Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Atheist: There is no God, or gods. The notion is a preposterous way of controlling people. It has no scientific basis. Based in primitive voodoo idiocy.

Agnostic: I don't believe in any one religion. If there is a god with so much power at their disposal what makes you think you could possibly ever interpret their will, much less even register as more than a blip on their radar? There is possibly a god so complex and powerful that little pukes like us won't ever really get it at all.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

For practical purposes I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or any other gods or supernatural beings. That's very simple.
However that is indeed the simple explanation. In order to be intellectually and scientifically honest I must leave room for the posssible existence of a deity. By that I mean that since I can't disprove it I must leave room for it. However I think that the possibility is so infinitely small that I live my life on the assumption that no gods exist. So I guess that makes me technically an agnostic as I can't know for sure. And I think a lot of atheists are like that.

That was my intellectual position. But were a god to manifest himself and prove that he/she indeed is a god I would be forced to acknowledge that he/she existed. And it would have to be pretty convincing in order for me not to doubt. There would be many more likely explanations. Hallucinations, aliens etc. Gods are so unlikely.
But I would still no worship him/her. I will not submit to the will of a creature like that. I don't condone slavery and random moral rules that ruin the lives of so many people. And by slavery I'm talking about me being a slave to the god. So even if god existed I would not worship so in a sense I would still be atheist (in the sense of being without gods).

 

[A Weary Exile]

But let's supposed the Judeo-Christian God descended to Earth with a heavenly host of angels bathed in holy light. And after scrutiny, are not just really advanced Aliens with a fancy light show.

No Atheist would say, "meh, it's just a trick"

Compare with Marvel or Vertigo's comic universe where omnipotent beings actually exists and to a lesser extent, Gods, demi-Gods, Endless walk among us. You could actually take a picture of Thor flying alongside Iron Man. Are there Atheists in those universes? It's freakin Thor man!

Or Lord of the Rings, the Gods are hardly mentioned and people seldom mention them, it would seem that only a few people actually know they exist, but Sauron is not just a badass general, he's a for real fallen angel.

What does this have to do with anything? Of course if an atheist (I'm one) saw a god standing in front of them they would believe in them because that's proof, evidence that they do in fact exist. You really can't make that argument because those things are based in fantasy.

 

[Thwarted]

its a false dichotomy. an atheist is someone who says that there is no reason to believe that there is a god, not as others like to claim, that "there definitely is no god". an agnostioc is someone who says that strictly speaking there can be no way to find out if there is a god or not. as such i am an agnostioc atheist, in that i dont think there is any way to be sure, but there is no evidence so suggest such a being or beings exist at all. This common misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the atheist position is so widespread its depressing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Whether this is based on science or not is irrelevant to the classification. They believe, rationally or irrationally, that there is no god, nor gods. That's what the word literally means. No God.

Agnosticism is accepting that one does not know, and therefore withholds judgement. Agnostic means, literally 'Doesn't know.' One can believe there is a god, but not be sure, and willing to be skeptical on the issue. This is agnosticism. On the other hand, one can believe there is no god, but not be sure, and willing to be skeptical on the issue. This is also agnosticism. It does not matter if you believe that it cannot be proven... all that matters is that you believe it has yet to be proven.

There are subsets of these camps. There's some atheists who simply do not believe in a God or Gods and don't care what other people do. There's some atheists who believe it is irrational -to- believe in a God or Gods. And there's others still who believe in some other supernatural stuff without believing in higher powers.

Just as there's some theists who believe that Jesus saved us from our sin by his sacrifice, others who believe that the world was created when two four-armed gods did the horizontal dancing, and others still who believe the world is guided by some janitor named Bob who does so with the power of his mind through his TV set. And there are some who bomb, kill, murder, slander, and express hate. And others who express love.

I believe personally, that some religions are harmful, others can be helpful, and that no religion should ever be in charge. I believe in the value of freedom -of- religion, which must mean freedom -from- religion.

