Does anyone else see the semantic confusion between atheists and agnostics?

Question

The definition of an atheist is not necessarily someone who BELIEVES there is no god. But it is mainly someone who lacks the belief in a god.

And the defintion of an agnostic is someone who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge of the existence of god.

Then technically if the agnostic does not believe in a god, though skeptical both ways, would technically be an atheist since the belief is lacking.

I can only speak for myself but I call myself an atheist. I do not deny the existence of god I simply see no reason to believe without evidence. So in my waiting for evidence and logical reason to believe in god does that also make me agnostic since by definition I do not know (though only from limited knowledge).

I only bring this up to point out to agnostics and atheists that our terms are much closer than we think, it all depends on the individuals knowledge of the definitions.

I think the people disagreeing don't realize that most atheists don't firmly believe there "is no god".
I've met very few that say that.

Answer 1

THANK YOU!

I've been saying this for weeks. In the face of a positive proposition (that of the existence of God), taking a neutral position is the EXACT same as taking the negative.

More simply if you do not actively believe in God, no matter what probability you assign to it, you are by definition, an atheist.

Answer 2

While you're correct that atheists are on shaky ground if they claim absolute knowledge that gods don't exist, you don't understand what agnosticism means. I often find that theists think atheists say a lot of things when in reality we don't. And many of them have a difficult time understanding the difference between a lack of belief and a belief. Whatever. We keep trying and maybe one day they'll realize it's not that complicated. But yes, making the claim that there is no god would open us up to the criticism we lob at theists. We would take on the burden of having to prove what we claimed, and I don't think we can. Back to definitions. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive - the former describes one's belief: a theist believes in a god, an atheist has no such belief. Knowledge is something else, and it's described with a/gnosticism. If you have knowledge that god exists (as opposed to simply believing he does) then you are a gnostic. You have no knowledge of him (like, I would argue, everybody on the planet) then you are agnostic. Like most atheists I'm an agnostic atheist.

Answer 3

True. Many people place agnosticism as a midpoint on some imaginary continuum between belief and disbelief, but it truly has nothing to do with belief. It is a position on knowledge.

An agnostic may be an atheist or a theist, depending on whether or not they believe in spite of their lack of knowledge.

Answer 4

I see what you mean, I had to look in a little oxford dictionary for Atheist which they say means : Belief that no God exists and Agnostic that to them means: A person who believes that God's existence is not provable.
I'm now stuffed as to what I am
Atheist is only 'Belief' that no God exists, not a firm statement.
Agnostics 'Not provable' isn't firm.
Religion, now that to me is a different ball game, which I won't bore you with other than to say that I feel that it's more political control.

Answer 5

I think the confusion comes from how SOME "Atheists" are more "anti-theist"... they at least come across as having a belief that God affirmatively does NOT exist.

as opposed to simply lacking belief that he affirmatively DOES.

personally I have no issue with people who simply do not believe that god exists. if they have never experienced anything to make them think he does, then why would they belive? I have, so I do.

the problem is when you have people who assert that deitys affirmatively do not exist.as I'm sure you see, this is a huge difference!

Answer 6

I don't believe in God, but I don't necessarily disbelieve. I think this is the difference. Essentially, I admit that I am eternally ignorant. Yet as an agnostic, I see myself as much closer to an atheist than a Christian.

But I guess it depends on how you define God, and define your belief.

Interesting post.

Answer 7

Interesting conundrum. By your definition, I see the confusion. As defined, (as long as we are talking semantics...I will go with our friends at Merriam-Webster),

It seems to me:

that an agnostic:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
— ag·nos·ti·cism Listen to the pronunciation of agnosticism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

an Atheist on the other hand:

: one who believes that there is no deity

The difference may be hair splitting, but important hairs in context. One who claims ignorance on subject A (a deity in this case), is not the same as one who claims to know there is nothing at all.

Simply, "I don't know" (Agnosticism)
is not "I know there is nothing" (Atheism)

If you yourself claim not to know one way or the other, you are agnostic. I think, (in my opinion), you can lean toward the side of saying, there is nothing. Period.

But you are right, the two are close. It seems to me like, hmmm...Switzerland is neutral, but has an army, in fact a good portion of the population enlists. Yes, there hasn't been a war in 500 years, but if attacked they are ready...just in case. Agnosticism to me, is like the Swiss army, neutral until the right moment. But that is my understanding of it all.

Edit on your edit:
If we stay within the confines of the argument, the semantics of definition, there is no such thing as an atheist who isn't sure. It is he (or she) that is confused on terminology. A definition is not fluid, right? It is static. If that is your point, that person John, (for example), says he doesn't know if there is a higher power or not but calls himself an atheist is wrong to call himself one, on semantics, then yes, you are correct.

Answer 8

I agree of the similarity but remember that an agnostic questions the existence of God due to the absence of material proof. An atheist rejects all religions and denies the existence of God.

Answer 9

My take might be a bit different. I don't like binary logic, I think it's too limiting. Categories are not important to me. In my case, I simply lack belief. I've explained it with a disease similie, you can have a disease, but there's no requirement for you to obtain a new one once you get rid of the old one.

Theists have "religion", I don't have "religion", it doesn't mean I must have contracted "no-religion" in order to get rid of "religion". I know, they get insulted, I don't mean that religion is a disease, just that the lack of it isn't opposite view, it's the lack of one.

So I use "Atheist" to describe the situation of not having "belief". I don't take a philosophical stand, having no belief isn't a belief system. The whole obsession of the "correct" labling seem silly to me. So to me it's self description, not philosophy. There's no confusion for me ;)

Answer 10

Both atheists and theists claim to know what is clearly unknowable.. agnostics do not... atheists are closer to theists than agnostics.

I don't know why this argument gets me all riled up... Its not like it matters.... Its a word, it doesn't change how I or anyone else feels or believes.

I am done arguing this.