Atheism & Agnosticism are not the same thing!

SeanW wrote: »

You may have noticed that I've started using the term fundamaterialist instead, it's the closest word I can think of, other than Atheist, for someone who asserts the negative.

It has always been my understanding that those who assert the negative would describe themselves as atheists. I have always, up until now at least considered Atheism = Certainty of no god, i.e. the opposite of Theism = Certainty of god.

Even if that does not hold, I still self-identify as agnostic because I consider the impossibility of knowledge to be the defining feature of my beliefs.

I don't know of a single serious atheist who would claim total certainty in the lack of a god; it simply wouldn't make any sense. By your operational definition, there's no such thing as an atheist - because who would claim divine certainty of the non-existence of the divine?

doovdela wrote: »

Can we get a proper definition before this thread gets closed as this plethora is an ongoing debate which will go on forever...

How about this?





I've always thought that it explains things quite clearly.

Seachmall wrote: »

Theist;
(noun)

1. Someone who believes in the existence of God(s).

Atheist;
(noun)

1. Someone who is not a theist.

Therefore, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God(s).

That is the only characteristic of an atheist. It is the literal one and the most widely used among those who refer to themselves as atheists.

Being atheist does not mean you do not believe in other supernatural things, it does not mean you don't believe in fate, it does not mean you do not believe in a balancing force such as Karma, etc.

While these things may be common among some atheists it is not what makes them atheists.

They're called Gnostic Atheists, or Strong Atheists ("Gnostic Atheists" is more descriptive though).

Ok I think I get it now. Theist believes but an Atheist does not?

What's the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then?

So basically give myself as an example:

I go to Mass regularly not of my benefit, but to keep others happy to be seen that I go, I would say that I am Christian rather than a Catholic though describe myself as a Catholic to keep the elders happy.

I doubt the Catholic teachings and religious beliefs I don't believe everything they say is true. Its nonsense/cult religion kind of thing. Goes over my head as I understand some of it but not all of it. It confuses me sometimes and I get lost as to what they are trying to say though can pick up morals of stories yes but the whole bible thing just bores me. I be more kind of spiritual type of person than pray. I pray but only when I have to. I believe God exists but I don't believe he is real or that he may have existed but not now....I doubt him.

I don't go to confession but still attend all the sacraments. I don't believe in Scientology by any means but I would believe that the big bang happened, that we started off as micro-organisms, humans descended from the apes and so on and don't' believe that the whole adam and eve thing happened I think there is more too it or else that they in fact were something else. Same applies to Jesus and Mary. I don't think the immaculate conception happened, I don't think Jesus was Jesus that It could have been a female person instead, church doesn't like this of course and its not proven either way. How Jesus lived the way he did if he did and did exist he may or may not have but if he did don't think many people could have lived like him its impossible. He teaches about life yes but there are other ways to live a life similar to him without having to believe in all that catholic teaching malarky.

What am I then? Agnostic, Atheist, Spiritual, Scientologist, Catholic, or just a plain ould Christian? Or is it something too complex to define as you are either one or the other???

doovdela wrote: »

What's the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then?

Agnostic is traditionally a fluffy term that people use when they don't want to admit they're atheist. Traditionally the idea is that "Agnostic" means "I don't know" and people call themselves "Agnostic" when they want to make a point that they're no longer a member of a religion, but don't want to upset their granny by saying they don't believe in God.

But if you look at it more closely the statement of "I don't know" is in relation to the question of "Is there a God?", not "Do I believe in God?". You can quite rationally say that you believe in God, but you don't know if he/she exists. Likewise, you can say that you don't believe in God, but you also don't know if one exists.

That's why there's reference in this thread to "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist".

So basically give myself as an example:

...

I believe God exists but I don't believe he is real or that he may have existed but not now....I doubt him.

This is all that matters really. Catholic/non-catholic, etc is irrelevant when it comes to being theist or atheist.

You say you believe God exists, but you don't believe he is real? Do you mean "real" as in "tangible"?

I don't think the immaculate conception happened

Aside, this also means that you're not Catholic. The immaculate conception is a fundamental part of catholic dogma. If you identify as Catholic, then you must accept that this occurred. If you do not believe it occurred, then you cannot be Catholic.

Pompous wrote: »

Are you that desperate to get your post count up, really?

If anyone has an intelligent retort I'd be happy to hear it.

Lol, you posted this on After Hours. Were you expecting an intelligent retort?

Anyway my solution to the problem at hand. Give Agnostics their own forum, and pair the Atheist forum with After Hours instead. Ever try to start a thread about religon on this forum. Suddenly this place becomes an Atheist forum as well.

SeanW wrote: »

Oh dear, I guess all these people (like Albert Einstein) were terrified of upsetting their grannies

Now that's a strawman. Nicely done.

Yes, even Albert Einstein can be wrong. He misunderstood atheism as the certain rejection of Gods.

marty1985 wrote: »

Most dictionaries I've ever checked define it as either the belief there is no god, or as an active disbelief. Atheism as a (passive) lack of belief is a relatively new idea, introduced by Anthony Flew in his book The Presumption of Atheism. It's a debating trick - a useful one.

