Jamie_L

My personal thoughts:

When faced with the theistic proposition: God exists...

An agnostic says: maybe, maybe not. We can never have any knowledge on the subject, so the proposition is impossible to evaluate.

An atheist says: I do not believe this statement is true.

An atheist may ALSO say: Specific God, X, is logcially impossible and cannot be true.

The atheist doesn't have to be 100% certain to come to a conclusion that it is not reasonable to believe "God exists" is true. Just as those of us who have not searched every inch of the universe for Leprechauns feel confident saying it is not rational to believe "Leprechauns exist" is true. I think very few of us are agnostic about the existence of Leprechauns - feeling it is impossible to conclude one way or the other.

So, what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

The agnostic intentionally avoids coming to any kind of conclusion on the God issue.

The atheist comes to reasoned conclusion based on data that may be incomplete, but which appears to the atheist to be sufficient.

Jamie

beastmaster

Hi BAC.

I define atheist thusly: a person who infers based on the reasonably available evidence -- and without speculating on the evidence that is not reasonably available -- that there is no god.

Atheism is a contingent, evidence-based inference.

Atheism does not depend on asserting that there is no possibility of a supreme being. Such an assertion would require one to speculate on evidence that is not reasonably available -- which is contradictory to the methodology. Atheism simply concludes that, if such a Supreme Being exists, none of the reasonably available evidence supports its existence. And the evidence that is reasonably available indicates that there is no such being or that assuming such a being is superfluous (Occam's Razor).

Agnosticism has several definitions, some of which closely overlap with atheism. I would say that a "true" agnostic is one who has not yet drawn any inferences based on the evidence. Edit: By "true" agnostic, I mean an agnostic who cannot be said to be an atheist at the same time.

But the reality is that there is no "distinction" between atheists and agnostics. They are simply different emphases.

Rational BAC

Ended up with a basically duplicate post just recently.

Sorry about that. Tried to delete one of them---but couldn't get it done for some reason.

Rational BAC

Got to go now-----Good discussion so far, I think anyway.

Later--------

braces_for_impact

The key point for an agnostic is that they are witholding judement on the matter of the existence of god, based on that they believe the question is unknowable. An agnostic simply believes that the question cannot ever be answered, it is an unsolvable puzzle.

Most weak atheists see no reason to believe in a god based on available evidence. If provided with empirical evidence, a weak atheist would have to re-evaluate his position. It is not the assertion that a god doesn't exist, simply that they think there is no reasonable, rational reason to think it's true. A strong atheist takes a more firm stance in asserting that there is no god based both on available data and the various logical contradictions that come along with any specific deity and that deities' supposed characteristics.

In my experience, many (not all) agnostics are simply atheists who do not wish to have the stigmata of "atheist" attached to them. I have met very few true agostics.

beastmaster

LOL -- Is that when you bleed from the forehead from all the :banghead:?

Jackalope

Or it's simply an irrelevant issue. The best I've ever come up with is that one has evaluated the evidence and concluded "Not proven." And then we usually go on with our lives, unless a someone slaps a really stupid or insane statement in my face. I'm the type who then gets annoyed. Other agnostics I know will shrug their shoulders say, "That's wonderful. Now find something else to talk about or get out of my face."

The difference between weak atheism and agnosticism seems to mostly be one of attitude.

Selsaral

Sums up what I wanted to say very well.

Philosoft

Sure there is. Any piece of knowledge that is definitively associated with a god is evidence that agnosticism is false.

I don't believe such people exist. "Strong" atheism manifests when a particular god-concept is defined rigorously enough that empirical or logical flaws render it untenable.
An atheist makes a belief-claim: "I do not believe God exists."
An agnostic makes a knowledge-claim: "God's existence is an unknowable proposition."

The are not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe without knowledge or disbelieve without knowledge.

Dr. Retard

"Atheist" has two really popular definitions (there's (i) holding that, believing that, claiming that, accepting the position that there's no God, and (ii) not believing, not accepting that there's a God, disclaiming the theistic position). "Agnostic" has about 30 popular definitions. And despite all the muddle, people love to play word dictator with these terms. It's a mess.

If you say you're an atheist, you have to put up with more shit; people will think you're really nasty and dogmatic. But self-proclaimed 'agnostics' are also typically viewed as lily-livered weiners. So, why not just describe your position? Like "I really doubt there's a God" or "In all likelihood, there's no God" or "I'm not sure, but I don't see any good grounds for believing in God".