Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[WhiteTiger225]

Agnostic: Does it really matter?

That sums me up. Even if God was proven and did show up, it doesn't mean I should worship him. If I was created just to carry out someone else's wishes then what's the point in being alive at all?

Not to mention.. if christians, catholics.. or jews are right... We were made by the biggest asshole in existence that makes hitler look like a puss.

"Hey! I am going to create a race of things called humans! Then I am going to make them have different color skins despite KNOWING this will cause tension, oppression, violence, and murder throughout humanity. THEN I am going to put a tree near them and tell them not to eat from it, but I am also going to make them very curious and gullible and let an asshole that got tired of my rule last time destroy the lives of humans for thousands of years before I send my son down and let them murder him so that I can actually start forgiving them!"

 

[loremazd]

The hardcore atheist is just the parallel to the religious nut. Since both claim to know with certainty something with no evidence.

Very insightful. I'm an agnostic and sometimes I feel like my way of thinking is a cop out to avoid an argument, but I do agree with this statement about followers of religion and athiests. I don't think you should call them religious nuts though, unless you're also going to call athiest's evolutionary nuts, since it esentially is just two different schools of thought.

Some would consider agnostics to be fence-sitters. Both sides are after these people. I would argue you are ASKING for an argument, not avoiding one.

I guess looking at it that way I am.

I don't mean to though.

The beauty of our society, though, is that you can just tell someone to "fuck off", and then walk away.

yeah, it is.

It is the lack thereof. I love trolls.

I actually think on a fundamental level atheism is becoming something of a dogmatic organisation. Maybe not so much as the church, but it does have it's leaders and followers and is clashing with others.

 

[Klepa]

If you've ever read the Discworld books, there are atheists in that world. I think they're atheists because they hate the gods, rather than not believing in them. I might be wrong though. Who knows more about the Discworld than I do?

I don't think that would technicly be an atheist, but I'm not sure. I'd see that there's a massive difference between the two, as the "atheists" you describe, still acknowledge a god's existence. I don't know what the word for that would be, so I'm going to make one up now. Theistic Nihilism.

edit
Ah well I got ninja'd by someone who actually knows his business. I liked my version better though.
/edit

I guess I'm pretty much anti-theist, but I can't be bothered to make a fuss out of it.

 

[Kiefer13]

Atheism and Agnosticism are two different things, dealing with faith and knowledge respectively.

Theist: I believe there is a God.
Atheist: I believe there is no God.
Gnostic: I know there is a God.
Agnostic: I don't know if there is a God.
Gnostic theist: I know there is a God and I believe in him.
Gnostic atheist: I know there is a God, but I don't believe in him.
Agnostic theist: I don't know if there is a God, but I think there is.
Agnostic atheist: I don't know if there is a God, But I don't think so.

Correct, except from Gnostic Atheist, which should be "I know there is not a God, and I don't believe there is."

 

[krement]

Most people in here are way off, Wikipedia educated no doubt.

Atheist is a word much like Amoral, the A being a prefix akin to the word anti. So Atheism, while modern definitions vary, simply means against theism. Theism being religious means that this title does not exclude deists or even many agnostics.

Atheist is one of many labels a free thinker can wear, and does not make one an extremist or a nut.

 

[molesgallus]

There is a common misconception that an agnostic is somewhere in the middle ground between god, and no god. In reality, there is no middle ground. An agnostic is simply someone who is undecided about the true nature of the universe. This makes almost all atheists agnostic. Since atheism is simply the rejection of certain deity; it is possible to be an atheist, and agnostic. But, it is not possible to be theist, and agnostic.

 

[loremazd]

I think the difference between Atheist and Anti-theist are more poignant. Athiests in general are like most christians in that they basically take on a live and let live philosophy. Anti-theists in general cannot fathom anyone thinking differently from them and are on some kinda of "intellectual" crusade by quoting Dawkins rather than discussing things respectfully. In general, they're the equivalent of the funeral picketing moron fundamentalist.

