Difference between agnostic and atheist?

[Eldora]

I was wondering, what is the difference between someone who is agnostic and an atheist?

I currently don't know what to call myself. I do not believe in 'God' in the Christian sense whatsoever. However, I do believe there's something out there, and that there is life after death... Just that I can never really know for sure what it is that is that's there.

What would this be called? I'm not really sure whether it falls under the category of 'agnostic'. I'm certain it's not 'atheist'. Maybe it's just 'undefined', haha.

[Le bonheur*]

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God and Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God.

[QuantumModulus]

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the belief in the non-existence of, supernatural beings and gods. An agnostic is someone who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not such beings actually exist, and subsequently takes no affirmative stance -- automatically falling into the category of an atheist; lacking belief. Far too many people are under the false impression that atheism is directly equal to the rejection of gods, or the assertion that no gods exist. Most atheists simply lack belief due to insufficient affirmative evidence in the favor of religion.

Penn sums it up nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the belief in the non-existence of, supernatural beings and gods. An agnostic is someone who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not such beings actually exist, and subsequently takes no affirmative stance -- automatically falling into the category of an atheist; lacking belief. Far too many people are under the false impression that atheism is directly equal to the rejection of gods, or the assertion that no gods exist. Most atheists simply lack belief due to insufficient affirmative evidence in the favor of religion.

Penn sums it up nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo

At the risk of setting off a major powder-keg, I'm not sure I agree with Penn or that distinction. The reason for this is twofold; one, the atheists I have come across have expressed far stronger views on the subject of the existence or otherwise of God than would be accounted for by simply lacking belief, and two, it's flawed linguistically. The Greek basis for the word atheism, ἄθεος ("atheos"), translates as negation or absence of God based on the use of the privative a - or more simply, "without God" - and likewise the French word athée was used to denote someone who expressed disbelief in God. As such, I would say that means more than merely lacking a belief in God, as both Penn and Sam Harris have argued (and neither of which I find convincing for the above reason), and counter that their appropriations of the term are in fact misleading. If someone wishes to define themselves as lacking belief, agnostic is more accurate as ἄγνῶσις ("agnosis") translates as the negation of absence of knowledge, or "without knowledge", which when applied to a religious context makes more sense. I suspect some of the efforts to rebrand atheism as per Penn and Harris are as a response to the negative stigma, particularly in the USA, which appears to have accrued towards atheists, a stigma which I find as distasteful as I would for any other group.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by dr2005

At the risk of setting off a major powder-keg, I'm not sure I agree with Penn or that distinction. The reason for this is twofold; one, the atheists I have come across have expressed far stronger views on the subject of the existence or otherwise of God than would be accounted for by simply lacking belief, and two, it's flawed linguistically. The Greek basis for the word atheism, ἄθεος ("atheos"), translates as negation or absence of God based on the use of the privative a - or more simply, "without God"

How is "without God" any different than "lacking God"? I fail to see the distinction which leads to your saying that atheism "means more than merely lacking a belief in God"; as far as I can tell, our definitions are in agreement.

Originally Posted by dr2005

If someone wishes to define themselves as lacking belief, agnostic is more accurate as ἄγνῶσις ("agnosis") translates as the negation of absence of knowledge, or "without knowledge", which when applied to a religious context makes more sense.

Atheism and theism address the question "Do you hold the belief that a God exists?", while agnosticism addresses the question of "Do you believe it is possible to know whether or not a God exists?" Belief and knowledge are independent, although it is common for someone to believe that they know. Most of my atheist acquaintances (myself included) say that we lack a belief in God not because we believe that he does not exist, but that we haven't been given sufficient evidence to persuade us in a particular direction. We lack belief. Atheism is a null position based on belief -- and it is independent from agnosticism, the epistemological label.

[Xujhan]

I think Jorge and Dave have demonstrated precisely why this is such an aggravating question to answer. There are essentially two schools of thought as to what the words should mean, and each side pretty resolutely refuses to listen to the other.

Personally, I agree with Jorge said, and my reasoning is this: the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists that I have met - and that I have ever heard of - are not atheists by Dave's definition. The ardent belief that we can know for a fact that there are no divine or supernatural beings of any kind anywhere in this universe or any other is hard to support either scientifically or philosophically, and correspondingly hardly anyone holds such a viewpoint.

