The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

One major difference between an agnostic and atheist is that the agnostic lacks beliefs on ALL matters of the intellect. The atheists lacks beliefs only when it comes to God's existence. If an atheists is not willing to commit to shunning all beliefs then they can not call themselves "agnostic". The point of agnosticism, as Huxley intended, was to not adopt ideology or dogma.

I'll go ahead and say because of this the agnostic would be more reasonable than an atheist, in the same way atheists think they are more reasonable than Christians. The reason for this is not because of agnostics being all-knowing or arrogant, but rather it's because the PRINCIPLE that agnostics live by. Again, the principle of applying logic and evidence standard to ALL areas would mean that we use REASON more than the atheists that only applies it to matters of religion.

So what can you expect in debates with agnostics? The best way to illustrate this is to say that we'll sound like scientists on ALL matters. In comparison, many atheists sound like scientists when it comes to confronting the Bible and Christians but on any other matter they sound like liberal Democrats.

Agnostics are not perfect so we can acknowledge that we won't always be right in all debates. Our principle is perfectly suited for logic and evidence, but being the imperfect humans that we are, we may not always apply that standard flawlessly.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #2

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: One major difference between an agnostic and atheist is that the agnostic lacks beliefs on ALL matters of the intellect.
That's non starter. The usual definition of an agnostic goes along the line of someone who believes that the existence or nature of god is unknown or unknowable. Its scope is limited to the topic of god.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #3

Post by William »

Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: One major difference between an agnostic and atheist is that the agnostic lacks beliefs on ALL matters of the intellect.
That's non starter. The usual definition of an agnostic goes along the line of someone who believes that the existence or nature of god is unknown or unknowable. Its scope is limited to the topic of god.
William: You appear to be claiming that one cannot be agnostic regarding other subjects because one is limited to a rigid idea that agnosticism is only meant to be applied to matters of religious content.

Semantics perhaps.
When I see the argument for 'usual definitions' it often reminds me of the 'True Scotsman fallacy' - a device of limitation...everything is constantly evolving and human language is no exception.

You also appear to be claiming that the subject of Creator/Creation is also limited...


User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #4

Post by William »

[Replying to post 1 by AgnosticBoy]
Agnostics are not perfect so we can acknowledge that we won't always be right in all debates. Our principle is perfectly suited for logic and evidence, but being the imperfect humans that we are, we may not always apply that standard flawlessly.
William: In a recent discussion with a proclaimed fellow agnostic it became apparent to me that his particular theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion was inadequate a device for ensuring that he remained agnostic when he was asked about the Simulation Theory.

When shown that there is coding throughout the universe - which is being decoded through the necessary invention of human mathematics - and therefore evidence that we may exist within a Creation, he showed that his particular epistemology was not well designed for the purpose of Agnosticism...and shut the discussion down on a technicality...that being that it wasn't part of the thread topic and if I wanted to discuss Simulation Theory, I should create my own thread to do so.
His atheist-based epistemology simply wasn't up to the task.

It appears that a lot of atheists dress up as would-be agnostics and it can be a mission sorting out the real from the fake. Especially when the fakery attempts to claim that agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism.
:roll:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #5

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: You appear to be claiming that one cannot be agnostic regarding other subjects because one is limited to a rigid idea that agnosticism is only meant to be applied to matters of religious content.
You can be agnostic regarding other subjects, you just need to be explicit and qualify your statements because of how the word is usually defined. For example, when people say evolution we think biology, if you are actually talking about stellar evolution (or language,) you better make it clear.
Semantics perhaps.
Of course it's semantics, I was talking about a definition after all.
When I see the argument for 'usual definitions' it often reminds me of the 'True Scotsman fallacy' - a device of limitation...everything is constantly evolving and human language is no exception.
Right, and the usual definitions reflects the current state of language evolution.
You also appear to be claiming that the subject of Creator/Creation is also limited.
I don't have an answer for you because I don't understand what "the subject of Creator/Creation is also limited" mean.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #6

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: One major difference between an agnostic and atheist is that the agnostic lacks beliefs on ALL matters of the intellect.
That's non starter. The usual definition of an agnostic goes along the line of someone who believes that the existence or nature of god is unknown or unknowable. Its scope is limited to the topic of god.
That is a common definition today, but this definition doesn't get into all that agnosticism involves. To think otherwise, simply takes agnosticism out of context.

I go back to the original source to understand what agnosticism is supposed to mean instead of going by what modern-day atheists think of it. Huxley coined the word. He accused both atheists and theists of having "dogmas". His view of agnosticism involved avoiding dogma and he made a principle to reinforce that.

Now you might say the principle of applying logic and evidence amounts to rationalism.


He did state that he was ignorant regarding God's existence but He also clarified why. He came up with a principle and clearly stated that the principle was all that agnosticism involved. Stated negatively, the principle is to avoid dogma:

"And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

And positively stated:
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Both quotes are from Thomas Huxley's essays and I can provide you the links to those if you need them.


So we can say that your definition is just one common but simple definition. But there is a more expanded definition or description offered by Huxley. Huxley's definition did not simply involve a position but also a method or principle.

