Jobs & Education6 mins ago
Athiest and Agnostic
19 Answers
Can someone please tell me what the difference is?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sasha13. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
An atheist is one who positively rejects the idea of gods. An agnostic - which comes from the Greek for 'one who doesn't know' - is a sitter on the fence. Since there is nothing to know when it comes to gods - theists merely believe; they cannot know - I would classify agnostics as theists at heart. The fact that they are prepared to admit the possibility of a 'God' gives them away, I think.
There's a fine line. An atheist who rejects any possibility of a God is taking a position of faith because any scientific principal must be capable of disproof.
A true athiest says "I see no reason to believe in Gods" rather than "there are no Gods" although sometimes we are tempted by the latter as shorthand.
Strangely I've never yet met an Agnostic who was agnostic about Unicorns and Trolls!
Personally I would classify an Agnostic as an athiest who doesn't like to rock the boat :c)
A true athiest says "I see no reason to believe in Gods" rather than "there are no Gods" although sometimes we are tempted by the latter as shorthand.
Strangely I've never yet met an Agnostic who was agnostic about Unicorns and Trolls!
Personally I would classify an Agnostic as an athiest who doesn't like to rock the boat :c)
I think it perfectly reasonable, jake-the-peg, to say that there are no gods, full stop. A god is a supernatural being which does magical things and for whose existence there is not a scrap of evidence. Science does not need to disprove the idea; it is under no obligation even to consider it.
Santa Claus has a similar status, as do fairies, magic carpets and the unicorn. Do we really need to apply ponderous scientific tests to such nonsenses? To me an agnostic is one who is not prepared to admit that he believes in Santa but neverteless puts a note up the chimney every Christmas 'just in case'.
Santa Claus has a similar status, as do fairies, magic carpets and the unicorn. Do we really need to apply ponderous scientific tests to such nonsenses? To me an agnostic is one who is not prepared to admit that he believes in Santa but neverteless puts a note up the chimney every Christmas 'just in case'.
An atheist is someone who denies there is a God. (From the Greek word atheos - without God).
An agnostic is probably best described as a sceptical atheist.
The theory of agnosticism is that no one can know whether God exists, or that anything exists, which cannot be empirically investigated, (i.e seen and tested).
So many atheists don't believe in God because they think it's 'unscientific'. Yet they believe in evolution, that even after hundreds of years, science has still never been able to prove !!
An agnostic is probably best described as a sceptical atheist.
The theory of agnosticism is that no one can know whether God exists, or that anything exists, which cannot be empirically investigated, (i.e seen and tested).
So many atheists don't believe in God because they think it's 'unscientific'. Yet they believe in evolution, that even after hundreds of years, science has still never been able to prove !!
The term �atheist� (etymologically) is an improperly derived concept in that it starts from a presumption of the existence of a �god/s� which is itself a term with no conceptual framework. Concepts, in order to serve the purpose of human understanding, reasoning and communication must be fundamentally derived from basic perceptions of reality or be logically constructed from other more basic concepts. Furthermore concepts should be defined in terms that represent common human experience so that mutual understanding is possible, especially when the understanding of the definition is essential to interactions between two or more individuals. Apart from such a framework built upon a self-evident foundation, terms fail to gain conceptual status and this makes understanding and communication vague at best and in the purest sense inevitably impossible.
Because of this the term �atheist� must first be defined in other terms using properly derived concepts. The wide gamut of �definitions� for this term as presented within this thread provides evidence for the need to have concepts that are mutually understood for efficient and meaningful communication; thus the excellent question generating this thread.
The term �atheist� as I use it means a person, or any other type of entity, apart from or in the absence of a theistic belief. In the widest sense an atheist is anyone or anything other than a theist, a theist being any entity with a belief in the existence of a �god/s�, (whatever a �god� is supposed to be?).
cont. . . .
Because of this the term �atheist� must first be defined in other terms using properly derived concepts. The wide gamut of �definitions� for this term as presented within this thread provides evidence for the need to have concepts that are mutually understood for efficient and meaningful communication; thus the excellent question generating this thread.
The term �atheist� as I use it means a person, or any other type of entity, apart from or in the absence of a theistic belief. In the widest sense an atheist is anyone or anything other than a theist, a theist being any entity with a belief in the existence of a �god/s�, (whatever a �god� is supposed to be?).
cont. . . .
An agnostic can be either an atheist (as defined above) or a theist with the stipulation that they presume that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a �god/s� can not be proved or understood in human terms. Notice that the agnostic can not straddle the fence on this issue since everyone by default does not believe in the existence of �god/s� until one does. Here we should make a distinction between what one chooses to believe and that which constitutes knowledge.
If I may add an observation: A large part of the disharmony that exists among the world�s people can be attributed to a lack of understanding each others meaning�s. In this regard, I attribute this lack of understanding in large part to the use of improperly derived �concepts� such as �god� and �faith� that have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, many of the problems we now face will not be resolved until humanity learns the importance of using valid concepts when communicating for the purpose of negotiating mutually beneficial relationships, the only kind of relationships which are rationally justifiable.
