What is exactly the difference between Agnostics and Atheists?

You’ve already answered your question. I’m an agnostic…I haven’t made up my mind as to whether or not God exists. Atheists are sure that there is no God.

As far as I know, there isn’t a single definition that everyone agrees on.

Here’s how I think of it:
Theist: There is a god.
Agnostic: Maybe there is a god.
Weak Atheist: I do not believe in a god because I have no reason to believe there is a god.
Strong Atheist: There is no god.

I am a weak atheist.

Okay, thanks guys.

One more question, if Atheists are positive that there is no god/supreme beings, how do they think we came to be? Or do they not know how we came to be, but still positive that there is no god?

I am an agnostic and basically how I explain it is that I know something/someone is doing something up there, but I have never needed to define what/who is doing it. If that makes sence at all.

”if Atheists are positive that there is no god/supreme beings, how do they think we came to be? Or do they not know how we came to be, but still positive that there is no god?”

I’m not atheist, so I obviously wouldn’t know for certain, but I think they explain our existence by evolution. What has never been satisfactorily explained to me though, is this: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (Keep in mind that while I would appreciate a good answer, it’s not going to make me deny God.) Hey, nevermind, I’ll make that a new question.

@jholler I thought the evolution was the belief of Darwinians? But I’m not 100% sure either, so yeah.

@jholler: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

Evolution is the belief of Darwinians, but this includes a large number of atheists as well. Generally, atheists use science to form their ideas about the origin of everything (like the theory of evolution). Science cannot explain everything, but what science cannot explain now, it may explain in the future.

There is some faith required to be a strong atheist, as strong atheists actually make the claim that there is no god, while weak atheists take the evidence that is available, and decide that, according to the evidence, there is most likely no god.

pete, I gave you lurve simply for the statement “There is some faith required to be a strong atheist.” I enjoyed that. Thank you for your answer as well.

An agnostic can also be someone who proclaims that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god, and stays on the fence about it.

Richard Dawkins has an interesting scale to illustrate the differences between atheism, theism, and agnosticism.

@shadling, I would say I’m about a 5 or a 6 on that scale.

Thanks for your answers everyone, it really clears things up for me.

August, that’s not true…

There’s negative atheism and positive atheism. There are very few positive atheists. The flaw in positive atheism is the same flaw that lies in religion. A positive atheist is absolutely sure there isn’t a god.

I am a negative atheist. I think its highly unlikely that there’s a god.

Darwinism is actually a misused term that is a misconstrued philosophy the rich victorians liked to use.

Atheists are almost always evolutionists. Many christians are evolutionists. Many agnostics are evolutionists.

A-Gnostic = “Against Knowing” = any metaphysical situation cannot be understood by man’s finite mind

A-Theism = “Against God” = believes for certain there is no God

Seems very simple to me. An atheist is a believer: the atheist believes there’s no God. (A-theist: a- “without” + theos “a god.”) An agnostic is also a believer: the agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there’s a God. (ágnōtos “not known, incapable of being known.”)

I’m a 5 on Dawkin’s scale.

Jeruba, that’s not true about athieists.
I am an atheist. I don’t particularly believe that there is no god. Not even vaguely.
I just think its highly unlikely and until I see evidence otherwise I am living my life on the assumption that there isn’t one. Though I doubt i’d live any differently if there was one. At the end of the day, i’m a humanist.

Well, delirium, I think you must be using another definition, all right. I’d be surprised if most people didn’t think your statement meant you believe there’s no god.

To me what you’ve just said would be exactly like saying
– I am a bicyclist.
– But I don’t ride bicycles.
– Therefore it is not true that bicyclists ride bicycles.

There are multiple kinds of atheists. 99% of them seriously doubt that there is a god. Very few are SURE that there is no god.

I’m pretty damn close to believing that the christian god is an incorrect perception. But I can NOT say that there absolutely without a doubt is no type of higher being.

Credulity kills.

An atheist is, above all, a skeptic.

Positive atheism is the assertion that you know gods do not exist, the rationale behind this belief being the lack of any proof of the existence of a god.

