Agnostic is about knowledge.
Atheist is about belief.
IMO, there exists no reliable knowledge about God.
Therefore I choose not to have any beliefs about God.
So I am am an agnostic atheist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists and Agnostics
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Agnostic is about knowledge.
Atheist is about belief.
IMO, there exists no reliable knowledge about God.
Therefore I choose not to have any beliefs about God.
So I am am an agnostic atheist.
Correct. It is a logical possibility, but there is no reason to think it is actually the case.
Sort of like the Loch Ness monster, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
And yes, many atheists see those as all being in the same category.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The problem is that is a rational epistemological claim about objective reality. That hasn't work so far in recorded history.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I came into this thread thinking that it was quite simple; all agnostics are atheists, because they aren't making a claim to theism and are therefore "without theism," but some atheists are gnostic in the sense that they claim that there are no gods.
After reading through this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the popular conceptions of these words are muddled beyond the point of recognition, in which case I think we should take recourse to the more rigorous definitions of the terms as given in philosophy.
In philosophy, neither a theist nor an atheist can be agnostic, as the theist claims that there is a god and the atheist claims that there isn't one. Agnosticism instead refers to a lack of position.
Most self-identified atheists, then, are actually agnostics and not atheists according to the philosophical definition of atheism given in most encyclopedias of philosophy.
After reading through this thread, I have come to the conclusion that the popular conceptions of these words are muddled beyond the point of recognition, in which case I think we should take recourse to the more rigorous definitions of the terms as given in philosophy.
In philosophy, neither a theist nor an atheist can be agnostic, as the theist claims that there is a god and the atheist claims that there isn't one. Agnosticism instead refers to a lack of position.
Most self-identified atheists, then, are actually agnostics and not atheists according to the philosophical definition of atheism given in most encyclopedias of philosophy.
Heyo
Veteran Member
As long as you take the colloquial meaning of "atheist". A philosophical Atheist is inherently gnostic. Also a philosophical Agnostic is inherently atheist.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That would be a strong agnostic. A weak agnostic is content with saying that there is currently no knowledge without insisting that it is impossible.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Atheists, at least those "lack"theists are really those who don't have a position. They have an inner state of non belief but that is not a position. As an Agnostic I have a position and I have a burden of proof (which the lacktheists avoid).
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I am a sort of weak agnostic. It is possible in principle to know that there is a God, you just have to be God.
Audie
Veteran Member
Nonsense.
Proving that a thing DOES NOT EXIST is usually very tricky. So this seems like a hair-splitting exercise.
I would say that I'm 99.99999% sure that the following things do NOT exist:
- Any of the gods defined by any of the 10,000 religions we know of.
- living, breathing, roller skating, pink unicorns
- a perfectly formed teapot orbiting the earth geosynchronously
I guess that if for some reason one wanted to be pedantic about it, one could say that I'm agnostic about those things, but again, it seems like needless hair-splitting, no?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are mixing metaphysics, mythical beings in the world and what could be checked as in your order.
Indeed I am, what's your point?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then your not an atheist.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Yes, there are agnostic atheists. Atheism is a no belief in gods, agnosticism is a belief that any gods are unknowable. I am an atheist but not agnostic, I believe that if a god exists we should be able to know that fact if the god wants us to know.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia
Audie
Veteran Member
Ha.
Im not a idiot thinking I know things i cannot possibly know.
Or to think I get to define
someones non belief as impure.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Exactly.
The real probability of the Easter bunny hopping around somewhere hiding colored eggs or Santa on a sleigh somewhere going down chimneys delivering presents for good little boys and girls and coal for bad ones?
I'd leave it up to the discerning poster to decide weither that is even remotely probable or not..
Suffice to say, the same goes for a god or deity.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Or does the idiocy lay in unsupported thinking these things actually could exist out there solely on a basis of surmising alone ?
I thought that was ignostic, if one doesn't believe it possible to know, whereas "agnostic" just means "doesn't know," without implying anything further.
I've heard agnostics referred to as "weak atheists" before, but I've never heard of a "strong agnostic." I've heard of "strong atheists," too.
If a weak atheist can beat a strong atheist at arm wrestling, does that make the weak atheist stronger than the strong atheist?
Audie
Veteran Member
Make up whatever you like and thunk others
are stupid for not going along, to your hearts' content.
Absolutist proclamations on your part
put your thinking squarely in the camp
with creationists and their running- dogs.
They are also big on making things up.
Im of the percent / probability / no absolutes
school, myself.
And I dont go for making simple things
complex. Atheist= dont believe in god.
Simple.
I thought that was ignostic, if one doesn't believe it possible to know, whereas "agnostic" just means "doesn't know," without implying anything further.
I've heard agnostics referred to as "weak atheists" before, but I've never heard of a "strong agnostic." I've heard of "strong atheists," too.
If a weak atheist can beat a strong atheist at arm wrestling, does that make the weak atheist stronger than the strong atheist?
In my understanding, ignostic means it doesn't matter. So, whether or not there is a God is irrelevant to anything interesting or useful. Lucretius, for example, held this view.