Isn't being an agnostic just a bit of an avoidance of making a decision?

Atheist Vs Agnostic

The main point for atheist vs agnostic is their take on the belief of God's existence. What sets atheist apart from the other systems of belief is their complete denial in any supernatural existence. They firmly don't believe in God's existence. There is an argument put forth by the atheist saying that if there was a God and he wanted mankind to know of his existence, he would have created such a situation that man would know and readily believe in him. They believe that there would be no non believers if that was the case. In the atheist vs agnostic debate, agnostics have a different take altogether. To understand the technicalities between atheism vs agnosticism. Lets take a look at the two types of agnostics.

The two types of agnostics are empirical agnostics, who believe that there are chances of God's existence and things are more or less controlled or governed by this supreme being and agnostic humanist, who on the other hand believe that the particular question of existence or non existence of God is not of much importance, they in any case, lead their lives according to a set of secular believes. These beliefs are more in line with "live and let live". Some famous agnostics were Charles Darwin,Thomas H. Huxley and Francois M. Arouet, popularly known as Voltaire, who was a French author and is considered as the father of agnosticism.

Ron

P.S. I cut and pasted this from another site. Saves time. :)

Agnostics say the existence of a god or gods can be neither proved nor disproved. Atheists say that until the existence of a god or gods is proved, there's no reason to believe.

Or, going by the people I know, agnostics haven't made up their mind and atheists have. Or agnostics think there might be some sort of something out there in some kind of supernatural world that may or may not be like what the religions teach, maybe, I don't know, while atheists think it's all bunk.

Labels are just as easily masks to hide behind as they are identifiers. They tell you how a person wishes to be seen. In the US, it is often advantageous to be seen as a believer. Note how few people in elected office say they are atheist, or agnostic.

As a matter of philosophy, I suppose I'm agnostic. I don't really know FOR SURE whether there is or is not a God.

As a matter of practicality, I live my life as if God does not exist. I guess that makes me an "agnostic humanist".

In the end, however, I don't think these labels mean much. Brother of Jerry is exactly right. It's what people do that means anything at all.

By the way, I continue to be impressed by all the truly intelligent people who post here. That's what keeps me coming back.

I think it's very difficult to draw a firm line between the two for some of us. Personally, I am a bit of both.

Atheistic in the sense that I do not believe in the god put forth by humans at any point in history. It doesn't matter to me if we are talking about YHWH or Odin. I do not believe either exists or existed.

I am agnostic in the sense that, perhaps, there is something unknowable out there, but my gut tells me if there is, it is nothing like it has been portrayed by humans.

I find plenty of agreement with atheist thinking and agree with most of what atheists explain about their lack of belief in diety. For me, however, I am not so certain that beleif or disbelief in diety is all that important - not to God anyway, if God exists - and agnosticism reflects my belief that it is not important to decide whether or not God exists.

A soft atheist may also be an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

As that points out, one can also be an agnostic theist.

I call myself an atheist because I am almost 100% certain there is no god, but I also believe that the non-existence of God has not been proven. I think there is a 0.00000001% chance, or less, there is a god, so there is still a bit of agnostic in me.

An agostic is an atheist who does not have the cajones to admit it.

When one realizes that religion causes people to steal planes and ram them into buildings, one does get a bit of an attitude.

Keep it simple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An agostic is an atheist who does not have the
> cajones to admit it.
>
. . . .

That's what some people assume, anyway. When I first left the church, I went agnostic. At the time I did still wonder if there could be a god, but determined that if there was, I did not have the ability to verify his existence or communicate with them (having decided that I didn't believe in the Holy Ghost or revelation, or feelings as a reliable indicator of God's existence, and I didn't think other people could, either). Therefore he was irrelevant and I should just live my life based on verifiable facts. I actually hoped that someday I might find a reason to believe in God again.

However, if you CALL yourself an agnostic, you end up explaining what agnostic means most of the time, and often people assume that you haven't made up your mind yet or that they should bear testimony to help you believe in God again. Or that you "don't have the cajones". ;-)

I've moved to the atheist camp, now. After a few years as an agnostic, I got kind of tired of explaining what agnosticism was, and I realized that I had absolutely no shimmer of a belief in a God, so that I really did qualify as an atheist. As time passes, it seems more and more silly to me to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible being that cares about human life and is testing us all.

I used to hesitate to say "THERE IS NO GOD." After all, how can you prove something ISN'T there? But now, I think that if there WAS such a being, and he cared so much about human life, why the heck would he be absent and invisible? To me, it just seems ridiculous now. There is just no reason to believe in an invisible magic guy.

There is a difference. If we look at the roots of both words, their meanings are made clear. A-theism mean without belief in God. A-gnosticism means without knowledge of God's existence, so that a sure belief in God falls neither one way or the other.

I'm an agnostic atheist. The way I see it, one can be both. I don't believe in God, so I'm an atheist. However, I'm not so pompous as to presume I know for sure that God doesn't exist. Therefore, I'm agnostic.

Agnostic is sometimes used as an umbrella term to cover those who believe in something, but not necessarily God. These people I would call agnostic theists.