Negative atheism is the lack of a positive belief when it comes to deities.

“Strong” and “weak” atheism are more frequently used but misleading synonyms for positive and negative atheism, respectively.

So explaineth wikiquote.

I do not believe there is a god. I am an atheist.

I do not believe there is no god. I am an atheist.

I believe that there is no god. But I recognize that that is a statement of belief and not a statement of knowledge. It has the same force as any other statement of belief.

(And to me it is not the same as saying “I don’t believe in God.”)

But I got my definitions from the dictionary.

Ultimately its mincing words, which all philosophy is.

I do not believe in god the same way I do not believe there is a teapot orbiting mars.

But, delirium, there is a teapot orbiting Mars! Didn’t you hear?

Agnostic means “I don’t know”. Atheist means the person does not believe in God. I’m an agnostic atheist—I don’t know, because how could anyone, but I do not believe in God.

But an agnostic doesn’t know whereas an atheist doesn’t believe.

That’s where uncle Russel put his teapot…

Here is the definition of agnostic from Merriam Webster: 1: 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 god

This being said, I am an atheist. I believe there is no god.

I do believe that all atheists are agnostic to a certain extent. If I were to find evidence that there is a god, I would not reject it simply based on my belief system. At the moment I find evidence that God exists, I would become a theist. However, I find this highly unlikely. I think most people are just trying to play it safe like Pascal.

I wanted to elaborate a bit on what @PupnTaco posted about agnosticism, since it is a concept that fascinates me.

I found a paper about the origin of the word ‘agnostic’.

”The first time that Agnostic and Agnosticism appeared in print with any meaning given to it was apparently in the January 29, 1870 issue of The Spectator (p. 135f). It had an article, entitled “Pope Huxley,” that said: “In theory he [Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic-who goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know, on pain of loss of intellectual sincerity if they once consciously confound a conjecture with a certainty.” The article spoke of Huxley’s “Agnosticism,” and said that he “is labouring to preach to us all the gospel of suspense of judgment on all questions, intellectual and moral, on which we have not adequate data for a positive opinion.””

One philosopher who is considered agnostic was Immanuel Kant (note that he died before Huxley coined the term). I found this FAQ about agnosticsm on All about philosphy.

”Kant attempted to merge the ideas of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism held that there is certain innate knowledge within everyone. On the contrary, empiricism maintained that we are born as blank slates, and all knowledge is gained by experience. Kant concluded by pulling together the merits of both sides. The content of knowledge came by experience (as the empiricists contended), but the structure or form of knowledge is developed in the mind (as the rationalists held). /../ If one cannot know anything without experience through the senses, and if that sensed knowledge can only be structured in our minds by innate categories, then we can only know things as they are to us. We can never know reality as it actually is. Our reference point is always ourselves and not the things themselves. There is a gap between appearance to us and reality. Kant’s conclusion was agnosticism about reality and God.”

I thought it was interesting as agnosticism doesn’t just pertain to religion and theology, as was already implied.

I think Dave and Jeruba have it the most correct.

Most of the responses are about what people think the words mean, rather than looking at etymology. There are also 34,000 sects of Christianity, but it sounds to me like a lot of people may like the labels and have derived different interpretations for the words.

@fireside – If you’re an agnostic I think you consider most concepts to be based on belief. :) I agree though, those were good answers.

What do you mean by “looking at etymology”? Should we focus more on what it meant before or what it means now? Or what it means in different cultures, e.g the academic world?

I think if we’re looking for a common definition, then we first need to start by understanding the actual meanings of the world. From there, Dawkins takes the next step by defining the spectrum and assigning qualifiers to the still original terms.

I believe that if we start with our individual/cultural conceptions of the words, we will have much further to go in finding that common understanding than if we start with the beginning and work towards the new definitions.

Ah, I like that reply and I agree whole heartedly. That’s why I turned to the paper “Pope Huxley” that I quoted above. It’s an ‘indirect quote’ but I did read parts of Huxley’s article as well.

