Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Apology]

"I do not lack a belief in God"
"I do not believe God exists"

I'm not trying to be rude, but surely you see where our confusion is coming from.

Your inability to wrap your mind around the concept of agnosticism doesn't actually concern me very much.


I also feel that there's a strong possibility that God might not exist, so that hardly qualifies as a belief in God.

The word "Belief" implies conviction. I do not have a conviction either way as to whether or not God exists, so I do not belong in either group.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, the "ism" is a complete term modifier, indicating belief system or practice...

You left out state. -ism does not necessarily equal belief.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The word "Belief" implies conviction. I do not have a conviction either way as to whether or not God exists, so I do not belong in either group.

No, you belong to the group that lacks a conviction (or, more precisely, does not require one): the atheists.

 

[Beth]

No, you belong to the group that lacks a conviction (or, more precisely, does not require one): the atheists.

An agnostic might also be a Christian or a Jew. If you define atheism as the lack of belief in any God, then you end up with the category of atheist being expanded to include religious people who recognize that they do not know whether or not god exists.

 

[Irony]

Your inability to wrap your mind around the concept of agnosticism doesn't actually concern me very much.


I also feel that there's a strong possibility that God might not exist, so that hardly qualifies as a belief in God.

The word "Belief" implies conviction. I do not have a conviction either way as to whether or not God exists, so I do not belong in either group.

I have no trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of agnosticism (for the moment I'll assume you didn't mean to sound like a complete jackass). Being agnostic myself, it would be somewhat surprising if I did. I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of something between possession and non-possession. If you do not have something, how is it possible to not not have it?

 

[Apology]

No, you belong to the group that lacks a conviction (or, more precisely, does not require one): the atheists.

The only conviction that I have is that I don't know if there is a God or not. I'm 100% sure that I don't know; everything else is still up in the air. That is a separate category and condition from lacking a belief in God, and the reason the word "agnosticism" was coined in the first place. "Unsure" is different from "lacking". That is like saying that the bisexual with an opposite sex partner is "lacking in gay behavior" so therefore must be straight. Why should I take a position as an atheist and be unsure of it? I'm 100% positive that I don't know so I call myself agnostic.

 

[Apology]

I have no trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of agnosticism (for the moment I'll assume you didn't mean to sound like a complete jackass). Being agnostic myself, it would be somewhat surprising if I did. I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of something between possession and non-possession. If you do not have something, how is it possible to not not have it?

I didn't mean to sound like a jackass actually and I apologize. Beliefs and convictions are not physical items. It is possible to not know whether you have it or not, and that's distinctly different from the other two positions.

 

[bignickel]

I'm always expected to post in these kinds of threads, so here's my token post. It seems like all the old stuff has been posted already, so not much for me to offer here.

Except,
1. There is a group of people who believe in god/s: they're called theists. Everyone who is not in that club is called an atheist. Unless you can say 'yes' to "Do you believe in god/s?", you're out here with the rest of us.

2. An agnostic position is not a position of hubris, it's the exact opposite. It an admission of not being able competent enough to judge evidence that shows the existence of a being outside the universe. That's not hubris, that's humility.

3. There's lots of people who say they are agnostic atheists, Michael Shermer among them.

 

[the PC apeman]

And by FSM, if you say non-theist I'm going to slap you with a trout.

Heh. That's about what I was expecting from TShaitanaku. But if I can be a non-theist and remain without a theistic belief system then I can be an atheist without a theistic belief system (according to his -ism rule). It would be just another linguistic trick.


TShaitanaku, I've been looking around a bit and I've yet to come up with these "well established formulae" that describe the proper order of precedence for English affixes. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

An agnostic might also be a Christian or a Jew.

Yup.

If you define atheism as the lack of belief in any God, then you end up with the category of atheist being expanded to include religious people who recognize that they do not know whether or not god exists.

Nope.

 

[Trakar]

Then perhaps you could point to or coin a word that means "without a theistic belief system"?

adoxastôs?

Or if you are specific about "without belief in god," Adoxtheos, or no belief in god -

a - no
dox - belief
theos - god

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The only conviction that I have is that I don't know if there is a God or not.

Which means you do not have a conviction that God exists. Which means you are an atheist. Being an atheist does not require any conviction at all.

I'm 100% sure that I don't know; everything else is still up in the air. That is a separate category and condition from lacking a belief in God, and the reason the word "agnosticism" was coined in the first place. "Unsure" is different from "lacking". That is like saying that the bisexual with an opposite sex partner is "lacking in gay behavior" so therefore must be straight.

Your bisexuality analogy is still wrong.

Why should I take a position as an atheist and be unsure of it?

You don't have to take a position as an atheist. You are an atheist merely by virtue of not taking a position as a theist.

I'm 100% positive that I don't know so I call myself agnostic.

As I said above, you may call yourself whatever you like. I even agree that you are agnostic. That does not mean that you are not an atheist.

 

[the PC apeman]

adoxastôs?

Or if you are specific about "without belief in god," Adoxtheos, or no belief in god -

a - no
dox - belief
theos - god

Not bad. Would you take issue with my use of the term adoxtheism while still claiming to have no belief system?