You might say that the principle is nothing more than "rationalism" which may be true, but the point is that agnostics would apply it CONSISTENTLY or on ALL matters as opposed to just applying it towards religion. Huxley observed that eventhough atheists claimed to be guided by science and reason but they still held ideologies/dogma in the background. And this is true today! Again, agnosticism is about consistent rationalism and in that sense it should also be free of ideologies and "beliefs". Here's more from Huxley:

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

I'm not an atheist because I affirm the statement, "God does not exist."

I'm an atheist because I refuse to accept that it is god, whether it exists or not... whether it can send me to Hell or not.

Imagine you can hop universes, and all possibilities exist, somewhere. You can go to the Rick and Morty multiverse. You can visit the Star Trek universe.

You're going to find a lot of super-powerful entities, but if you have half a brain you're not going to automatically start worshiping them.

You're not going to go to the Superman universe, fall to your knees in front of Mister Mxyzptlk the first time he appears, and cry, "O Lord, what dost thou command?!" just because he demonstrates some phenomenal cosmic power. (You... you probably wouldn't worship the Robin Williams Genie, either.)

Now imagine you jump to the Bible universe. Did you bring your brain with you this time?

Yeah.

See why I'm an atheist? It has nothing to do with whether the Biblical God exists or not.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Post #8

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Here are 3 questions and points I want to respond to:

1. What is the definition of agnosticism? Why is my definition different?

My understanding of the meaning of agnosticism comes from the writings of the person who coined the term, i.e. Thomas Huxley. In one instance, he stated that it was a label for people who claim ignorance on metaphysical matters (e.g. God's existence) in contrast with those who claim certainty (atheists and theists). This is what many, including modern dictionaries, tend to base their definitions on. What's left out of the dictionaries is Huxley's other statements that go towards the definition of an 'agnostic'. Huxley clearly stated that agnosticism is not a view but rather it's a principle. Asserted negatively, the principle is to not claim to have certainty towards any matter of the intellect unless it is proven. Asserted positively, it is to apply logic and evidence standard to ALL views. This is what I refer to as the agnostic principle. This would involve shunning all beliefs, ideologies, and dogma that aren't proven. In fact, the reason why Huxley claimed ignorance on metaphysical matters is because a lot of metaphysical views (materialism, God, etc) are largely unproven.

So factoring in the FULL and intended meaning, an agnostic is someone who remains uncertain or suspends judgement on all unproven matters. Again, the 'agnostic principle' serves to reinforce this position. In fact, when you apply the principle, it may even lead to views that are backed by logic and evidence and you would want to accept or have firm certainty towards such views. Many who call themselves agnostic nowadays may simply focus on the label without applying the principle or method behind it. These types are not agnostic in the fullest sense of the word.


2. One member suggested that holding a position that involves, "I don't know" or "you can't prove it" may be an easy position to defend but it is impractical when it comes to living life.

Again, getting back to the definition for agnosticism, it is not about not wanting to have a view of your own to defend. It is not about remaining on the fence and saying "I don't know". It is about placing certainty only on things that can be proven. In this case, an agnostic can have views, and base their thinking and life on those views. Now this only applies to matters or moments where only the intellect should apply, like in a debate.

With that said, what makes a view or position easily defensible should NOT be that it lacks a view, but rather that it is a solidly PROVEN view. It's hard to argue against strong logic and evidence. When I'm developing a view, I take the time to weed out any ideology and belief while searching for logic and evidence. I embrace the view after it is backed by logic and evidence. Many do this towards religion or in their scientific practice, but you hardly see it when it comes to politics and philosophy. As an example, look at my covid-19 view. The liberals can't knock it down, especially given their EXTREME view of applying a one shoe fits all approach. Logic and evidence always trumps political ideology.

3. Another member suggested that agnostics should always be right on everything if they use logic and evidence towards everything.

Using logic and evidence, does not ensure that you will be infallible. You will always apply the standard, but there may be new evidence or overlooked evidence or an error in reasoning and understanding. But such a person is still dealing in evidence and logic, even if not perfectly. This is why scientists can be wrong as well despite applying the scientific method.

GG93
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:50 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #9

Post by GG93 »

I don't think the constant bickering over the definition of atheism is an interesting topic or that it really matters. What is fascinating to me is the psychology behind the atheists that have extreme cognitive dissonance about it.

Dishonest Atheists like Matt Dillahunty refuse to define atheism certain ways because they think they can get out of having to defend their position on god.

I think Atheist Like Aronra Are Clowns

In response to Steve McRae definition of atheist and agnostic I often see people attempting to counter it by citing the dictionary. This is a textbook example of the appealing to dictionary fallacy.

Appealing to definition fallacy (also known as: appeal to the dictionary, victory by definition)

Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Definition
Godless Girl- Hott Female Atheist

My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnAJvj ... d91rrsg6vQ

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: The difference between Atheists and Agnostics

Post #10

Post by Miles »

GG93 wrote: Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:28 pm Dishonest Atheists like Matt Dillahunty refuse to define atheism certain ways because they think they can get out of having to defend their position on god.
I'm interested in Dillhunty's dishonesty. What is it? And, in what "certain ways" should he define atheism?

The thing is, Matt DOES define his atheism, which he has done many, many times on YouTube's The Atheist Experience. It's a disbelief that god exists. He rejects the theist's assertion that god exists.
I think Atheist Like Aronra Are Clowns
Okay, but why is this important?

.

Post Reply