they're saying is the Agnostic is none other than the "weak Atheist."

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, I checked it out. It sounds like what they're saying is the Agnostic is none other than the "weak Atheist."

Personally, I'm not a fan of those definitions, but in general agnostic is used, popularly, to mean "a person that has no belief in god's existence or non-existence", though the dictionary and coined (by T.H. Huxley) meaning is more specific to meaning "one that believes knowledge of gods existence or non-existence is impossible".

Though a subtle difference, the second says nothing about the person's actual belief in god. My father is both an agnostic and a theist - he believes in god, but realizes there is no way to know if god truly exists. I, on the other hand, would be an agnostic atheist, since I hold no belief in god and believe there is no way to know if god truly exists. I can also see where a person could believe there is no god (strong atheist) and still be an agnostic.

 

[FZ+]

Would an Agnostic accept it first or, is the criteria pretty much the same as that which an Atheist would accept?

Note what I am saying. The distinction does lie there. Rather, one way of distinguishing agnostics from atheists is that the agnostic maintains that even if God exists, he must by definition by unknowable. There can be no evidence pointing it out, as part of the nature of belief in God. This is, in a way playing on the idea of "faith" in religion. Agnostics often can maintain that faith forms the core of religion, and so if "god" is proven by evidence, that isn't god. And by the same coin, god cannot ever be disproven either. As radagast saying, it can be possible to be an agnostic theist - one who believes in god, but regards this as faith in the unknowable. Though this is rare.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Being as I am the knower of all knowable things, I will clear things up.

OK, seriously, though, this is what the two words mean, regardless of what they are popularly believed to mean:
------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist - a person without a belief in a theology

Agnostic - one who believes that we cannot have knowledge of god(s)
------------------------------------------------------------

Let's go back to the definition of atheism. Not having a belief that something is true is NOT the same believing that something is false. If you look at the word parts, the 'a' prefix means "without", not against. "Anti" means against. This definition actually encompasses both the "strong atheists" (anti-theists) and the "weak atheists" (fence-sitters). Believing that something is false is a subset of not believing that something is true, as not believing that something is true is composed of two possibilities, (A) believing that it is false, and (B) being not decided.

As for agnostic, notice that the definition does not say anything about belief or disbelief in god(s). Rather, it talks about a belief regarding whether we can have knowledge of god(s). An agnostic believes that we cannot know. It is a belief about the human condition, rather than about deities.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Zero
I like your link, BH...I considermyself a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist when it comes to the specific claims of major religions. Does that make sense?

Yes it does, and this is how I am too. It reminds me of an old quote I haven't used in awhile;

The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-- Annie Besant

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes it does, and this is how I am too. It reminds me of an old quote I haven't used in awhile;

The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-- Annie Besant

Well it still sounds like you're open to the possiblity, just not "anybody's" possibility. Which sounds reasonable, if what it means is resisting someone ramming it down your throat.