Atheism and Agnosticism?

Question

It is my understanding the atheism is the firm belief that God does NOT exist, while agnosticism would indicate the inability or unwillingness to prove that God exists.

My questions:
1. Am I accurate in my understanding of the 2?
2. Can a person reasonably claim BOTH?

It has become clear to me that there are several different personal nuances concerning Atheism and Agnosticism. In researching the 2 terms at dictionary.com, I have found the following repeated definitions for atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
and the following repeated definitions for agnosticism:
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

These definitions cause me to conclude that the atheist "believes" (certainty) that there is no god, while the agnostic remains uncertain or has doubts.

If those are accurate, then it would seem reasonable that there are subsets of agnosticism, because of the uncertainty, but how can there be subsets of atheism, where there is belief or certainty?

Answer 1

One can claim anything they like. Its more difficult to actually support a claim when confronted with evidence.

And yes, you're accurate on both :)

[edit]
Satan (I never thought I'd be saying this sentence), thank you for that clarification to me regarding Atheism. I've always contended that an Atheist can only truly be Agnostic. Well said.

Answer 2

I have never liked the atheist/agnostic definitions. I don't really have a use for a belief in the supernatural and tend to think of it as a painful waste of time. Do I know with 100% that there does not exist within the realm of nature some entity that others would describe as a god? No. Because others would call it god, does that mean it is a god per the common human definition? No, unless you want to do some semantic gymnastics. So where do these ideas place me?

I think you have a pretty good idea of the classical definitions. You could construe the definitions in all manner of ways in order to claim that you are both. But I would prefer to concern myself with what I think rather than how to define myself. If that makes sense.

Answer 3

1) Almost. The firm belief that no god exists is strong atheism. There are other positions that are called atheism that don't firmly hold this, but do not acknowledge a deity. Agnosticism, in the strictest sense, is the position that the question is not at our means to answer definitively.

2) The classic atheist/agnostic position would be: "I do not believe their is any god, and I do not believe that the means of proving or disproving it is available."

Answer 4

I don't think you can include proof in the definition, at least scientific proof. I feel very certain of the presence of God, but I cannot prove it to you, scientifically.

The atheist says "I am certain there is no God." The agnostic is a bit more humble: "Who am I to claim to know everything about the universe?"

Someone answered saying that atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural deity. I'm a Christian and I do not believe that God is a supernatural being. In fact, I completely reject that childish view of God.

My views come closest to Panentheism, which is not the same thing as Pantheism.

Answer 5

The usual agnostic stance is that it is not possible to know whether there is a god or not so it can't be ruled out. Most agnostics lack a positive belief in God so they are also atheists. (See Southpaws answer a couple above).

Some agnostics claim a belief in 'something' but they are agnostic about the nature of the 'something'. They sometimes call themselves agnostic theists.

Atheists may concede that it isn't possible to know for certain there is no god but because of their personal certainty that there isn't, they prefer to call themselves atheists.

It's largely a matter of personal preference. I don't like either label though I identify with both. I prefer the label humanist to indicate my life stance.

Answer 6

You have been handed a red herring by your educators.
Most arguments are dependent upon diplomatic speech in which words are used for the purpose of sustainining subjectivity as a means of avoiding violence.
However, history is the evidence that speech
containing the word "god" is counterproductive.
That word does not communicate any definite
thought , therefore , the atheist finds it inoperative to any useful purpose. Then
there is a shift from doxy to praxis. And the atheist is not in the publishing business. The
atheist does not need any printer's devil.

The agnostic does not need any knowledge.
For him , education does not take. That is to his credit.

Both the atheist and the agnostic have common sense , the eradication of which is the aim of the public schools in the U S country.
The appeal to reason can only be made to those who are reasonable. All those have died out.
No , you are not accurate.

Answer 7

The Great Gazoo came closest with his answer. There is some confusion and debate among people - that's why you have so many different answers.

Atheism is often divided into 2 forms:

- strong atheism - belief that their is (are) no god(s)
- weak atheism - no belief in god


Agnosticism - originally coined to mean not only when someone doesn't know, but they believe the answer to the question is unknowable

Answer 8

I am an agnostic atheist. An agnostic demands proof in order to hold a belief, that was the original defintion by the guy who invented the word (can't remember his name right now). Therefore you can have agnostic Christians, agnostic Atheists, etc etc.

An atheist does not hold a belief in a god or gods. To say I don't believe in god is similar to saying I don't believe that fairies exist. I will never say that gods or fairies cannot or do not exist (absolutely), but I can safely say there is no evidence for them, so I dismiss the idea.

EDIT:

To "salient2"... your definition of gnostic is wrong. Gnostic = knowledge. You can extrapolate that and say the word literally means, we have no knowledge of god(s)... Professor Huxley introduced the word agnostic, and he intended the definition to be: one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

Answer 9

A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world
by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them).

A deist,too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs.

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.

Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism.

1. Half. atheism is belief that "theist" God does not exist.
2. Yes.

Answer 10

you're fairly accurate and I claim both. I am agnostic in the FACT that I can not disprove or prove god, but I practice atheism. I don't think there is a god for many reasons but it is impossible for me to disprove something that doesn't exist, and has no proof.