1) I never quote Dawkins
2) I disapprove of me being compared to a Westboro Baptist church member. I am an anti-theist because of groups like the Westboro church. They are proof that religion is inherently harmful and detrimental to society.

snip

I actually think on a fundamental level atheism is becoming something of a dogmatic organisation. Maybe not so much as the church, but it does have it's leaders and followers and is clashing with others.

Atheists are not united by anything other than a lack of belief. There are the "simply atheists", who are not identifiable with anything, then there are "campaigners", who do not have leaders, but rather more famous individuals who debate more than others.

Religion isn't what causes conflict, rather the belief and action taken to attempt to conform society to ones beliefs. You contribute to that problem by attacking differences. I believe that a varied and complex human society helps us grow and learn to accept one another as individuals.

 

[mobsterlobster]

If you've ever read the Discworld books, there are atheists in that world. I think they're atheists because they hate the gods, rather than not believing in them. I might be wrong though. Who knows more about the Discworld than I do?

I don't think that would technicly be an atheist, but I'm not sure. I'd see that there's a massive difference between the two, as the "atheists" you describe, still acknowledge a god's existence. I don't know what the word for that would be, so I'm going to make one up now. Theistic Nihilism.

I'm pretty much anti-theist, but I can't be bothered to make a fuss out of it.

Yeah I wouldn't call them atheists either. But in the Discworld universe, knowing something exists isn't the same as believing in it. I suppose you have to read the books to understand. I can't explain it nearly as well as Terry Pratchett can.

I don't like to make too much of a fuss about it. But when religious people are discriminating against other people, such as gays, then that's just wrong. If they wanna be gay, let them get married and do what they want. Don't change the laws to inconvenience them. What's the point, really?

 

[FoolKiller]

Believer: Thinks God/Gods exist,
Atheist: Thinks God/Gods don't exist.
Agnostic: Does it really matter?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Although in my opinion the atheist ranks lower than the believer because many atheists seems to bash religions for blind belief while not realizing that atheism is in its own way a religion.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Using you Marvel/Vertigo example: 'Gods' are probably commonplace enough to be viewed as just another species.

 

[Unsterblich856]

ITT: Apatheism is suddenly agnosticism.

yeah, it is.

Either you're a retard or a troll. When it comes to the subject of religion, it is next to impossible to differentiate.

 

[Korolev]

They are pretty much the same thing

An atheist is anyone who is NOT a theist. A theist is someone who believes wholeheartedly in the existence of a god. Anyone who does not share that belief is automatically NOT a theist, and is, therefore, an atheist.

An agnostic is merely a different KIND of atheist. An agnostic says that there is no evidence for against the existence of "a" god. Therefore, an agnostic does not believe in a god, and is, therefore, an atheist. All agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics.

And Souplex - atheists do not worship ANY god. We have no evidence that such a being exists. We do not worship gods, devils, fairies, spirits or any of that supernatural stuff. If there is no hard evidence for something, it remains, at best, a hypothesis.

Atheists and agnostics also do not have faith. We do not accept something as being true just because its old and we were bought up to believe it. Emotions do not determine our beliefs. Just because it would be NICE for a god to exist, does not mean that one does - our personal wishes (personally, I would LOVE for there to be a god and an afterlife, who the heck wouldn't want there to be an eternal ticket to paradise and an all-powerful friend?) do not influence what we believe in.

We are no satanists, we are not all liberals, we are not child-eaters. We merely do not accept the existence of any god to be 100% true, because, as far as we can tell, there is no evidence for a god.

And no, "We're here aren't we" is not an argument for the existence of a god. If you say that the universe must have been created by a god, I would respond, "well, then what created god?". Theists usually reply "he didn't have to be created, he's GOD", which is a lame argument from definition (a logical fallacy). If you can say "well God didn't need a creator" then I'm going to say "well, maybe the universe didn't need one either".

 

[IronDuke]

As the old joke goes:

Teacher: "Jeffery, what's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?"
Jeffery: "I don't know, and I don't care."

