Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[Grigori361]

as has no doubt been pointed out the primary difference is that one is a religion (ie an organized belief in something... in this case No god), and the other is not... it's more of a personal judgment call, and it not organized in the sense of large groups of people with a set of beliefs, more so just a bunch of people who believe what they want, without a power structure in the common sense of the word... I understand that agnostic is closer in organization (or lack thereof) to paganism then it is to atheism.

But that's just me.

 

[Flamezdudes]

Athesist says "There is no god" and a Agnostic says "There might be a god, not sure". Fairly easy.

That's basically it, yes.

Although I would say an Agnostic believes there is some sort of higher power, they just not sure what it is. (I should know, I used to be one.)

No, that would be Deism.

Or Theism I believe. I'm not sure though, all the lines are pretty blurred at this level.

Isn't Theism a belief in a Religious higher power and Deism as a belief of a higher power but not any of the common religions, you just have a belief that something is there right? Just wanted to check.

 

[Lyiat]

>>;

As a Diest, let me clear that up -right now-.

Diesm, as proposed by the "Father of Diesm", Thomas Jefferson, is a Christian view that states the Maker, God, wound up the universe and let it go. He has since then never interfered in the workings of the world, and is therefor unknowable. The only things about God that we can consider are things that must be proved by logic, for He does not interact with is in any fashion. The only area this gets a little mucky with is where Jesus was involved. As such, Diests do not believe that the Bible is at all a work of God.

Theism is the classical Christian view of God constantly getting involved in the past to fix and correct things.

 

[Fbuh]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

Which is completely insane since I, as an Atheist, believe in plenty of things. And logically deficit? Are you kidding me?

I was hoping somebody would ask. I am not trying to flame, butt I do believe that atheism is logically deficit. Fortunately, this is provable by physics (yes, science to prove God). Physics states that nothing can be moved without something to move it. Objects need a certain amount of energy to be moved, and therefore there needs to be something to provide that energy. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the big bang theory is what happened. There was nothing but a big wad of matter compressed to roughly the size of a tennis ball. A big explosion happened, and low and behold the universe happened. Now, what caused the explosion? A burst of energy perhaps? Where did the energy come from. God does not have to be omnipotent father figure as Christianity would teach us. In fact, he doesn't have to be anything more than the energy that runs through the universe. Since objects cannot be moved without something to move them, all it had to take was one little push in the right place to get things moving. To say that there is no God (or whatever you want to call him) to have given that push is to deny physics.

To say that you need something that acts outside the laws of physics for the universe to exist is rather medieval and, even if it works, doesn't get you to any recognizable religious entity and certainly nothing that it would be reasonable to worship. (If it doesn't act outside the laws of physics, your question is just pushed back a shade further. You've explained nothing in that case.)

Okay, I got about 4 returns to this, bashing me and saying how stupid I was, and perhaps I deserve it. I tried starting a logical argument about religion, so the first mistake was mine. I also did not accurately represent what I was achieving to define, so another mistake on my part. What I was trying (and failing) to say is not that you need an outside force to have created the universe, but the universe is that force in itself. Our concept of God is defined by how we interpret the universe, and so each person's God is naturally going to be different from another person's. What I was trying to say was that rather than science and religion being separate, one should balance the other. I am all for science, and I would see it prove the existence of God rather than try to disprove it. However, my concept of God is based on my belief that everything is God, rather than God being an outside force that controls it all. Think of a human being, how we are all made up of billions of cells all structured in various systems, tissues, and organs. Even the cells themselves can break down into smaller organelles and chemicals, and those down even further, all the way to the atomic structure. As a human being, we are conscious, but are we conscious of what each cell in our body is thinking, or even if it can think? I doubt it. Int he same way that everything in our bodies is composed to make a thinking, living human, everything in the universe is composed in such a way as to create God. God may not even know we are conscious, thinking creatures. God may not even have a consciousness similar to ours, instead existing on a level so beyond our comprehension that we cannot fathom it. You see, God is a metaphor for that being, the huge, pulsating creature that makes up all of existence. So if that is the case, then there was nothing before God, there was just always God. However, if you really strongly believe in nothing, then my argument is going to prove nothing to you, and this will just turn messy. So if you have nothing useful to contribute to my ideas, or you are just going to come back and say how limited my grasp of knowledge is without actually vindicating any of your own arguments, please just let it be.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Athesist says "There is no god" and a Agnostic says "There might be a god, not sure". Fairly easy.

This pretty much sums it all up, Though Agnostic also might say "I dont believe in a god" but doesn't oppress it around to everyone like an Atheist might. (Basically they mind their own business)

An athiest doesn't believe in God. An agnostic who says they don't believe in God has just become an atheist. Atheists don't always try to tell people why they should become atheists too. I am an atheist for example, but I don't tell people they must join me in my non-belief of God; they can go do their own thing so long as they don't bother me doing my thing.

An agnostic usually is either unsure or believes in God but does not believe in religion or, put simply, the worship of said God. No one who says and means "I don't believe in God" is agnostic.

 

[Kikosemmek]

To respond to the OP:

The atheist believes that there is no higher power.
The agnostic does not make a solid claim on the existence of a higher power.
The deist believes that a higher power exists, but that it does not influence our world beyond setting it in motion.
The theist believes that there is a higher power that is personally and morally vested in everything that happens in the universe, including (perhaps especially) intimate human matters.

---

Creationist arguments I hear all the time:

1. If the universe was created out of nothing, then God must have created it, since you can't get something out of nothing.

We don't know if there was ever "nothing." Furthermore, we know very little about how "nothing" actually is. What is no matter, no space, no time, no probability? We simply _don't_ know that "nothing" can't actually beget something, destroying itself.

