What’s the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? They both answer the question of god in the same way, “there is insufficient evidence to conclude the existence of God, or make any assertions about the likely nature of God.”
Agnostics want it both ways. Their whole philosophy is to make atheist assertions seem more palatable to the mainstream, without using that particular dirty word. Why not just call yourself what you are? You’re an atheist. Don’t dance around the subject and invent a new term, or make painfully, insultingly obvious assertions like “the existence of God can’t be completely DISPROVEN, either.”
Here’s something else that can’t be disproven:
Peanut butter monsters. These are monsters that come into your house through the vents, unscrew the lid to your peanut butter, then screw the lid back on and place it back exactly where they found it without disturbing anything else. THERE ARE NO “PEANUT BUTTER MONSTER AGNOSTICS”. If you ever tried to point out that your opinion on their existence is different from mine, because I’m saying they don’t exist and you’re saying that they havent been proven to exist, you deserve an asswhooping.
“Agnostic” is just an intellectual term for “semantic pain in the ass”. You’re not an agnostic. You’re an atheist, so just say it.
Surely you see the difference between something you just made up on the spot, and a concept that has a trail of evidence (problematic and inconclusive as that evidence may be!) spanning thousands of years and millions of people.
No. It seems quite intellectually honest to me to admit that there are things you cannot know, or do not know for whatever reason.
Many atheists these days are asserting that God does not exist - they know this for certain because of proof that they can see. To an agnostic who cannot see such proof for certain, this would be going too far.
I agree with this. The style of atheism that Mr. Moto is referring to relies on the idea that the entire purpose and reason for religion or believe in god is to explain things about the workings of the universe that we don’t understand, and that once we have a better explanation for them, god becomes obsolete. An agnostic is acknowleging that there may be more to a believe in god than a need to understand why the sun rises and sets. IMO, finding a meaning to life, for instance, is a much more compelling reason to consider the existence of god, and many times, these are the types of philosophical questions agnostics are wrestling with.
An equally invalid argument could be made, asserting that atheists are actually agnostics. When people put labels on their own beliefs, the best policy is to believe them.
Self-declared agnostic here… While I admit I’m goofy about many things, I don’t think agnosticism is one of them. I call myself an agnostic because I don’t believe I have enough evidence or faith to either prove or disprove the existence of any god (note small “g”).
I was raised strictly Roman Catholic. Like many people, I went through a certain crisis of faith in adolescence. Since then, I have become interested in and studied various sects of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Native American beliefs.
Right now, I don’t believe in a personal Judeo-Christian God. I don’t think there’s a old man in the sky waiting to judge me based on my faith in Him, and hoping I’ll go to His Son for a forgiveness intervention. However, I also recognize that millions of people around the world believe in a scenario like this one. To me, agnosticism means admitting that I could be wrong.
I don’t think I’m wise enough to tell others what to believe. I don’t call myself an atheist, because for all I know, God the Father or the Manitou or Amaterasu is watching me right now, shaking His or Her head and chiding me gently. I see life as a learning process, and maybe some day I will be able to make a more definite statement of faith, but for now agnostic is the label that fits me best.
I am an atheist because I believe that there is no god. I am also an agnostic, because I don’t know for certain. What’s goofy about my position? What if I did believe in God but weren’t completely certain?
An atheist is one without belief in deities. An agnostic is one that believes that the existence or non-existence of deities are unknowable.
Many times, yes. Some are atheist and an agnostic.
Not true. Many strong atheist believe their is sufficient evidence to conclude deities don’t exist. Also, agnostics can make assertions about deities while believing that the ultimate truth is unknowable.
You’re making the assumption that their philosophy is about how the mainstream view atheists and not because it’s their true ideas?
It’s not a new term and I know of no one who uses the term to dance around any subject. Most people use the word incorrectly as some sort of fence sitter. While you may think it’s an obvious assertion. many think there is sufficient evidence that God/gods do/don’t exist.
I think for some people being agnostic is a first step - they were raised in a religious household (sometimes fairly strict) but have grown and learned to think for themselves instead of blindly believing what they were spoonfed growing up. They discover that just can’t believe that anymore - the contradictions are too much. So they take the first step - saying that there may be a Higher Power, but that the name of that Power isn’t necessarily the one they were brought up using.
Some people don’t move beyond this point. Others will still feel a need for spiritual comfort, and may find it in a religion other that the one in which they were raised or in a less mainstream practice. Still others will go farther - deciding that since there is no concrete proof of a Higher Power this proves the non-existence of a Higher Power, and they become atheist.