I am without gods, so I call myself an atheist. I also don't pretend to know for a fact that there are no gods, so I call myself an agnostic. Hence, I'm an agnostic atheist. Since I've found that the majority of self-proclaimed atheists hold this view, my rebuttal to anyone making Dave's argument boils down to this: "This is what we believe, and we call ourselves atheists. Deal with it."

Now, for yourself, the unfortunate truth is that whatever you decide to call yourself, there are people who will either unintentionally or deliberately misunderstand you and take the wrong meaning. The best you can do is ignore it when it doesn't matter, and explain yourself when it does. Ultimately a lebal is precisely that: a means to simplify a complicated idea into a simple commonly-undestaood term. If the label then turns out to not be understood, simply go back to explaining the idea is represents.

A footnote to Dave: if you object to stigmata against atheists, then you should recognize that by refusing to acknowledge our own self-chosen identities, and insisting that we cannot possibly be what we claim we are, you're contributing to the problem.

[dr2005]

I knew this would happen...

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

How is "without God" any different than "lacking God"? I fail to see the distinction which leads to your saying that atheism "means more than merely lacking a belief in God"; as far as I can tell, our definitions are in agreement.

I fear you have missed my point - atheism in both of those senses makes reference to more than the individual's possession of belief in a God or Gods. It addresses the very existence of such a God or Gods in the world and Universe as a whole - if it did not, it would not jar against theism in such a fundamental manner as it does. It would instead be confined to clashes in culture, lifestyle and so on. The fact that it does jar in that manner, and that much of the debate consists not only to objections to arguments given for the existence of a God or Gods but also of positive arguments against the existence of a God or Gods points less to an absence of belief and more to the existence of a position of positive refutation. That is not accounted for properly by positioning atheism in terms of purely lacking belief or as the null position, which leads onto the next point:

Originally Posted by QuantumModulus

Atheism and theism address the question "Do you hold the belief that a God exists?", while agnosticism addresses the question of "Do you believe it is possible to know whether or not a God exists?" Belief and knowledge are independent, although it is common for someone to believe that they know. Most of my atheist acquaintances (myself included) say that we lack a belief in God not because we believe that he does not exist, but that we haven't been given sufficient evidence to persuade us in a particular direction. We lack belief. Atheism is a null position based on belief -- and it is independent from agnosticism, the epistemological label.

The claim that atheism is a null position is an argument I have seen many times, and it's still false however often it is used. The null position in any debate is one of "don't know", and atheism and theism in assuming the "yes" and "no" aspects of the debate carry inherent value judgements and therefore cannot be the null position. Simple logic. Again, this comes across as an attempt to recast atheism as something other than what it is to make it seem more palatable, which I feel is unnecessary or at least should be. Likewise, referring to agnostic in its epistemological context is misleading, given that we are not talking about theories of knowledge - the term is being used in the context of the God debate and so that qualifier should be applied to the concept of "knowledge" being employed. In that context, agnosticism occupies the middle ground between strongly-held atheism and strongly-held theism, with various positions along that spectrum. Pitting atheism and theism as the only available positions - leaving aside gradients of knowledge - is an incredibly black-and-white way of viewing a topic which in my experience is anything but, and so isn't very realistic.

Finally, if agnosticism is independent from atheism as you say in your last sentence, why did you claim earlier that an agnostic is "automatically falling into the category of an atheist"? That's an inherent contradiction.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I think Jorge and Dave have demonstrated precisely why this is such an aggravating question to answer. There are essentially two schools of thought as to what the words should mean, and each side pretty resolutely refuses to listen to the other.

I'm perfectly happen to listen, thank you - I just reserve the right to disagree if I have a good reason to.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Personally, I agree with Jorge said, and my reasoning is this: the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists that I have met - and that I have ever heard of - are not atheists by Dave's definition. The ardent belief that we can know for a fact that there are no divine or supernatural beings of any kind anywhere in this universe or any other is hard to support either scientifically or philosophically, and correspondingly hardly anyone holds such a viewpoint.

Now hold on a minute - where did I say anything about "ardent belief"? All I was angling towards was the position that an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God or Gods, as opposed to not holding a position either way. The level of ardour to which they hold it doesn't come into the equation in my book, any more than you would attempt to claim that I am not a Christian simply because I'm not standing on a street corner bashing people with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I am without gods, so I call myself an atheist. I also don't pretend to know for a fact that there are no gods, so I call myself an agnostic. Hence, I'm an agnostic atheist. Since I've found that the majority of self-proclaimed atheists hold this view, my rebuttal to anyone making Dave's argument boils down to this: "This is what we believe, and we call ourselves atheists. Deal with it."