Hahaha, that is brilliant, and so true.

 

[chronobreak]

I am attacking religion.

Before this goes down the wrong road, I would just like to say we are all human and all entitled to our own different beliefs, and we should all have the mutual respect for one another to not pigeon-hole anyone in groups, or sterotype any kind of groups. Not all Atheists are out to crush your beliefs, and not all Christians are on a crusade to convert you to their faith. It makes no sense to attack a person's set of beliefs, rather, if you are going to go after somebody for something, it should be the logical holes in their arguments. I do not want to see this discussion go down the winding road of religion/anti-religion, as the majority of these types of threads do.

 

[Lordpils]

I am attacking religion.

Before this goes down the wrong road, I would just like to say we are all human and all entitled to our own different beliefs, and we should all have the mutual respect for one another to not pigeon-hole anyone in groups, or sterotype any kind of groups. Not all Atheists are out to crush your beliefs, and not all Christians are on a crusade to convert you to their faith. It makes no sense to attack a person's set of beliefs, rather, if you are going to go after somebody for something, it should be the logical holes in their arguments. I do not want to see this discussion go down the winding road of religion/anti-religion, as the majority of these types of threads do.

These threads are driving me so insane that I'm... Batman.

 

[heyheysg]

One thing I don't understand is how can not believing in something be termed as fantaticism?

Every person in the world doesn't believe in an infinite number of things all the time.

1) Every religious person disbeliefs the thousands of other religions/gods instantly
2) Take every book every written, claim that somewhere in this universe, that world exists on a planet or universe somewhere, now you have to believe that ALL of these books are exactly true.
3) Think about an animal, an object and a name of a place. Right now in the deep Amazon, there is a Zebra with a nose like a golf club that can only say Dakota over and over again, like a pokemon.

Are people who disbelieve these fanantics?

 

[ottenni]

This is all irrelevant. When you get down to it all that matters is the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. All hail his noodle appendage!

 

[Lordpils]

I am attacking religion.

Before this goes down the wrong road, I would just like to say we are all human and all entitled to our own different beliefs, and we should all have the mutual respect for one another to not pigeon-hole anyone in groups, or stereotype any kind of groups. Not all Atheists are out to crush your beliefs, and not all Christians are on a crusade to convert you to their faith. It makes no sense to attack a person's set of beliefs, rather, if you are going to go after somebody for something, it should be the logical holes in their arguments. I do not want to see this discussion go down the winding road of religion/anti-religion, as the majority of these types of threads do.

Yes, and I had already asked that it wasn't taken any further. I realize not every religulous-type is crazy, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that religion is responsible for a shit-ton of the things wrong in the world today.

Then please allow me to fix your self-descriptions.

No more calling yourself anti-theist.
These make more sense: Anti-dogma, anti-fundamentalism or you can say what I say "I am against those who cannot modernize their beliefs."

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think the difference between Atheist and Anti-theist are more poignant. Athiests in general are like most christians in that they basically take on a live and let live philosophy. Anti-theists in general cannot fathom anyone thinking differently from them and are on some kinda of "intellectual" crusade by quoting Dawkins rather than discussing things respectfully. In general, they're the equivalent of the funeral picketing moron fundamentalist.

1) I never quote Dawkins
2) I disapprove of me being compared to a Westboro Baptist church member. I am an anti-theist because of groups like the Westboro church. They are proof that religion is inherently harmful and detrimental to society.

snip

I actually think on a fundamental level atheism is becoming something of a dogmatic organisation. Maybe not so much as the church, but it does have it's leaders and followers and is clashing with others.

Atheists are not united by anything other than a lack of belief. There are the "simply atheists", who are not identifiable with anything, then there are "campaigners", who do not have leaders, but rather more famous individuals who debate more than others.

I beg to differ. Westboro is proof that anything carried to an extreme can be harmful to society. The free exchange of ideas between people who are having a conversation, not an argument, is key to a good society. Westboro is having an argument, and losing.