As for “making it more palatable to the mainstream” - I think you are trying to fit a bunch of different individuals into a mold that isn’t one size fits all. There are a lot of agnostics (and atheists) who really don’t concern themselves much with what the mainstream thinks. Not everyone who disagrees with a belief feels the need to shout it on the street corner.
I don’t get the notion that an agnostic is too “gutless” to call himself an athiest. it’s not like any person must make a firm decision on the subject. Some say yes, some no, others I don’t know, I really don’t see the problem.
I’m not going to offer this up as a formal definitive difference but as a distinction in attitude —
If I am at this moment suspending, as best I can, any attitudes I may have towards the existence or nonexistence of Peanut Butter Monsters, in order to consider afresh whether the hypothesis of their existence explains anything in my life or not, my mind is in a different place than it might be a few minutes later, when my attitude might be “I do not harbor a belief in Peanut Butter Monsters. I am willing to reexamine the issue if any new evidence comes to light but I’ve encountered no reason so far to believe that they exist, and entertaining such a belief adds nothing to my understanding of the universe”
Neither attitude is “hard atheist” about PBMs —there’s no spirit of “They don’t exist, period, end of story”. Neither attitude has any trace of “believer”, either — there’s no “I do not know for sure if there are Peanut Butter Monsters or not, but it kind of just plain feels right, I always have this sense of an undefined something around peanut butter jars”.
But the first mindset is in a sort of “consideration mode” while the latter is in a “conclusional mode”, provisional and open-minded though it might be.
So maybe it would be more useful to treat “agnostic” as an adjective, not a noun; to say “Joe is agnostic” or “Joe is agnostic this morning” rather than “Joe is an agnostic”.
Here’s the thing. Neither atheism nor agnosticism existed before there was theism. It would have been incoherent to question the existence of God prior to there having been an assertion of the existence of God. You have now asserted peanut butter monsters. It is incumbent upon you to describe their nature. After that, an argument about whether the evidence is sufficient can take place.
Does the PMM disturb the dust on the lid? If I were watching would I see a PMM? Does the peanut butter oxidize ever so slightly while the lid is off? Do any microscopic particles relocate as a result of the twisting motion while the lid is being screwed on and off?
The answers to those questions and others would determine whether I were a PMM agnostic or not.
Self-Defined Agnostic here. I don’t believe any religion is right or could be right. I also see no proof there is not a God or Gods. There could be an intelligence that created the physical laws that we are still learning. That provided the original spark of life and set the rules of evolution in motion. It might even give small nudges at times. I am doubtful this is true, but I am doubtful that there is nothing.
I am not even sure about the after-life or reincarnation of anything else.
So, do I sound like an Atheist? Do I sound religious? What should I consider myself if not an Agnostic for lack of better term? I have come to realize over the years that I do not have the capacity for faith. I also find hard atheism a little crazy and despite being a non-believer I don’t see secular Christmas celebrations, the words “Under God” or other things like this are a big deal and worth worrying about.
I think this question gets to the crux of the problem for you…and why you think agnostics are ‘goofy’. One (the athiest) believes that there is no god. Its a belief, just like any other belief. The other (agnostic) says that there is no way to know. Its a pretty subtle difference…one which I also agree with being an agnostic myself.
I think you are wrong here. THis is certainly what an agnostic thinks. However, an athiest would simply state that there IS no god. Period. If an athiest says there is inssuficient evidence then he/she is leaving the door open that there COULD be a good (however unlikely), if more evidence came to light. In which case your athiest is no such thing…s/he is an agnostic.
I would say that anyone who attempts to pain the world in absolutes and that they ‘know’ something without question or doubt is the goofy one. But that’s just me.
Not at all. I’m not interested in appealing to the mainstream who for the most part ALSO wouldn’t be able to detect or appreciate the subtle difference you are also unable to comprehend, seemingly. I simply find the position of not pretending to know absolutes much more palatable to me than one that thinks it knows everything.
Why not call yourself a chipmunk? Perhaps because you AREN’T a chipmunk? Lets say that I think you look and act like a chipmunk. Does that make you a chipmunk…especially if my concept of how chipmunks look and act is flawed?
And you are a chipmunk…just accept that because I say it. And my post is my cite…
I don’t know what I am theologically at this point, but I think agnosticism is both goofy and reasonable. (Personally, I consider agnosticism a subset of atheism: if you aren’t sure whether or not gods exist, you can’t be said to believe in them. But that’s semantics.)
It takes a certain amount of standing on principle to admit that you don’t know enough about something to form a positive or negative conclusion. Some people like to think that, whatever they know about any given subject, it’s always enough to form an opinion. I can’t prove peanut butter monsters don’t exist, but I don’t know of any reason to think they do. I can understand why the evidence for gods is considered more of a mixed bag.