Ironically, you have demonstrated my point perfectly - by referring to yourself as both an atheist and an agnostic, you have affirmed the fact that the two terms have separate meanings. Otherwise, it's pointless duplication. That was the root of my objection to Jorge's claim that agnostics are "automatically falling into the category of an atheist" - which, ultimately, led to my other comments. As to whether it is an epistemological add-in or a position in itself, I have already addressed that so will not duplicate myself.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A footnote to Dave: if you object to stigmata against atheists, then you should recognize that by refusing to acknowledge our own self-chosen identities, and insisting that we cannot possibly be what we claim we are, you're contributing to the problem.

Again, I feel you have misunderstood me - it does not matter one iota to me what someone identifies themselves as or their rationale for it. What does matter to me is clarity of understanding insofar as that identity, because I am a great believer that lack of understanding and fear resulting from it is one of the most dangerous forces in human civilisation. The ideal for me would be for people to feel happy to use a label (should they wish to do so) in its most straightforward manner without having to adapt it to suit the sensibilities of others, because that is the best way of ensuring understanding. Also, on a side note, stigmata are supposedly miraculous wounds mimicking those of Jesus on the cross so while that did make me smile I'm not sure that's quite what you meant there...

[Kate*]

Hey Ana, as others have said, an agnostic person believes that there is no God and an agnostic person isn't sure if there is one or not. I share a lot of your beliefs and I'm not sure what I consider myself either. I usually just say that I've come up with my own belief system and have developed views that I can live by.

[TheNumber42]

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities/Gods.

Agnosticism, colloquially, is a cop out answer for people too afraid to claim that they are atheists due to the stigma associated with it.

In reality, Agnosticism is more of a position on the nature of knowledge than anything explicitly relating to one's religious beliefs. It basically just means that one believes that the truth of a certain claim cannot be either verified or disproved because there is no way one could have enough evidence.

Saying that you are an 'agnostic' when someone asks if you believe in God is not taking any position at all, it's a pointless cop out. You can be either an atheist or a theist and also agnostic, but agnostic on it's own is meaningless.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Now hold on a minute - where did I say anything about "ardent belief"? All I was angling towards was the position that an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God or Gods, as opposed to not holding a position either way. The level of ardour to which they hold it doesn't come into the equation in my book, any more than you would attempt to claim that I am not a Christian simply because I'm not standing on a street corner bashing people with the Bible.

Someone who does not hold a position either way, using your exact words, is someone who does not believe in the existence of gods. If I didn't know you better, what you've written would seem to demonstrate a failure to distinguish between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". To make the point clear and simple, this is the basis for my view (and Jorge's, and almost every other atheist's I've met):

"Do you believe in a god?"

Yes: theist/deist
No: atheist

Essentially everything else is a subcategory of one of those. "I know there are no gods," "I do not believe in any gods for lack of evidence," and "I don't give a shit either way" are all kinds of atheism (gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, and apatheism respectively). These people are all, as you put it "without god".

Originally Posted by dr2005

Ironically, you have demonstrated my point perfectly - by referring to yourself as both an atheist and an agnostic, you have affirmed the fact that the two terms have separate meanings. Otherwise, it's pointless duplication. That was the root of my objection to Jorge's claim that agnostics are "automatically falling into the category of an atheist" - which, ultimately, led to my other comments. As to whether it is an epistemological add-in or a position in itself, I have already addressed that so will not duplicate myself.

This is a simple logic fail. Jorge wasn't claiming that atheism and agnosticism are identical; only (as I read it), that what you're trying to call 'agnosticism' is a subset of atheism. On that point, I largely agree with him, but it's not the focus of my argument. You know full well what I mean by 'atheist' and what I mean by 'agnostic'.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Again, I feel you have misunderstood me - it does not matter one iota to me what someone identifies themselves as or their rationale for it. What does matter to me is clarity of understanding insofar as that identity, because I am a great believer that lack of understanding and fear resulting from it is one of the most dangerous forces in human civilisation. The ideal for me would be for people to feel happy to use a label (should they wish to do so) in its most straightforward manner without having to adapt it to suit the sensibilities of others, because that is the best way of ensuring understanding.