And I believe that there are no absolutes in such arguments. Some atheists are incredibly moral individuals, others are destructive and misguided. By the same token, some theists are truly awesome humanitarians, and others are homicidal dicks.

And I believe the existance of the dicks is not proof against the validity of either view; otherwise by that logic -both- views are utterly destructive and therefore believing in anything is destructive. Therefore we must not even accept our own senses, and the world therefore must not exist. But because this belief has proponents that are destructive, that is also proof that believing in neither side is destructive. And non belief is also destructive. Therefore everyone is destructive by nature.

See. Logical fallacy.

 

[DracoSuave]

its a false dichotomy. an atheist is someone who says that there is no reason to believe that there is a god, not as others like to claim, that "there definitely is no god".

Actually the converse. An atheist believes there is reason to believe there is no god. Subtly different.

an agnostioc is someone who says that strictly speaking there can be no way to find out if there is a god or not. as such i am an agnostioc atheist, in that i dont think there is any way to be sure, but there is no evidence so suggest such a being or beings exist at all. This common misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the atheist position is so widespread its depressing.

An agnostic believes there is no reason to believe there is a god, and that there is no reason to believe there is no god.

-Very- different viewpoints, and often confused.

 

[Thwarted]

how could there possibly be an active reason to believe there is no god? I could plow through Russel's teapot analogy but this is getting boring. Google it if you cant already see that you cant prove a negative. anything that can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without it. nuff said.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

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?

Eh, not quite - in Discworld, being an atheist is sort of like wearing a tinfoil hat and muttering to yourself. On Discworld, the gods DO exist and CAN smite you with lightning bolts if you make them angry.

Any of the stories with the witches of Lancre can sum it up pretty well: believing in gods is pointless on the Discworld because it's exactly like believing in the kitchen table. What's the need to have faith in something that you know for a fact exists?

 

[bigolbear]

Athiesm is the firm belief in tha lack of a god. Surely hard evidence would not sway the most fanatical of athiests, just as religious fanatics continue to fight against the Theory of Evolution (considering that athieism is merely the antithesis of religion). I'm pretty certain that the common knowledge of the existance of god(s) (as in the marvel universe) would only ENCOURAGE fundamental athiests.

Quite to the contrary. I am an anti-theist, and if you could give me ACTUAL proof or argue for the existence of a god without the use of a non-credible holy text, I would then re-examine my beliefs and ponder on the existence of this deity.

Id like to take up that challenge!

lets take a credible theory.. evolution.

ok evolution dictates that whatever is fit enough to survive will do so, and that through mutation new species will come into being.

I there fore propose that given sufficient time, and a sufficiently varied environment - both of which our universe (which mathematicly is said to be aproaching infinity) provides that a species will evolve that is capable of perceiving time correctly.

please bear in mind that the human perception of time and space is a simple method but it is 'sufficient' for our survival.

To take this species further along its evolutionary tree it is entirely feasable that a species could arrise that not only percives time and space for what it realy is but is capable of moving through it in a fashion other than simple mamalian life does.

HERE IS THE CRITICAL POINT.

once a species moves outside of the limited scope of movement we have through time it will cease to evolve - it has removed itself from this universe and become an observer (see heisenbergs principles)

For this species to continue to learn, adapt, grow, evolve it will need to reintergrate itself - it has in effect become a god through the process of evolution. An observer outside of time NEEDING to cojoin other species (that exist within the universe space time)in a parasitic or symbiotic relationship in order to further evolve.

I hope what ive said here can open some minds to a few posibillities - time is not a simple thing, it is entirely possible that 'god' made the universe that 'god's' species evolved in.

 

[Blights]

Who cares? When you can have the best religion in the world.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=church+of+captain+falcon

Joking aside, Agnostism is where someone doesnt care if there is a god in the world, whereas an Athiest will Deny it.

So yeah.