If I may add an observation: A large part of the disharmony that exists among the world�s people can be attributed to a lack of understanding each others meaning�s. In this regard, I attribute this lack of understanding in large part to the use of improperly derived �concepts� such as �god� and �faith� that have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, many of the problems we now face will not be resolved until humanity learns the importance of using valid concepts when communicating for the purpose of negotiating mutually beneficial relationships, the only kind of relationships which are rationally justifiable.
The point I'm trying to explain (much less eloquently than mibn2cweus) is that scientific "belief" is not the same as religous "belief".
I'm sure Theland does not believe in faries, trolls and unicorns because he has no reason to do so any more than he believes that the universe was created by a robot called "Sparky".
This is the same basis under which Atheists disbelieve in Gods - it's not a matter of faith but one of evidence.
In answer to the "if God convinced me and it was unprovable" line I'd have to be able to discount mental illness - If you ever read or saw "A Beautiful mind" you'll know that the Mathematician John Nash spent years convinced that Aliens were talking to him and that he was the Messiah" - He wasn't he was just "a very naughty boy"
That would require external verification.
God doesn't leave fingerprints lying about for the casual observer? - That's a coincidence nor do Lepricauns! (Clearly a circular argument there).
As for Evolution Lighter there is plenty of proof in the general principal - why do you think you share DNA with Fish - God's little joke?
But Science doesn't need to be able to dot all the i's right now - We couldn't explain why the sun shone until 100 years ago - that didn't mean that until we understood nuclear physics Apollo rode a firery charriot across the sky and then ran away as soon as we worked out nuclear fusion!
I'm sure Theland does not believe in faries, trolls and unicorns because he has no reason to do so any more than he believes that the universe was created by a robot called "Sparky".
This is the same basis under which Atheists disbelieve in Gods - it's not a matter of faith but one of evidence.
In answer to the "if God convinced me and it was unprovable" line I'd have to be able to discount mental illness - If you ever read or saw "A Beautiful mind" you'll know that the Mathematician John Nash spent years convinced that Aliens were talking to him and that he was the Messiah" - He wasn't he was just "a very naughty boy"
That would require external verification.
God doesn't leave fingerprints lying about for the casual observer? - That's a coincidence nor do Lepricauns! (Clearly a circular argument there).
As for Evolution Lighter there is plenty of proof in the general principal - why do you think you share DNA with Fish - God's little joke?
But Science doesn't need to be able to dot all the i's right now - We couldn't explain why the sun shone until 100 years ago - that didn't mean that until we understood nuclear physics Apollo rode a firery charriot across the sky and then ran away as soon as we worked out nuclear fusion!
Hundreds of years? Given your expertise on evolution theory, lighter, I would have expected you to know that Darwin first announced his theory of natural selection about 150 years ago. Furthermore, it is not scientific practice to 'prove' a theory correct. To throw out a theory one must prove it wrong, usually by offering a new theory which better explains observations than the prevailing theory. Something which the combined might of creation science has abjectly failed to do. I think you'll find natural selection a little more robust than you realise and a tad better explanation of the natural world than 'and god created the beasts of the earth according to their kind ... and he saw that it was good.'
Atheism means without theistic belief. It is a dogmatic position which does not account for the possibility (however slight) that evidence could come to light of the existence of a god or gods.
Agnosticism: Covers a spectrum of perspectives based on scepticism of the existence of a god or gods: from weak agnosticism where one thinks their probably is a god but we can't be totally certain; to strong agnosticism where one views the possibility of god as extremely remote.
Atheism means without theistic belief. It is a dogmatic position which does not account for the possibility (however slight) that evidence could come to light of the existence of a god or gods.
Agnosticism: Covers a spectrum of perspectives based on scepticism of the existence of a god or gods: from weak agnosticism where one thinks their probably is a god but we can't be totally certain; to strong agnosticism where one views the possibility of god as extremely remote.
Jake-the-peg - <<why do you think you share DNA with Fish - God's little joke? >>
A common Designer using common material.
Just as well there is a similarity between our DNA or else I couldn't enjoy my fish & chips ! If we weren't made of the same building blocks as the rest of life on the planet then we'd only be able to eat each other !
Of the 3000 different species of frogs, which have obvious outward similarities, there is far more variation in their DNA than there is between the bat and the blue whale!
Although DNA similarities between man and other creatures is an observed fact, it in no way proves evolution. (In fact, I think it actually provides problems for evolutionary theory.)
Dawkins - yes Darwin 150 years ago. And he admitted himself that the achilles heel of his theory was the lack of fossilized 'intermediate links', which he hoped would appear as the new science of paleontology took off.
But all this time later, with millions of catalogued fossils an intermediate or transitional form has never been found. Never.
A common Designer using common material.
Just as well there is a similarity between our DNA or else I couldn't enjoy my fish & chips ! If we weren't made of the same building blocks as the rest of life on the planet then we'd only be able to eat each other !