Then let me put it this way: by your definitions, there are almost no atheists in the world, nor are there likely to ever be. Yet there are many, many, many people who call themselves atheists, and that number is more likely to grow than shrink. If you really want to ensure understanding, stop fighting the point and just call us atheists. We know what we mean, you know what we mean (even though you don't acknowledge it), and anyone else with five minutes of education on the subject knows what we mean. Stop making this an issue.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Also, on a side note, stigmata are supposedly miraculous wounds mimicking those of Jesus on the cross so while that did make me smile I'm not sure that's quite what you meant there...

Nope. Stigmata is the correct plural of stigma. Silly Christians, hijacking perfectly good words.

[dancinfool]

You can be either an atheist or a theist and also agnostic, but agnostic on it's own is meaningless

Bit of a sweeping statement don't you think? There are plenty of people out there who count themselves as simply agnostic. Meaning to the question 'Do you believe in God' they answer 'I don't know' and they lie equally in the middle.

Also Fletcher, although I agree that in the main Atheists are those who do not believe in a God but are to some extent agnostic, I would count myself not too far off Dave's definition (just to throw a spanner in the works :P). In every way that it could ever affect my life, I do not believe there is a God. I wouldn't claim to know 100% for certain, just as I believe there are very very few religious people who have never had doubts. But I've effectively made my choice to live my life as if there isn't, so for all intents and purposes I am 'sure'.

[Iridescence]

Atheism is the disbelief of a God or deity and Agnosticism is being in doubt of a deity
but, I'm pretty sure you caught on to that

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dancinfool

Bit of a sweeping statement don't you think? There are plenty of people out there who count themselves as simply agnostic. Meaning to the question 'Do you believe in God' they answer 'I don't know' and they lie equally in the middle.

It's important to distinguish between the questions "Do you believe in god?" and "Do you think there is a god?" Generally speaking, if you answer 'I don't know' to the second question (the agnostic's answer), you'd answer 'no' to the first. It's hard to believe in something you have no knowledge of, after all.

Originally Posted by dancinfool

Also Fletcher, although I agree that in the main Atheists are those who do not believe in a God but are to some extent agnostic, I would count myself not too far off Dave's definition (just to throw a spanner in the works :P). In every way that it could ever affect my life, I do not believe there is a God. I wouldn't claim to know 100% for certain, just as I believe there are very very few religious people who have never had doubts. But I've effectively made my choice to live my life as if there isn't, so for all intents and purposes I am 'sure'.

Oh, I agree with this too. The question of 'anything that could conceivably be considered a god' and the question of a particular human-invented god like Yahweh are completely different and deserve completely different answers. Like you, I'm about as certain that Yahweh doesn't exist as I am that Sauron doesn't exist, which is 'sure' for all intents and purposes. But whether the big bang was started by a sentient being or whether there are Q-like creatures in the universe is something I don't know.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Someone who does not hold a position either way, using your exact words, is someone who does not believe in the existence of gods. If I didn't know you better, what you've written would seem to demonstrate a failure to distinguish between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god".

With respect, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make - that distiction is in fact precisely what I was getting at, and ironically it is one which appears to be missing from your first sentence. Both Jorge and yourself favour a definition of atheism which encompasses both of those positions, and hence makes agnosticism a form of atheism - my objection is that I do not believe that all-encompassing approach stands up to scrutiny. For one, it falls apart completely when confronted with the term "agnostic theism", for hopefully obvious reasons. For another, it appears to confuse agnosticism with practical atheism (or apatheism) when the two terms have clearly defined meanings in literature which overlap, but are not identical. To illustrate the point, my Philosophy teacher was a self-declared agnostic in the sense that he did not know whether or not a god or gods existed, but his outlook on the topic was not one of it being meaningless or irrelevant. He specialised in philosophy of religion, and so the topic had quite a bit of meaning. His position was perhaps best described as weak agnosticism, and much as Richard Dawkins may claim that to be de facto atheism it is a claim my teacher would have disputed utterly. I can cite other examples of people who would fit that description, as well as other agnostics such as Charles Darwin and Robert G. Ingersoll who specifically rejected the term "atheist" in their time. I hope this makes it clearer as to why I feel conflating the two terms is erroneous.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

To make the point clear and simple, this is the basis for my view (and Jorge's, and almost every other atheist's I've met):

"Do you believe in a god?"

