Agnosticism vs. Atheism

[ST88]

Atheism is traditionally divided into two groups: strong and weak.

The strong-atheist actively disbelieves in a God. s/he has considered the question of whether or not there is a God or gods, and has answered the question "no".

The weak-atheist passively disbelieves in a God. s/he has heard the question of whether or not there is a God and refuses to answer because no available evidence exists in either direction. The question itself is meaningless.

In practice, agnosticism and weak-atheism are identical and strong-atheism is often translated as just atheism when the two are mentioned together. The agnostic does not trust conclusions that are not based on empirical evidence and/or logic. Thomas Huxley, who coined the modern-day term "agnostic" in 1869, has this to say.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

In terms of everyday life, both agnostics and atheists behave as if there were not a God or gods. But the agnostic tends to consider the various questions posed by religion and judge them on their merits, while the atheist tends to reject religious doctrine outright as it applies to invisible deities.

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

[perspective]

I'd consider myself both a strong and weak atheist.

I am open to considering each and every religious concept on it's own merits, and even with some convolusion to see if it has merits outside the ones that are used to market it.

However, I am certain in my belief that there is no evidence, nor will there ever come to light any evidence that proves that supernatural beings exist. I cannot prove that they surely don't exist - but I am sure in my own beliefs that they do not exist.

[fried beef sandwich]

As I understand it:

Strong Atheism = "I can prove there is no god."
Weak Atheism = "There is no sufficient evidence or proof to believe in gods. Therefore, I must conclude that gods do not exist."

Strong Agnosticism = "We can never know whether there are any gods or not."
Weak Agnosticism = "Given the evidence and proofs before me, I do not know whether there are gods or not"

[The Hungry Atheist]

I consider myself an atheist, even though I don't really fit either of fried beef sandwich's definitions (great name though). Whatever anyone on either side might say, there is no proof of whether there is or isn't a God, and I'm not sure whether I even conclude that there is no God. The way I use the words, put simply, atheism simply means being without a belief in God, and agnosticism involves maintaining uncertainty and admitting ignorance. So, I'm an agnostic atheist - I don't believe in God, but I don't claim that such a being absolutely doesn't exist.

[Pyrrhonist]

I would consider myself an agnostic when it comes to a supreme intelligence but definitely an atheist when such intelligence cames in the form of Yahweh, Allah, Budda or any other such deities. The question of design vs randomness is, to me, still open to debate though I feel we will never find the answer

[perfessor]

If a label is needed, I call myself Agnostic. But I also like to keep in mind the words of Jesus: "The tree is known by its fruits." I take this to mean that my actions will have consequences (fruits); and that these will speak louder than any label I might choose.

Woody Allen had a great joke on the subject, it went something like this: "I was going with this really great girl, and we were going to be married. But we broke up over religious differences. She was Athiest, and I was Agnostic - we couldn't agree on what religion NOT to bring the kids up in."

[mrmufin]

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall?

I do not believe that any gods exist, thus I simply regard myself as atheist to avoid further confusion. (Please adjust local labels as necessary.) However, my atheism does not completely rule out the existence of any god, should the affirmative evidence make a convincing case. Until then, trying to distinguish the unobserveable from the nonexistent remains a tedious task.

And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

Some days I sorta admire the fancy footwork of apologetics; other days I just shake my head and wonder, "How do people actually believe this stuff?" While I don't necessarily have any problems with following the teachings of Christ (or Mohammed or Buddha or Vishnu or Loki or Krishna, etc.), I do not regard placing scripture above conflicting, empirical evidence as a Good Thing(TM).

Regards,
mrmufin

[atheisthumanist]

I actively believe that no god(s) exist.

[TransverseWave]

Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

I'm a weak atheist and a weak agnostic. I remain unconvinced by philosophical arguments in either direction, because it's easy to go wildly wrong if one doesn't grasp the nature of the thing one's arguing about, and who could grasp the nature of God if he exists? And the empirical evidence strikes me as inconclusive.

I don't much like uncertainty, as a matter of temperament; most of the time I think I'd rather be a deist or a strong atheist. But I have no sufficient reason for adopting a position of more certainty.

[concerro]

Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

I'm a weak atheist and a weak agnostic. I remain unconvinced by philosophical arguments in either direction, because it's easy to go wildly wrong if one doesn't grasp the nature of the thing one's arguing about, and who could grasp the nature of God if he exists? And the empirical evidence strikes me as inconclusive.

I don't much like uncertainty, as a matter of temperament; most of the time I think I'd rather be a deist or a strong atheist. But I have no sufficient reason for adopting a position of more certainty.

I dont see why someone could not be able to understand God if he existed. I dont think he could expect us to relate to him if we were not capable of understanding him.