No matter your beliefs, a little agnosticism will do you well. It's honest, it doesn't presume anything. It's the church of "I don't know."

Agnostic Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a difference. If we look at the roots of
> both words, their meanings are made clear.
> A-theism mean without belief in God. A-gnosticism
> means without knowledge of God's existence, so
> that a sure belief in God falls neither one way or
> the other.
>
> I'm an agnostic atheist. The way I see it, one
> can be both. I don't believe in God, so I'm an
> atheist. However, I'm not so pompous as to
> presume I know for sure that God doesn't exist.
> Therefore, I'm agnostic.
>
> Agnostic is sometimes used as an umbrella term to
> cover those who believe in something, but not
> necessarily God. These people I would call
> agnostic theists.
>
> No matter your beliefs, a little agnosticism will
> do you well. It's honest, it doesn't presume
> anything. It's the church of "I don't know."


This fits my position quite well. I like a lot of other ideas from many sources so I call myself an Eccentric Eclectic.

Everyone is technically -- agnostic according to this definition.
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ;

atheism:
Explicit: there are no gods
Implicit a position of non belief in gods due to the lack of evidence.
The default position: non belief in the unsupported theist claim that god exists.
I am agnostic an take the default position.

I also take the position that deities exist where they have always existed, in the creative minds of human beings.

I think one of the lines of difference between agnostics and atheists is where one tends to look for ethical/moral guidance. If somewhere in your thinking you ask yourself what some form of inscrutable unseen being might feel about the matter, then you're not an atheist.

Having spent nearly half a century pondering the matter, I've reached the point that I acknowledge I'm not capable of figuring out the answer...

That said, I've concluded nobody else is either...

And that's a nasty strawman tactic you adopted by framing the argument as an "avoidance" issue...

A blast from my exhaust pipe for that one...

Not when the only choices are simple variations of the same fairy tale.

Agnosticism is an observance that dismisses religious organizations as products of human rather than divine manufacture. The agnostic in no way denies the existence of a higher power. He or she simply rejects the notion that any individual or group speaks for or knows the will of said deity.

Atheism can't be classified as an observance of any kind as it is rooted in non-belief. The difference between atheists and agnostics is that while both dismiss religious organizations as products of human rather than divine manufacture, the atheist goes one step further by denying the existence of a higher power.

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2010 11:44AM by Timothy.

It would have to be Agnostic - because I do not know.
And I think that is the scientific choice.....

However - my working Hypothesis position would be Athiest.

There is nothing to deny so I do not deny.

Maybe you need to quit getting your definitions from religious sources and their strawman "arguments".

Atheism is simply being free of theism. Deal with it !

In order for a god to exist magic must be real. No magic, no god ... period !

So now I expect you to tell me that magic is a possibility.

What are you doing, Dave? ... Dave?

Timothy

There is "strong" and "weak" atheism. The "strong" atheist will state affirmatively there is no god. S/he will not countenance arguments otherwise. Clearly incompatible with agnosticism.

The "weak" atheist, on the other hand, recognizes that to state categorically there is no god, without even specifying what one means by the term, is overkill. It's stating an unproven negative. For the "weak" atheist, it is sufficient to say that the evidence for deity is (at the very least) seriously underwhelming, and unless and until better evidence is adduced, the default position is that there is none--with the caveat that better evidence might emerge. Obviously that is not expected.

"Weak" atheism has more in common with agnosticism than "strong," but since it does take a position on the present evidence, it is, in my estimation, more forthright than the usual formulation of agnosticism.

FWIW, I am strong atheist as far as the Mormon and Xtian gods are concerned, at least to the extent that they are described as omnipotent and omniscient. I see there a logical contradiction rendering their existence a logical impossibility. In regard to other possible deities, I am weak atheist.

You-pays-your-money-and-you-takes-your-choice-ly yrs,

S

schweizerkind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is "strong" and "weak" atheism. The "strong"
> atheist will state affirmatively there is no god.
> S/he will not countenance arguments otherwise.
> Clearly incompatible with agnosticism.
>
> The "weak" atheist, on the other hand, recognizes
> that to state categorically there is no god,
> without even specifying what one means by the
> term, is overkill. It's stating an unproven
> negative. For the "weak" atheist, it is sufficient
> to say that the evidence for deity is (at the very
> least) seriously underwhelming, and unless and
> until better evidence is adduced, the default
> position is that there is none--with the caveat
> that better evidence might emerge. Obviously that
> is not expected.
>
> "Weak" atheism has more in common with agnosticism
> than "strong," but since it does take a position
> on the present evidence, it is, in my estimation,
> more forthright than the usual formulation of
> agnosticism.
>
> FWIW, I am strong atheist as far as the Mormon and
> Xtian gods are concerned, at least to the extent
> that they are described as omnipotent and
> omniscient. I see there a logical contradiction
> rendering their existence a logical impossibility.
> In regard to other possible deities, I am weak
> atheist.
>
> You-pays-your-money-and-you-takes-your-choice-ly
> yrs,
>
> S



+1