Yes: theist/deist
No: atheist

Essentially everything else is a subcategory of one of those. "I know there are no gods," "I do not believe in any gods for lack of evidence," and "I don't give a shit either way" are all kinds of atheism (gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, and apatheism respectively). These people are all, as you put it "without god".

That appears to me to conflate an individual's possession of religious beliefs and their views on the truth value of the statement "There is a god or gods", and again I'm not sure that stands up to scrutiny. It certainly doesn't follow the distinction you yourself refer to above, and so I must admit I find this somewhat confusing. On the one hand, you have expressed the view that I appear unable to distinguish the two; on the other, you use them almost interchangeably. I trust this is more down to me minsunderstanding what you are trying to say, because otherwise contradiction is running throughout your entire opening statement.

Also, I would question your definition of agnostic atheism - my understanding is that it can be surmised as "I do not believe in any gods, but I do not know that they do not exist", which is different to not believing because of lack of evidence and would appear truer to the meaning of the Greek word "agnosis". I recognise there is a lot of room to manoeuvre on the exact distinction between different degrees of atheism so it is not a point I intend to press too heavily, but I am interested as to the rationale for your difference in definition mainly because I have not seen it used like that before.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This is a simple logic fail. Jorge wasn't claiming that atheism and agnosticism are identical; only (as I read it), that what you're trying to call 'agnosticism' is a subset of atheism. On that point, I largely agree with him, but it's not the focus of my argument. You know full well what I mean by 'atheist' and what I mean by 'agnostic'.

I feel I should point out that at no point did I actually say that he argued they were identical, and as such I would advise you read my posts again and refrain from putting words in my mouth, as it were. The only reference to identity in this entire thread is yours. My objection was to his claim that agnostics are "automatically falling into the category of an atheist", and I took great care in referring to it in precisely those terms. As such, my critique should be read in that light.

Also, I do indeed know full well what you mean by "atheist" and "agnostic"; however, my knowledge of that usage does not in itself make it correct. For one, the usage of agnosticism as a subset of atheism falls apart when confronted with the term "agnostic theist" as discussed above, which would suggest it is not as universal a usage as is implied. This is, in effect, my wider point - as stated in my previous post, I have no qualm with how people choose to identify themselves, any more than I have qualms about the colour of their socks (should they be wearing socks, obviously). My point remains, however, that if you adopt a term with a number of possible definitions yet assert one as the "correct" one then you run the risk of being misunderstood and the resultant problems therein.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Then let me put it this way: by your definitions, there are almost no atheists in the world, nor are there likely to ever be. Yet there are many, many, many people who call themselves atheists, and that number is more likely to grow than shrink. If you really want to ensure understanding, stop fighting the point and just call us atheists. We know what we mean, you know what we mean (even though you don't acknowledge it), and anyone else with five minutes of education on the subject knows what we mean. Stop making this an issue.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I object to your claim that I am making this an issue in quite strong terms. If nothing else, I actually said it wasn't an issue as far as I was concered. What is an issue is the fact that you are asserting, without much supporting evidence and a fair amount of contradicting evidence, that your chosen definition is universally correct. I am merely questioning the wisdom of that claim and pointing out that other definitions exist and are commonly used. These are not statements I am concocting out of thin air; they are observations based on my own research into religion and philosophy of religion. Also, your claim that no atheists would exist under my definition is, with respect, utter nonsense - the Encyclopedia Britannica undertook a survey in mid-2005 with precisely the distinction I was alluding to, and still found atheists. The mere fact that it is a less inclusive definition than your preferred one does not make it wrong.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nope. Stigmata is the correct plural of stigma. Silly Christians, hijacking perfectly good words.

Bugger. My bad. I knew I was due for a slip-up like that sooner or later, given how much of a pedant I can be at times. That's life for you.

As this discourse, while interesting, is not really addressing the OP, I would advise that we draw it to a conclusion of some sort soon, even if that is just to agree to disagree.

[Kitty]

Agnostic- there may be something but we can't be sure
Atheist - no divine creator

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

Agnostic: believes in the possibility of there being something greater than ourselves out there
Atheist: believes in no God

[Gymnophoria]

I think the question of the difference between Agnostic and Atheist has been well and truly answered.
As such, I'm going to close this thread to avoid more repetitive replies. Check out this link for more information on the subject.

Ana, feel free to PM me if you want your thread reopened.