i just wanna to know what's the difference between being atheist and being agnostic
2007-03-04 22:40:31 · 16 answers · asked by Gucci-Princess 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Agnostics share with many believers the unawareness of the burden of evidence: they believe that the fact that there's no evidence for a god's existence means that question is a 50/50 proposition. It's a less open-minded position than atheism, apparently based on the assumption that if so many people believe in gods, there must be something to the god thing.
Atheists understand the burden of evidence: they understand that the lack of evidence for a god's existence means that we should believe that there is no god. They recognize that the fact that billions of people believe in gods is not evidence for the existence of any gods, and therefore they treat the question of god's existence the same way that they treat other questions of existence. It's a more fair and open-minded position than agnosticism.
The claim that atheism is a religion is simply desperately confused. I think that people only say it because they can't come up with any real argument against atheism.
2007-03-04 22:49:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you break down the word "atheism" you get "a" plus "theism", basically meaning "without deity". Atheists do not have a belief in deity. This includes positions where somebody simply lacks a belief in deity, as well as the position of positively asserting "there are no deities" (disbelief). There's a difference between the two, and many mistakenly think that atheism must always imply the second definition.
That's all you can say for sure about somebody who identifies as an "athiest": that they do not have a belief in the existence of (for lack of a better term) "God". Some people try stretching this definition to mean "one who has no religion" or "one who rejects all notions of the supernatural", but again this isn't the correct meaning of the word.
"Agnostic" was was originally coined by Professor T.H. Huxley in 1876, and he defined it as somebody who firmly believes that the existience or non-existence of a higher power CAN'T BE PROVEN one way or another. So that's the original definition. Though these days people tend to use "agnostic" to describe somebody who simply doesn't know or hasn't made up their mind one way or another on the issue. And the unsureness doesn't necessarily mean "50/50"; there are plenty of people who identify as agnostics but lean a little more towards one direction.
2007-03-05 06:57:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
An atheist denies the existence of God. He claims God does not exist. An agnostic thinks there is no way to prove whether God exists or does not exist. Maybe an agnostic is not sure if God exists or not. Non believers simply do not yet believe. Maybe some non believers are not atheists nor agnostics. They simply do not believe yet.
2007-03-05 06:49:11 · answer #3 · answered by hope 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Atheist : One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic : One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
2007-03-13 04:41:51 · answer #4 · answered by Prem K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
atheist no the is no god agnostic have a 50/50 bet
2007-03-05 06:46:08 · answer #5 · answered by andrew w 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
An atheist is one who doesn't believe in heaven or hell and etc.
An agnostic is one who needs to have it proven to them that both exist. Such a person won't confirm or deny said existence until their epiphany comes.
2007-03-05 12:01:02 · answer #6 · answered by bigvol662004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
agnostics are not sure so they sit on the proverbial fence while atheist are fully committed they do not believe in a god .
2007-03-13 04:07:58 · answer #7 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think of it in legal terms: there's "innocent until proven guilty", "guilty until proven innocent", and "maybe he's guilty, maybe he isn't". In a court of law, which one do _you_ want applied to you?
"Innocent until proven guilty" assumes the argument is _false_ until proven true. In religion, that means there is no "god" until one is proven.
"Guilty until proven innocent" assumes the argument is _true_ until proven false. In religion, the godbots assume their "god" exists. (How interesting their hypocrisy: True until proven false is good enough for their "god", but not them? Whatever happened to "walking with jeebus"?)
"Maybe he's guilty, maybe he isn't" is the same wishy-washy indecisiveness as agnosticism: "maybe there's a 'god', maybe there isn't". Because there's no pressure (yet) to force agnostics to make a decision, agnostics can get away with such ambiguity.
If the agnostics want to talk about _facts_, though, they will have to drop the fence sitting and pick a side. Just as medicine either works or it doesn't (which is how science works), so it is with religion. Either there is a "god" or there isn't; there is no "maybe".
.
2007-03-05 07:13:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
some people also use agnostic to describe those who believe there is a god, but do not believe in the interpretation of a specific denomination. often believing that an accurate understanding of god is impossible to the degree of guaranteed flaws in any religion.
2007-03-05 06:49:46 · answer #9 · answered by foo__dd 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An atheist says - There is no god.
A Hindu says - There are 10,000 gods
A Christian says - 9,999 of the gods are bogus
The atheist says rhey are all bogus
The agnostic says - You can never know
The indifferentist says - Who cares?
2007-03-12 00:33:33 · answer #10 · answered by fra59e 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