Of the 3000 different species of frogs, which have obvious outward similarities, there is far more variation in their DNA than there is between the bat and the blue whale!
Although DNA similarities between man and other creatures is an observed fact, it in no way proves evolution. (In fact, I think it actually provides problems for evolutionary theory.)
Dawkins - yes Darwin 150 years ago. And he admitted himself that the achilles heel of his theory was the lack of fossilized 'intermediate links', which he hoped would appear as the new science of paleontology took off.
But all this time later, with millions of catalogued fossils an intermediate or transitional form has never been found. Never.
Llamatron, Coming from you I�m flattered. Be careful what you say lest I begin to take myself 2Cweusly. Oh! & pray that I never become an X-tian!
Dawkins, please excuse me but I take exception to your characterisation of atheism (in light of your definition) as a dogmatic position. At the risk of appearing dogmatic myself, or at least pedantic, I will go out on a (metaphorical) limb here and suggest that, by your definition, trees, dogs and newborn babies must all by default be classified as possessing the attribute of dogmaticism sic. Do you not believe that holding a belief requires an act of volition, at a minimum making the choice to agree with another�s assertion? In this regard the first choice in whether to believe or not to believe must be the former rather than the later. Although one can change one�s position on this issue (yes, there's still hope 4 U Theland) the act of choosing not to believe must of necessity follow the preliminary choice to believe. Not believing that a god/s exists does not necessitate that one believe that a god/s does not exist but belief (in the existence or non-existence of god/s) can only follow the development of a world view. If this all seems at first to be meaningless linguistic maneuvering let me show why this is an important distinction.
cont. . . .
Dawkins, please excuse me but I take exception to your characterisation of atheism (in light of your definition) as a dogmatic position. At the risk of appearing dogmatic myself, or at least pedantic, I will go out on a (metaphorical) limb here and suggest that, by your definition, trees, dogs and newborn babies must all by default be classified as possessing the attribute of dogmaticism sic. Do you not believe that holding a belief requires an act of volition, at a minimum making the choice to agree with another�s assertion? In this regard the first choice in whether to believe or not to believe must be the former rather than the later. Although one can change one�s position on this issue (yes, there's still hope 4 U Theland) the act of choosing not to believe must of necessity follow the preliminary choice to believe. Not believing that a god/s exists does not necessitate that one believe that a god/s does not exist but belief (in the existence or non-existence of god/s) can only follow the development of a world view. If this all seems at first to be meaningless linguistic maneuvering let me show why this is an important distinction.
cont. . . .
Theists have long decried atheist as denouncing their presumed existence of god as though it must be a choice they made thereby securing their eternal damnation when in fact most atheists are simply reluctant to move to the side of their accusers. The fact remains that their god saw fit to bring us all into this world as atheists with the essential need to employ reason as our means of survival. Where paths separate is when confronted with the choice to adhere to the survival technique of reason and the validity of ones own rational processes or to take the alternate path to never-never-land to which faith must by its nature lead and adopt beliefs for which no experience within or observations of reality can point us. We must be willing to take another�s word for it. If you require proof that god/s do/es not exist need you look any further than this?
It could only have been the agreement of a second fool with the fool who invented god that gave the inventor any hope that his invention had any validity. Such is the birthplace and �foundation� of dogma. Is it any wonder they seek recruits under the threat of eternal damnation? Candy just makes you smarter! With that I leave you to ponder your own rationality.
Quiz: What is dogma spelt backward� <�? ~ ~ ~ </o�o\>
Lighter - I'd be willing to bet the farm that your mistrust of evolution theory has no grounding whatever in concerns you have over the fossil record evidence. You may discount the evidence, that is your prerogative, but the evidence is available and accessible, you don't need to accept it (or deny it) on faith alone. Unlike the supernatural events described in the bible which run counter to evidence on, amongst other things: human longevity, the age of the earth, the geographic radiation of species (why are all the kangaroos in australia?), life after death experiences, virgin births, faith healing, levitating, exorcisms and spiritual mediumship.
Mibn - Phew, I thought you were going to take offence at my use of 'their' instead of 'there'. You're right though, dogma is a strong word (an accusation?) with a religious demeanour. I should have qualified with a 'perhaps'. or a 'could be construed as' . However, atheism is a positive denial, an authoritative assertion that there are no gods is by definition dogmatic (plus its far more argumentative and thus more likely to get a response).
Mibn - Phew, I thought you were going to take offence at my use of 'their' instead of 'there'. You're right though, dogma is a strong word (an accusation?) with a religious demeanour. I should have qualified with a 'perhaps'. or a 'could be construed as' . However, atheism is a positive denial, an authoritative assertion that there are no gods is by definition dogmatic (plus its far more argumentative and thus more likely to get a response).
Dawkins, my only "authority" is our common human experience through shared perception and understanding of reality. This "in my humble opinion" is the only "authority" that serves and promotes human survival and well-being. If this is "dogma" than I believe "in my humble opinion" that we, as a rational species that must interrelate for the purpose of mutual benefit, are all in big trouble.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?
News7 mins ago
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
