Atheism vs Agnosticism
 

This thread is long overdue in my opinion.

Even among the more intelligent people in society there is a misconception about what atheism is, what agnosticism is, and what the differences between the two are. People often think about the issue as a religiosity spectrum -- atheists and theists are diametrically opposite, while agnosticism is considered to be a moderate stance somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, an atheist is often considered one who obstinately disbelieves in God. These are both particularly vexatious fallacies.

Theism deals with belief whereas gnosticism, in this context, deals with an epistemic question. These are two entirely different spheres of thought, and are not mutually exclusive. That is the central thesis of this post.

The theist believes in the claim that God exists. The atheist does not believe it. Note that no claims of knowledge have been specified. Also note, that though an atheist does not share the theist's beliefs, this does not mean he believes in the idea that God does not exist. He may very well choose to do so, but this is not a prerequisite for atheism. An atheist is literally "one without theism." Not believing in an idea is not the same thing as rejecting in an idea. It may seem that I am getting agitated over petty semantics, however such implicit fallacies are often insidiously manipulated.

Another way to put this is there are two possible claims about the existence of God:

1. God does exist.
2. God does not exists.

Also, in the context of belief, there are two possible positions to take on each of the claims above:

1. Believing the claim.
2. Not believing the claim.

A theist is one who believes in claim 1 and does not believe in claim 2. An atheist is one who does not believe in claim 1, but can take either position on claim 2.

We can look at gnosticism in a similar way. A gnostic claims absolute knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of God, whereas an agnostic does not claim such knowledge. It is my opinion anyone who claims gnosticism to such an issue is either lying or deluded. However, the lack of absolute knowledge, or perhaps even the inability to ascertain this knowledge, should not prevent scrutiny of unjustifiable beliefs.

It should now be clear that knowledge and belief are distinct from one another, ergo the terms associated with each are not mutually exclusive. We can now describe people using four phrases in respect to their ideas about God: agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists. In my experience, I have never met a truly gnostic atheist.

My speculation on why the initial misconception exists will be the subject of another post.

A few of my friends like having the argument of "Atheist vs. Anti-theist". Some say that the correct term is "atheist", whilst others think it should be "Anti-theist". The fun they have leaving each other long-winded comments on Facebook. :rolleyes:

What I'm asking is what's your view? "Atheist" or "Anti-theist", and is there in fact a difference between the two?

Borh, Lenny.

Any chance I could request you to move this to Gen.? I didn't really mean it as an opinion or debate. No idea why I put it here.

You should bring your friends to the site. I would say there is a difference between the two. An atheist does not believe the statement that "god exists" and can either believe or not believe the statement that "god does not exist." An anti-theist is one who does not believe the statement that "god exists" strictly believes the statement "god does not exist." I guess an anti-theist can also be one who sees something extremely wrong with theism, where an atheist does not have to do this. By both definitions, I would say I am both an agnostic atheist and an agnostic anti-theist.

So MJ, I've got a question to ask you.

Now consider this, A horse, a cow, and a Deer all eat grass, correct? - Now; A deer excretes little pellets, a cow excretes out flat patties, and of course a horse produces nasty clumps of dry grass.. Why would you suppose that is?

I assume this has a point, possibly derogatory, related to this post? What is that point?

Do you really feel qualified......... to discuss Atheism vs Agnosticism when you don't know shit




No but really, I will have to agree with you on this.. as it clearly makes the most sense.

gaytheism vs. gagnosticism vs. pisstianity

Just like how star can refer to a giant ball of burning gas or a really popular/well know person all of these words have multiple definitions.
That people almost always use them without enough accompanying information to establish which they are using can be quite irritating but this doesn't automatically default them to the most common definition.

It's like when a tacher asks her class if humans are animals. By one definition human qualities are exactly what makes them not-animals but by another they are most certainly animals as they are large motile organisms that don't photosynthesize and yadda yadda yadda. The teacher might be a decent person and give the students a little debreifing about how English works and why none of the answers were technically wrong for any reason other than that they assumed they knew what meaning she had for animal, or they may just elave it to the students to figure out even though they won't but will go on pissed off at each other until something else comes along to polarize them.


So in the end if you don't supply this information or enough context to make it clear that these definitions are the ones in use then it is your fault if anyone comes along trying to make things fit into their prefered definitions. And besides, with a quality so varied as "thoughts about the nature of God" you really shouldn't expect to be given one word that perfectly sums up your views in the first place. Sorry pal, aint that easy.

Either way it doesn't matter. According to the major occupied religions, you go to "Hell" either way. What seems most logical to me are Norse religions and polytheistic religions like the ones Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians studied. Those seem to make the most sense to me, scientifically, as well. I think it'd be impossible for one god to create the universe.

What, exactly, makes you think that?

Just something I believe in.. just like how monotheists believe that those gods would be false gods.

My God is said that as long as you're nice you go the heaven...

Also, it's only impossible for one person to create the universe. Not one God. That's what makes them a God.;)

Just curious, what is your religion? I don't think I know of any organized religion that believes that being nice is the only thing that you have to do to go to Heaven.

It's not a Religion, simply a love.
I believe in a God of understanding, not a God of rulers and punishment.

i consider atheist as simply choosing not to believe in any "god" whereas agnostic is not believing due to lack of proof that such a thing exists.