 

[Apology]

3. There's lots of people who say they are agnostic atheists, Michael Shermer among them.

I don't have a problem with that. Michael Shermer can call himself whatever he likes. Agnosticism is open to anyone who has a conviction that they don't know if God exists or not. One can be an agnostic for a short period of time and then choose a side later as well. There should be a place for people who are unsure if they're a theist or an atheist. They shouldn't have to switch back and forth. If a person says "I'm a theist...no I changed my mind, I'm an atheist...well maybe I'm a deist now," they will be called a traitor by theists, atheists, and deists alike. To try to force someone into one of the categories when they're reluctant to go is like pointing a gun at their head and insisting that they endorse a group NOW, and if they change their mind later, they're a hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be comfortable with any of the groups and will never choose one.

 

[Trakar]

Not bad. Would you take issue with my use of the term adoxtheism while still claiming to have no belief system?

My primary issue is that "atheism" is a belief system in non-god (a-theos), if you wish to express non-belief then the more appropriate terminology would revolve around a-dox or non-belief. If you wish to cliam that you have no belief in god(s) I've no problem with that. Adoxtheism, however, would be describing a belief system that that doesn't believe in god (the "ism" is somewhat redundant, and somewhat contradictory as you seem to be wanting to use it). If you want to claim lack of beliefs you are adogmatic or adoxic, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about a belief system without beliefs, (which, BTW, is basically the conclusion that the early Greek philosophers came to with regards to the original term I mentioned, "adoxastôs").

 

[Apology]

I've never understood why atheism would want to incorporate people into their group that clearly don't want to be a part of that group, unless it's to make up for their lack of numbers.

If you insist that I choose a category now, then fine, I'm a theist today. Congratulations, I'm now much farther away from atheism than I was before you forced me to choose. Of course, by morning, the self-congratulatory gloating from the theists for "converting" me and the pre-existing dogma will annoy me enough that I'm sure I'll be an agnostic again.

When I talk to Christians naturally I tell them they've forced me to be an atheist. I'm pretty much hearing the same argument from both sides--"you're either one of them or one of us".

 

[dirtywick]

There was an analogy earlier about broccoli and whether or not you like it. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it either. It's edible. What if I never ate broccoli before? I sure haven't had Ethiopian food before so ask me that again. So where would you lump a person who either doesn't know enough about god and science to have an educated opinion on the topic? Or who doesn't care to have an opinion either way? Or who is still weighing the question?

The OP asked for a meaningful distinction. Obviously can't both hold the belief in something and not hold a belief in something, but you can definately be ignorant to the choices or undecided. I think you'd be wrong in saying that just because someone is holding their chips and not making a commitment either way that they're defaulted to atheism. I think it's a meaningful distinction to make.

If it makes you feel better, you can tack an "atheist" on the end of agnostic and or just say athiest and still be technically correct, but practically wrong because there's just as much difference between someone who says there definately is a god absent evidence as those who say their definately isn't absent evidence as those that don't know. If you don't think there's a distinction to be made there, I don't know what to tell you other than I do.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I've never understood why atheism would want to incorporate people into their group that clearly don't want to be a part of that group, unless it's to make up for their lack of numbers.

I don't want you incorporated, and I don't care about the numbers. That I am an atheist has nothing at all to do with the reason I say you are one. I don't want you on the team; there's no team to want you on. It's simply a fact. You don't have to call yourself an atheist. You don't have to buy a t-shirt. You are an atheist if you are not a theist. There is no logically possible middle ground.

If you insist that I choose a category now...

This is where you go wrong. I am not insisting you choose anything. I do not even believe that belief is a choice. You either have it or you do not. You have admitted you do not have a conviction that god exists, i.e. you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, there is only one option left.

You may, on top of that, be an agnostic, a baseball fan, a masochist, a registered Democrat, a philatelist, and a purveyor of fine comestibles, but you are still an atheist.

 

[Rasmus]

I don't have a problem with that. Michael Shermer can call himself whatever he likes.

Words mean things. So there are many many things he could call himself that I would consider plain wrong.

Agnosticism is open to anyone who has a conviction that they don't know if God exists or not.

I guess.

One can be an agnostic for a short period of time and then choose a side later as well.

No. But you knew I was gonna say that.

There should be a place for people who are unsure if they're a theist or an atheist.

"ignorant" would apply.

They shouldn't have to switch back and forth. If a person says "I'm a theist...no I changed my mind, I'm an atheist...well maybe I'm a deist now," they will be called a traitor by theists, atheists, and deists alike.

This is just ridiculous now.

To try to force someone into one of the categories when they're reluctant to go is like pointing a gun at their head and insisting that they endorse a group NOW, and if they change their mind later, they're a hypocrite.

This more so.

Can you at least acknowledge that some people define atheist simply as not-theist?

Feel free to supply and use your own definition any time. Now would be good.

I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be comfortable with any of the groups and will never choose one.

Irrelevant. You either fit a definition or you don't. It doesn't matter if you like it.

Those that are telling you are an atheist - and that includes me - apparently use the word quite differently than you do yourself.

 

[Beth]

Yup.


Nope.

I'm totallly confused now. Is a Christian agnostic an atheist or a theist?