LINK Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism
From The Article:
Key Takeaways: Atheism and Agnosticism
Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe.
An atheist doesn't believe in any gods.
Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.
An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.
It is common for people to be both agnostics and atheists or agnostics and theists.No matter what their reasons or how they approach the question, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but also non-exclusive. Many people who adopt the label of agnostic simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them.
In addition, there's a common misconception that agnosticism is somehow a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid argument because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and even the nature of belief itself.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I just like to think of myself as normal.
I know the majority of the world population believe in magic and that the reason for existence itself is... well... them. Which gives them the position of average.
But, within this context, privately I label anyone who is not part of that narcissistic weirdness; normal.
MLinoge
Level 7
Apr 5, 2019
2
@traceyanarchist I blocked the troll. I won't be seeing anything of him!
To block him go to his profile page, the block button is in the right hand column.
He is the only person I have blocked on this site, I'm always open to debate, but it's a waste of time replying to an idiot him.
Antifred and his taco gods....SMH
This is a very good analogy. Even so, the Pentecostals will claim that if you put your arms up in the air while the pastor and others pray for you and wave your arms around like a palm tree, you might get the Holy Goat. 
DenoPenno
Level 9
Apr 5, 2019
2
Do I need a label if I don't believe in a Bigfoot?
StellarAmor75
Level 6
Apr 5, 2019
3
don't agree. i consider myself an atheist b/c i don't believe in a personal god. IOW, there might be superior beings out there but if so they could not care less about what happens to us, if they even know we exist.
callmedubious
Level 8
Apr 5, 2019
1
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. (emphasis added)
[en.oxforddictionaries.com]
bingst
Level 8
Apr 4, 2019
1
i cannot prove for sure that my sidewalk isn't purple. you can look at it and say it definitely isn't purple, but i could counter by saying it was a shade of purple only i could see, and really mean it. i have the kind of certainty about there being no gods that i do about my immediate environment, and even without scientific proof i can be that sure, because the whole idea of there being a god or gods is so ridiculous and unproven and unprovable, just as is the tooth fairy, or leprechauns. i don't feel the least bit compelled to say i don't know whether there are any gods. i am THAT sure. (and no, that's not arrogance. that's rationality.)
g
genessa
Level 8
Apr 4, 2019
4
Yup
And yet even if there was a god I still wouldn’t care ?
I totally agree
If you are THAT sure, proof or showing that there is no god should be a snap for you....
Agnostics aren't saying "i don't know whether there are any gods." It is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of a god or gods..
@zblaze why would my sureness make proof a snap? and why, after all, do i NEED to prove anything to anyone? i'm not a proselyte. i don't care who believes what. i am not out to convince anyone there is no god. meanwhile, i never said agnostics were not sure. i am not the one who said that. i only spoke about my own atheism and did not characterize agnostics one bit.
g
@genessa My apologies, I thought that you were talking about Agnosticism, because many folks think that is a position of not being sure.....My bad.
I guess your sureness doesn't arrive from knowledge, but from like you said 'i can be that sure, because the whole idea of there being a god or gods is so ridiculous and unproven and unprovable,'
That is close to what an agnostic says, except it is unknown and unknowable instead of unproven and not provable. Thanks for your input.♥
@zblaze it doesn't arrive from knowledge that there is no god but it does arrive from knowledge about how the world does and doesn't work. for example, if you know how rain happens, you don't have to prove that rain doesn't come from a big cat peeing in the sky, right? i can't prove there is no big cat peeing in the sky, but i know where rain DOES come from. so yeah, it does arrive from knowledge.
g
<-- Atheist since age 13. I don't believe in an invisible being that resides somewhere beyond the clouds.
To me, "agnostic" means you are unsure if there is a god. This leaves you open to debate. No, thanks.
LiterateHiker
Level 9
Apr 4, 2019
3
It's not open to debate. I'm agnostic and almost certainly always will be. I'LL NEVER KNOW. PERIOD. No debate.
I can live with that. As far as I'm concerned, it's a mystery and always will be a mystery.
When I was younger, I called myself "agnostic" because is seemed softer and more palatable than the hard-nosed "atheist."
Through dating websites, two Christians met to try to convert me.
"Martin Luther said there are no atheists," one man said triumphantly, as if that settled the matter.
"I don't care what a Catholic monk said over 400 years ago!" I replied and laughed. "Thanks for lunch. I'm leaving."
So, I switched back to calling myself atheist.
@LiterateHiker To me there's a big difference between rhe two, but at the same time it's irrelevant! The similarity is the important thing; no hell and when we die the truth will be evident.
@Storm1752 and LiterateHiker I don't think that definition or meaning of Agnostic is held by the "majority" of the folks on this site. I sure hope not, after all the name of the site is agnostic.com.
It sounds to me like both of you are Gnostic Atheists. You know there are no gods, and don't believe in gods. Talk about opening yourself up to a debate.
You either know about the nonexistence of gods, or you don't. There is nothing wrong with not knowing.
FTA: Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. It was originally coined to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. It was not meant to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.
Yet, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which logically excludes "I believe." [Or "I don't believe"]
There's no need to 'switch back' just be both, an Agnostic Atheist. If not, be prepared to show where your certainty about, and knowledge of a negative claim comes from.
Definitions from Dictionary.com:
Atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic
-
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
-
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
-
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
@LiterateHiker Wow, I like that one least of all. It's no wonder there are so many mixed up people, what with all of these different definitions for the same word.
Denial of a claim is so much different than the disbelief of one.
#3 on Agnostic is what makes the title so wishy washy, and makes it sound like it is a middle ground between Theism and Atheism. Which it is not, IMO. I can see why some folks may take it as that.
There are Agnostics that are undecided as to believe or not believe, for some reason or another. My agnosticism/not knowing/thinking that knowledge of a god is not possible, is the very reason I am an Atheist.
This is how I use these words, but people are going to continue using their different, but equally valid uses.
indirect76
Level 7
Apr 4, 2019
1
Also from The Article; Agnostic Atheist Vs. Agnostic Theist
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any gods while an agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one god. However, both do not make the claim to have the knowledge to back up this belief. Fundamentally, there is still some question and that is why they're agnostic.
This seems contradictory and difficult, but it's actually quite easy and logical. Whether one believes or not, they can also be comfortable in not claiming to know for sure that it's either true or false. It occurs in many different topics as well because belief is not the same as direct knowledge.
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes clear that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god does not exhaust all of the possibilities.
Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. It was originally coined to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. It was not meant to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.
Yet, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which logically excludes "I believe."
On the contrary, not only are knowledge and belief compatible, but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept that some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify it as knowledge. Being a juror in a murder trial is a good parallel to this contradiction.
zblaze
Level 7
Apr 4, 2019
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.