Given that God did create the universe out of nothing, then we are producing a contradiction- there wasn't nothing before God created the universe, because God was there. God isn't nothing, then there was never nothing. The argument collapses. You could just say that the universe was always there, and is always going to be there (everything is here now and was always here), which would make much more sense given the definition that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal (to me, this means God literally is all matter and energy in the universe; proving this being has a will is still a long ways ahead).

2. God set the universe in motion, though it was always there. The conditions for our existence are on an exact knife-edge.

If we are to abandon a bit of egocentrism, we could simply say that we evolved because the necessary conditions happened to exist for us. There is an infinity of alien species that did not evolve because the conditions were not right for them, and what should we call that? Divine destruction? I will simply point out the incredible arrogance that goes with the assumption that the universe was created with our existence as a goal- for only with this supposition does it follow to think of the universe as an accurate shot, immaculately created to house us.

Our conditions, being thinly balanced and accomodated for by this vast universe, do not require a designer. I don't know if we should hold it to the credit of God for creating us on such an unstable balance. Why is it a testimony of design for us to be a fragile life form on a temporary planet? How is that an indicator of design rather than coincidence? Our planet, and our solar system, by the way, are going to be inhospitable to human life, with time. What are we flattering God for?

 

[GBlair88]

Spelling.

 

[The Bandit]

I'm an anti-theist, and think that you should have included my view in there. There are a portion of us in the atheist crowd, though the definition varies based on who you talk to, I define it as someone "opposed to religion itself, with a will to see religion removed from human society".

Removed? That's not really a great idea. Even if it turns out that there is/are no god/gods, things like going to church and similar activities in other religions are great stress relievers that have been linked to longer life. Long life is good. Therefore (while very little is ever proven) it can be argued that even false religion is a very good thing.

Church is TOTALLY a non-stressful, non-judgmental environment.

There are other relaxation techniques and stress relievers, and most come without the danger religion comes with.

Everybody convert to my faith.

Apatheism.

"Who cares about invisible men in the sky?"

That isn't a faith, it is a statement.

ATHEISM IS NOT A FUCKING RELIGION.

This is the type of crap that would make an alien race say "You know what? Those humans are just a bunch of douche bags. Let's annihilate them."

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic power.

Agnosticism is the uncertainty about belief in a theistic power.

An atheist would look at any miracle type coincidences and dismiss it as just coincidence, unknown science you get the picture.

An Agnostic would look at such coincidence and say 'That may be unknown science, but it's unusual enough that it might be something more.'

Apply this argument to the big question about 'why are we here'
coincidence versus maybe just maybe

 

[Greyfall]

Athesist says "There is no god" and a Agnostic says "There might be a god, not sure". Fairly easy.

That's basically it, yes.

Although I would say an Agnostic believes there is some sort of higher power, they just not sure what it is. (I should know, I used to be one.)

No, that would be Deism.

Or Theism I believe. I'm not sure though, all the lines are pretty blurred at this level.

Isn't Theism a belief in a Religious higher power and Deism as a belief of a higher power but not any of the common religions, you just have a belief that something is there right? Just wanted to check.

Well, according to the all-powerful deity Wikipedia, it seems the only real difference between the two is: In Theism, the higher power interferes in mortal affairs and makes itself known with revelations and in deism, the power largely keeps to itself and could really only be known through rationality. Or something like that.

 

[AssButt]

As for my comment about atheism, I only say that because science is still fairly limited in its scope and often times only describes what happens, not why it happens. Yes, science has proven that there's no mythical sky God but a lot of religions have a less rigid definition of what "God" is and to say that there is nothing above us based on what we know today is a rather bold and an oversimplification.

 

[Spacelord]

This thread is way too long for a question that could've been googled in 10 seconds.

 

[Threesan]

P.P.S. Yes, according to the laws of genetics, it [eugenics?] makes total sense, but it also opens the floodgates for ethical and racial mistreatment.

If I were to talk about a change to the tax system without discussing specifics, could I not say that this "opens the floodgates for ethical (ethnic??) and racial mistreatment"?

Without so much typing: Pantheism argued from Primum movens. But if it can't interact with us, and we can't interact with it, then for it to matter you would have to further subreptitiously [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subreptitious] (I found a new word ) staple some dogma onto your Generic Unsourced Source Entity. This is where FSM gets invoked as an equally un/likely candidate.

I agree that neither atheism nor science provides an explanation for the existence of the universe. But Primum movens is a statement that says nothing other than the obvious "we don't know", and can only be made to say something if it is abused.

I've never seen a meaningful argument of this type, and I doubt one can be constructed. It's a philosopher's stone: Add to mind of atheist, stir, and Presto! Convert! Something that successful would be well known (a sort of argument against all existing arguments of that type). I just made that up; feel free to poke holes in it. (So long as it doesn't involve stereotyping all atheists as the fringe atheists.)

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

@ Both of the Quoters of me:

All right, calm down. Thats just what I thought it was. no need to blow a gasket. This is why I keep out of religion topics, everyone's on the edge of their seat ready to strike whoever says something they dont agree with. :|

This thread is way too long for a question that could've been googled in 10 seconds.

They probably did it for a badge. :|

 

[Donbett1974]

Well Agnosticism is the beleif in ultimate truth. Like Agnostic will beleive in gravity for its a fact but time travel isn't a fact so they wouldn't believe either way.

 

[Emperor Inferno]

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

This, whereas agnostics either don't know what they believe, or they believe that there is something, they just don't know what.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Agnostic: not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Atheist: There isn't a god.