Agnostics know that they don’t know. Atheists, like Christians, think they know.

No.

Atheists know they don’t know as well.

Mizuki, I take offense to that. I am an atheist when it comes to matters of a higher power. I am also an atheist when it comes to singing dancing invisible unicorns. There’s just as much evidence to support the existence of both.

I don’t pretend to know everything but I do believe in things with definable and repeatable outcomes.

I was born an atheist. I did believe in God for a short time because that’s what my parents told me to do. At some point I realized that not everything my parents do is correct.

@body—so you are 100% sure there are not unicorns, or higher powers? What evidence do you have, with repeatable outcomes that definitively demonstrate absence of spirits, or higher powers or unicorns?
My point is that Agnostics, like some native Americans, simply know that we do not and cannot and will not know that which is unknowable.
No need to take offense, just be careful about being too certain—that is what makes religious folks so obnoxious—they are so sure that they are right everyone else is wrong.

Truth is unknown and unknowable.

I know, I am a lurve whore, and I don’t know if anyone will give me lurve—it is unknowable, and I am not certain I will get lurve, but I am certainly a lurve whore.

I do believe that singing dancing invisible unicorns are just as real as higher powers.

I an not 100% sure that anything doesn’t exist. I do know an unlikely outcome when I see it. I cannot prove Russell’s Teapot doesn’t exist.

If you were to try to convince me that there’s an invisible orange on my desk, I would be just as skeptical. I can’t be sure it isn’t there but based on my experiences, I would have to be totally insane to agree with you.

The fact that you are so sure about the unknow kind of takes away from your argumement.

What convinces you that I’m so sure? Is it this sentence?: I an not 100% sure that anything doesn’t exist. Provide one scrap of evidence and I’ll chance my stance on the spot.

If I die and God is there, I’ll admit I was wrong. I’m not too big for that. If God is real and gave me a brain with witch to think with, it would be insulting of me to believe something on blind faith and not hard evidence.

ok i give

I am a Agn-athie-uddists-athic-itarium. I enjoy the company of monkeys because they are unpredictable, especially when they are happy. Monkeys have the good life…...haha…..no they don’t, we do.

/me points up to where she mentioned Russles teapot.

SEE! I WASN’T SPOUTING NONSENSE.

I do not believe there is a god, which makes me an atheist. I cannot know whether or not there is a god, which makes me agnostic with respect to god’s existence. They are not mutually exclusive concepts and really depend on the question being asked.

I would just add that in addition to the definitions, the process of how one arrives at being an atheist is extremely important. Coercing people to become atheists (under communist regimes for instance) can be referred to as coercive atheism. This is distinct from organic atheism, in which people decide that there is no god voluntarily through reasoning or critical thinking or evidence based belief.

Coercive atheism can be a faith if it is accepted due to allegiance to the tenets of communism. This kind of acceptance of argument from authority is little different from any faith based world view which is based on dogmatic adherence to something regardless of the evidence provided.

So with discussions on the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I would also add that it is important to distinguish between the processes which lead to these outcomes.

I’d consider delirium an agnostic actually. If you are 100% sure there is no god, you’re an atheist. Anything between 1–99% is an agnostic. It’s a bit like the notion of “reasonable doubt” in court. Letting someone off because of “reasonable doubt” does not mean you believe they are innocent (in our case that god exists). But that you cannot be 100% sure eiter way.

I’m an agnostodeist in this case, because I’m pretty sure (98.9%) there’s something out there, I just don’t know how to call it.

As for the answer to “how did we come to be if there is no God?” it is either left unanswered or becomes irrelevant. Just because you found the defendant “not guilty” of a crime does not mean you don’t have a dead body lying around. And just because you have a dead body does not mean the man in the box did it. In other words, God is not necessarily the explanation for the universe. The universe does exist, and that is a fact. But there is no way to know who or what made it. And even if someone believes in a god, the next question would be “who made God?”. Just as religious people are asking “what came before the Big Bang?”.

All in all, we are too tiny, stupid and ignorant to even ask these questions, let alone answer them.

