What is the difference between agnostic and atheist?

What is the difference between agnostic and atheist?

Having a little trouble defining your stance on religion? Then have a look ­čÖé

9
Like
Save

Comments

cristalsoldier says:

“What will happen to those who die suddenly, if you do not pray for them? On the day of judgment you will know the full impact of your prayers and you will see the souls´╗┐ that might have been saved if you had prayed for them. Children, do not allow that this should happen! Apply yourselves to pray and offer sacrifice for souls. The repercussions will be felt both in time and in eternity”.

Jesus

The Pelianito Journal Blog

EXALTEDDIRT says:

Have you ever lied before? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Jesus said if you look with lust you commit adultery in your heart; ever done that? (IF) you have; God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart and you have to face God on judgment day! (IF) God judged you by the ten commandments would you be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Revelation´╗┐ 21v8 says; “All liars will have their part in the´╗┐ lake of fire” Repent trust in Christ!

Swecan76 says:

The burden of proof to the CLAIM of there being a god lies with the person that MAKES the claim.
Anyone with a rational mind realize that there is no god, it is bronze age mythology from a time of ignorance in almost anything, hence a “god must have done it”. And the ” I am afraid of death, I hope there is a´╗┐ fun place to go to when I die”. It’s like adult children.
A personal god (religion) does not exist, so what’s left a deity? So what, it has no meaning if a deity exist if it is not PERSONAL.

Swecan76 says:

Agnosticism is the dumbest fucking word ever invented.
It tries to take the middle ground of´╗┐ “no one can really know if there is a god”. Fuck that.
It is catering to the religious mindless hoard. Saying “there could be a god”, yet it is so fucking dumb cause religious morons placed god outside ALL of existence, IE the universe, to protect their moronic ideas of a god.
An Atheist don’t believe there is a god, period. It is a dumb as someone claiming a pink unicorn lives on Pluto.

Swecan76 says:

Wrong, an atheist or atheism is not based on BELIEF.
It is based in a lack of belief in a proposed idea of a deity. Do you understand?
Saying that it is a “belief” in that there is no god makes the assumption that a “god” always a part of the equation. It´╗┐ is a man made concept that stems from ignorance and need to have an answer to things they don’t know.
I don’t believe in a god, see the words “DON’T BELIEVE”, it cannot be a “belief” system.
Same as NOT collecting stamps isn’t a hobby.

Matur1n says:

I would note that even under the classical definitions, atheism is just about a lack of belief. The atheist doesn’t have to “claim” anything, so your continued use of “claimed” and “claim”´╗┐ doesn’t make sense, even under those definitions. Those are just about what you believe and don’t have a belief of, or know or don’t have knowledge of, neither atheism or agnosticism have anything to do with what a person “claims” at all.

Matur1n says:

You can repeat the classical definitions of atheism and agnosticism all you want. We´╗┐ both agree the classical definitions have atheism being a lack of belief in a deity and Aldous Huxley coined agnosticism to be a lack of the knowledge.there is one. English is a living language and those words in modern usage are changing. Atheism is becoming an affirmitive belief there is not a God, rather than just a lack of belief and agnosticism has moved away from being about knowledge to being undecided.

Jonas Ekroll Bakkelund says:

The very definition of being an atheist – is lacking belief in a deity. And if you don’t weigh towards religion, and don’t claim any belief of a deity – then you are by that definition: an atheist.
” They can’t be called an atheist because they won’t say they don’t have a belief. Same for theist, the answer becomes I am not sure.”
The very definition of´╗┐ agnosticism is claiming that you do not know if there is a deity – it has nothing to do with whether or not you believe.

Matur1n says:

“Either you believe, or you don’t – what else is there?”

Unwilling to commit either way. They can’t be called an atheist´╗┐ because they won’t say they don’t have a belief. Same for theist, the answer becomes I am not sure.

“Agnosticism is not supposed to be used as a middle ground”

Whether it is “supposed to” or not, that seems to be the way common usage is moving.

“If you do sit “on the fence” apathetically, and don’t proclaim that you believe in any religion”

That’s not on the fence.

QuestionalReality says:

If then you say “but I’m not opposed to there being a deity” then you’re an agnostic atheist. You don’t really believe in any organised religion, but you are not opposed to the possibility of there being one; because no one has proved either theism nor atheism to be utterly correct.

There´╗┐ is no middle ground in faith – either you believe, or you don’t. “Well, I do think Jesus lived – but I can’t prove there’s a God” – well, then you’re an agnostic theist.

It’s that simple.

QuestionalReality says:

That’s where so many people have it wrong. Because they are two different definitions. How can you be in the middle? Either you believe, or you´╗┐ don’t – what else is there?
Agnosticism is not supposed to be used as a middle ground, it is supposed to be used to further explain one’s stand on religion.

If you do sit “on the fence” apathetically, and don’t proclaim that you believe in any religion – you lack faith. Which is the very definition of being an atheist.

indignant99 says:

“agnosticism in the middle” No. Dead fucking wrong!´╗┐

Matur1n says:

“it is the proper use of the word”

No it isn’t. Just because atheism/theism work that way doesn’t mean gnosticism/agnosticism do as well.

“It’s quite simply a definition of knowledge, not belief”

That is certainly the classical meaning. But meanings change with common usage. Few people calling themselves agnostic today mean “knowledge”´╗┐ rather than indicating they consider themselves neither theist nor atheist, but declining to make a decision or on-the-fence about their beliefs.

QuestionalReality says:

I’m aware of the change in meaning with the word gnostic, but when put in such an apparent context – it is the proper use of the word. And as far as agnostic being the middle ground – I disagree. It’s quite simply a definition of knowledge, not belief. Which to atheists in particular, is a BIG deal
There is no sitting on the fence – either you believe or you don’t. Apathy towards religion is lack of´╗┐ belief, or´╗┐ care to believe – which is atheism

Either you believe or you don’t. No middle ground

Matur1n says:

-contd- Atheism is now usually used to mean an affirmitive belief that God does not exist, what some call “strong atheism”. Agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism for those who have not decided, those on the fence. It is a continuum with atheism and theism at the ends and agnosticism in the´╗┐ middle. English is a living language that changes with common usage. Most dictionaries are catching up with this change. Gnosticism is a completely different thing.

Matur1n says:

Those are the classical meanings of the words atheist and agnostic. Modern usage is changing that. However, you are totally wrong about the word gnostic. It isn’t matched liked atheism and theism are. A gnostic´╗┐ is someone who has secret or special knowledge from a deity. It has meant that for centuries, long before Aldous Huxley coined the word agnostic. Modern usage of agnostic and atheist has changed the meanings. Atheism is used to mean an affirmitive beleif that God does not exist. -contd-

Comments are disabled for this post.