People are free to define it as they see fit. Or to concur with dictionaries, which exist to represent the common usage, which also reflect the intention of the person who coined the term agnostic.

Sadly, people want to draw battle lines and not tolerate ambiguity, in a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us false dichotomy kinda way.

Further to this, I would just say I think people are free to define themselves as they see fit, whether that be atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, theist, deist, Bright. But for the sake of civility, let's avoid telling other people what they are, because that just pisses everyone off.

ok this is probably the most informative thread in AH and i want to ask:

1.I know and read all the religion books of islam/christianity/buddhism
2.I believe more in science rather than god/s but i never deny the existence of god/s

so am i an agnostic atheist?

Seachmall wrote: »

seraphimvc wrote: »

ok this is probably the most informative thread in AH and i want to ask:

1.I know and read all the religion books of islam/christianity/buddhism
2.I believe more in science rather than god/s but i never deny the existence of god/s

so am i an agnostic atheist?

If you don't believe in God but don't claim to know there is no God then you are Agnostic Atheist.

Do any gnostic atheists actually exist, outside non-deity-based religion?

Seachmall wrote: »

For example, a circle cannot simultaneously be a square.

Unless dealing with a magical metric like Manhattan distance.

Now to end this post with the notice that it was tongue-in-cheek.

SeanW wrote:

You might be an Agnostic Theist.

You appear to tend towards the view that there may be something out there, but you may have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to tell what, if anything that is. You consider scientific explanations for things to be valid. You've rejected all or part of Abrahamic dogma which is a strong sign of sanity.

Have a look over this and see if any of it applies to you.

seamus wrote:

Agnostic is traditionally a fluffy term that people use when they don't want to admit they're atheist. Traditionally the idea is that "Agnostic" means "I don't know" and people call themselves "Agnostic" when they want to make a point that they're no longer a member of a religion, but don't want to upset their granny by saying they don't believe in God.

But if you look at it more closely the statement of "I don't know" is in relation to the question of "Is there a God?", not "Do I believe in God?". You can quite rationally say that you believe in God, but you don't know if he/she exists. Likewise, you can say that you don't believe in God, but you also don't know if one exists.

That's why there's reference in this thread to "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist".

Seachmall wrote:

An Agnostic is someone who does not know if God exists.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists.

They aren't rungs on the same ladder, so to speak.


One could easily be

Gnostic Theist
- Believes God exists.
- Knows* God exists.

Gnostic Atheist
- Believes God does not exist.
- Knows* God does not exist.

Agnostic Theist
- Believes God exists.
- Does not know if God exists.

Agnostic Atheist
- Does not believe God exists.
- Does not know if God exists.

They're 2 complementary concepts, not exclusive as some believe.

Some people use "Theist" synonymously with "Gnostic Theist" and "Atheist" with "Gnostic Atheist", many atheists use "Atheist" synonmously with "Agnostic Atheist".

Those uses are handy for general use but confuse the matter when a proper discussion breaks out.

As for what you are, I have no idea

*I say "know" here, but in reality it should be "claim to know".

So I’m an Agnostic Theist then but not a Catholic….mmm I could go with that, found It difficult to define what I really am in terms of religion/religious beliefs. Ah I get it now thanks for clearing that up.

For me I suppose I won’t believe something until I see it happen like have to see it before believing it. Like wouldn’t have believed that the Holy Mary magically appeared in Knock or Lourdes that be utter cac to believe that it happened.

Ya I see it to believe it and believe in the facts than just stories, I don’t mind fables and so on so forth if there is moral too it but its made up fact/fiction, fiction none fiction there is a difference.

Even the whole thing regarding the holy-grail is a farce. Though St Patrick’s story its hard to know why did he become so religious when he was practically a pagan except that he prayed and tried to bring catholic belief into Ireland? If anything Ireland should have stayed as pagans but wonder will there have been any St Patrick if it weren’t for him there would be no St Paddys day!?

Ya I see what you mean. I would need to be fully informed on things, things have had to happen, have to see it with my own eyes. Though I am quiet serious I believe anything anyone would tell me but I would know if they are codding me. Despite being serious whether taking a joke or not seriously.

Yes I agree with scientific explanations more than religious ones that be about right.
Been the case since I were very young, never really believed or got to terms with the teachings much. I always doubted the whole story behind Jesus and so on. Mary Madeline and so on is possible she could have been the real Jesus but the church didn’t condone it. While it being quiet discriminatory that women cannot be priests, nun’s cannot do the same things as priests, that priests and nuns cannot marry and have children. It was more or less down to money the reason why priests didn’t marry and have kids, a pope changed the law a few centuries ago as there was no such thing as pre-nups and the wife/kids could get inheritance if the marriage failed or when the priest die it go to them.

I see God as an imaginary being in the Sky….may have power or not over what happens in this world but still think the universe, faith, destiny and all that sort of thing has more to do with what happens in this life though you can impact what happens yet you cannot control what happens in this world but you control yourself and your choices, you make it happen.

On the subject, Is anyone else bored talking about religious views?

Why does every conversation about Secularism become a religious debate?

I want us to get the point were we can say something akin to 'I support United, she supports City and he doesn't like football, thank f**k our government doesn't make decisions influenced by any one of our preferences'