Jack, in your world juries would have to see the crime take place in order to be 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime. Otherwise there would always be doubt. It might only be 1% but it would be there.

If we were to compare this to a trial setting, instead of reasonable doubt, there would be reasonable evidence. Personally, I don’t believe in talking snakes and knowledge trees.

I am 100% sure that in my perception up to this point that there is no God. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. He could manifest himself later or even come to me after my passage from this life. Now, since I have zero evidence to base that on, I can’t reasonably think that will happen.

The only defense against knowledge is to be 100% sure about anything. I’m not against God, I’m just drawing educated conclusions based on past experiences.

Jack, by your definition the only “true” atheists would in fact be god, because they would have to be omniscient to be able to substantiate such a claim.

It’s not in “my world”. It is what most legal systems are based on. Think OJ Simpson. The guy even wrote a book about how he killed his wife, everyone knows he did it, but he walks free. Is he innocent? No. But was there reasonable doubt as to his guilt? Yes. I think that case proved that if you really follow the law, nobody could ever be found guilty.

Similarly, (and in the link above it is what atheist Dawkins admits), nobody can be truly an atheist, because as you say, there is always the possibility a god may exist. But what Dawkins says is basically what I say in my own words: you can believe one exists (theist) or one doesn’t exist (atheist), or simply not know for sure (agnostic). For me categories 1+2 and 6+7 are basically the same. Anyone that says “I’m 100% sure” is simply dogmatic. But anyone who is 99% sure either way(that’s why in courts it’s called ”reasonable doubt” and not just “doubt”) can call themselves either “theist” or “atheist”.

and this is why I quote my own certainty as being 98.9%, just enough to keep me in the “agnostics” column

To me the terms are pretty simple and self-explanatory, I don’t see where the confusion lies.

(and btw I don’t think that anyone except Harry Potter believes in talking snakes)

That contradicts somewhat with what you wrote, which is where some of the confusion lies.

You wrote…“If you are 100% sure there is no god, you’re an atheist”. This is not the same as saying that “if you are 99% sure” as in your last post.

The confusion lies more generally with where all of us draw the line. I could just as easily argue that using the etymology of the word theist, relies on someone believing there is a god. If this is the case then anyone who cannot make this leap of faith is in fact an atheist with respect to the fact that they do not “believe” in a god. Not being sure if there is a god or not, is not the same as believing in god. By this definition you are an atheist. And hence the problem, the terms are not mutually exclusive and include a range of acceptable definitions. As these ranges overlap, and different people bring different amounts of baggage to each of the terms, then confusion exists amongst both the users and the onlookers as to what anyone means.

The end result is that many agnostics and atheists share exactly the same worldview but feel more comfortable using different labels with which to classify themselves. So unfortunately we all to some extent have to explain ourselves even after applying the label, which raises some question as to the usefulness of the labels.

Lets not mince words here, OJ got off because he’s rich not because of any resonable doubt. If he was a delivery driver with no money he’d still be in jail for murder.

I’m just saying that every smart person has at least a sliver of doubt about everything. The only way you can be 100% sure about anything is to not take in any new information. That’s what I would call an ignorant person’s stance. I welcome the posibility (however small) of reality that conflicts with my decided world view.

but we’re all basically saying the same thing and playing with words. If you don’t believe god exists, you’re simply an atheist. If you didn’t even have a sliver of doubt, you’d be a dogmatic, stupid atheist. Even Jesus had His own doubts about God (and He was supposed to be His Son and know things first hand!). To me “reasonable doubt” basically means “I’m not sure” whereas anybody can be “pretty sure” but still allow the remote possibility that they could be wrong. It’s what Dawkins describes as “category 6” but in reality there is no “category 7”. Only in theory. Which is why someone earlier said (could even be you) that you’d have to be a god yourself to know for a fact that there is no god.

the only reason I keep posting in this discussion is because I’m enjoying it. As delirium said, we’re mincing words. And isn’t it wonderful? :)

Too true…:)

@Jack79 Mincing words can be very enjoyable. :D