 

[Lord George]

The difference is one holds an ignorant view.

 

[Altorin]

atheists don't believe in god

agnostics think that you cannot possibly prove or disprove whether para/supernatural things, including god, exist.

Two different people can be agnostic, but one might be theist, and see that as just one of the wonders of god, that he's just outside our knowable world, and the other might be atheist and see the fact that you can't prove god to exist is proof that he doesn't exist.

Agnosticism isn't a declaration of believing or not believing in something. It's just the point of view that somethings are unknowable, and what people get from that is their own cup of tea.. It's not a middle ground between Atheist and Theist, it's an entirely different thing..

 

[Richard Eis]

Originally because everyone was considererd christian in Europe, if someone lost their faith they would become an a-theist. Now it just means "non-believer in a higher power", regardless of how you got there.

Athiesm is the default position. You are born atheist. If you were never shown a bible or koran, you would remain an atheist.

-unless you're also going to call athiest's evolutionary nuts, since it essentially is just two different schools of thought-

Yes, one with a huge amount of peer reviewed evidence and logical structure. And one based on a story about talking snakes and magic apples.

 

[Kelthurin]

I..think I'm somewhere in between Agnostic and Atheist. I don't believe there's a god, and yet I don't care to think about all that nonsense either.

As a side note, religion can suck my right nut.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

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.

I could argue the exact same thing about atheism, simply because every officially atheist society to date has been run by absolute bastards. My point is just because there are fanatics to an idea doesn't make the idea bad, it just makes those people bad. After all what about Buddhism, anyways? I'm certain that there are probably a number of fanatics for that religion, but over all the ideas behind it, a search for inner peace and being able to live without want, are certainly noble ones indeed.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The difference is one holds an ignorant view.

You refer of course to the agnostic, who gives ridiculous notions far too much credence by declaring that he doesn't know whether they are true. The logical underpinning to agnosticism is the idea that any belief is foolish if it's even possibly false: such a view entails far more skepticism than any reasonable person should be comfortable with.

 

[Altorin]

I..think I'm somewhere in between Agnostic and Atheist. I don't believe there's a god, and yet I don't care to think about all that nonsense either.

As a side note, religion can suck my right nut.

agnosticism and atheism aren't on the same scale. you can't be "between" them.

that's like saying "I'm somewhere in between heterosexual and canadian"

 

[Jimmyjames]

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

I'm so glad there are people other than me that can make that parallel. I dislike that kind of atheist as much as the religious fundamentalist. Worst thing is, the hardcore atheist seems unable to realize the hypocrisy.

Funny thing is, I know an atheist like that, who says that "if there is a god, why wouldn't it let itself be known to the world in no uncertain terms?" This same person believes in UFOs and extraterrestrials, too. My response is, "If ALIENS haven't seen fit to reveal themselves, why would you expect an omnipotent being to do the same?"

 

[MoganFreeman]

Question: Does God exist?

If you answer 'yes' you are a theist; 'no' you are an atheist; 'maybe' you are an agnostic.

And there you have your difference.

 

[Altorin]

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

I'm so glad there are people other than me that can make that parallel. I dislike that kind of atheist as much as the religious fundamentalist. Worst thing is, the hardcore atheist seems unable to realize the hypocrisy.

they're not agnostic. They don't believe that something as grand and far reaching as god would be unprovable, and they laugh at the vain attempts of gnostic theists (who, too, believe that god is provable) to prove that god exists.

there are also agnostic atheists who know that god is unprovable, and therefore, we shouldn't worship him and bow down to him, because we can't prove that he exists, therefore we shouldn't give him a second thought, and they're mired by agnostic theists who blissfully see the same thing - an unprovable diety - as something that they should bow down to and worship. The fact that you can't prove he exists is one of his little miracles.

My policy as far as dealing with anyone is, as long as they don't get in my face about whatever they're pushing, I try not to bother dealing with it.