Agnostic? Atheist? What's The Difference?

If I have your attention, what I intend is to point out that most of the "alert" members seem more oriented to atheism - or naturalism- or realism. Not many are beholden to something supernatural, mythical, or superstitious. If we label ourselves "agnostic" simply because we are afraid of the word "atheist", there are other areas of our life we experience fear. One of the reasons to get rid of something being in authority over our life is to learn to live with a minimum of fear. I have all the Meetups I can handle as organizer so I can't take on this one, but if you want to explore the turf between spiritual, agnostic, and atheist, come on out to the DC Atheist Meetup. The group averages about 20 people at a meetup and we are considering beginnning another group - giving us 2 meetups monthly. Those who want structure, presentation, directed discussion will have one meeting and those who prefer a social occasion will have another, or some will attend both. Come on out! Oh! if you want to maintain the agnostic posture, the DC Humanist Meetup might be right for you. - Richard

I won't presume to speak for all Agnostics, but I, for one, am not Agnostic out of fear, apathy, laziness or whatever label Christians and Atheists choose to throw upon us for refusing to "believe" their version of the origins of the universe. As far as that goes, I say Christians, Atheists, what's the difference? Both feel uniquely right, that everyone else is wrong, and both are based on "beliefs", since one cannot scientifically prove one way or another the origin of the universe, or that there is 100% proof that there is no God. The Agnostic perspective is more scientific than Atheism, since it bases it's conclusion on scientific evidence, rather on a "belief" that there is, or is not, a God.

I won't presume to speak for all Agnostics,

But you'll offer to talk for non-agnostics?

but I, for one, am not Agnostic out of fear, apathy, laziness or whatever label Christians and Atheists choose to throw upon us for refusing to "believe" their version of the origins of the universe.

Agnosticism as a term has nothing to do with fear, apathy, or laziness. This is essentially a semantical issue. As an atheist I have never said anything about agnosticism in that light, because I am also an agnostic. I am an agnostic-atheist, to most kinds of gods and gnostic-atheist to a select few.

As far as that goes, I say Christians, Atheists, what's the difference?

Immediately, what you're presenting is a false dichotomy. Christians consist of individuals that typically believe in a figure known as jesus that they call christ. It also encompasses a specific type of anthropomorphic being known as 'god' with very specifically assigned variables. Their beliefs originate from a religious scripture known as the bible, which consists of a varying number of books depending on whatever denomination one is addressing. The indivdiual denominations often hold different doctrinal ideology, those identified denominations also usually encompass a range of beliefs.

Christian: dozens of variables; active association.

Atheism, as a word and application only means one thing. A from greek, meaning without or lacking and the word theism meaning doctrinal belief in a god or gods. So quite directly it means, with or without a doctrinal belief in a god or gods. Thats it, nothing more nothing less. It doesn't mean humanistic, communist, evolutionist, knowing there are no gods, or any range of bigoted/non-bigoted generalizations that are made.

Atheism: only one variable; passive assocation.

Atheism is not the opposite of christianity, it is the opposite of theism. Atheism is the lack of theism, christianity is a theistic belief system.

Both feel uniquely right, that everyone else is wrong, and both are based on "beliefs",

Remember where you stated you do not presume to speak for all agnostics? What about anyone else?

As a human being who doesn't carry any god beliefs, yet doesn't know if there is a god or not. I cannot hold the position of being 'uniquely right'. I could very well be wrong. The issue is that there is literally no difference between passively lacking a belief and claiming to know that there is no god or gods. The approach to life doesn't change, the approach to evidence doesn't change, nothing about the original position has effected the perception of reality without the need/desire for supernatural influence. Where I claim to know that a specific god doesn't exist, only rests on the definition assigned to that god being.

since one cannot scientifically prove one way or another the origin of the universe,

The origin of the universe is irrelevant to proving there is a god or not.

For example:

Universe A:
1. A god exists and creates the universe.
2. Universe is an expanding self organizing system
3. No evidence exists to determine a god exists or not
4.. Humans evolve on an insolated scale; some conclude there is a god some do not.

Universe B:
1. Gods do not exist and the universe simply exists
2. Universe is an expanding self organizing system
3. No evidence exits to determine a god exists or not
4. Humans evolve on an isolated scale; some conclude there is a god some do not.

The origins are unimportant, a god could create an existence where it seems like 'it' doesn't exist. The only thing we can do is examine what the EVIDENCE tells us, and the evidence only takes us as far back as the big bang.

or that there is 100% proof that there is no God.

That is not what atheism means. Atheism simply means lacking a god belief, whether you know there is a god or not is irrelevant. You can still answer the question,"Do you carry a doctrinal belief in a god or gods?"

The only answers are yes or no. 'I do not know' cannot be used, since you would in effect be saying you do not know what you believe.

The Agnostic perspective is more scientific than Atheism, since it bases it's conclusion on scientific evidence

Agnosticism, literally means 'without esoteric knowledge'. It is usually used in presumption that there is no evidence to conclude a god exists or not. The problem is that its a statement of KNOWLEDGE, it is not a statement of holding BELIEF or lacking BELIEF. There is also an issue of how relevant an answer is,"I dont know." Which only begs the question,'You don't know what you believe or not?'

, rather on a "belief" that there is, or is not, a God.

Irrelevant, an agnostic and an atheist both lack a god belief. They live their life as if there is not a god there in anycase. There is also an issue where a theist can claim to 'believe' yet not really 'know' there is a god. So what does that make them? Agnostic? Well they dont know, but yet they still believe. So are they theistic?

Perhaps an assignment that better identifies the difference between belief/knowledge in an approachable manner.

Gnostic-Atheist ( strong atheism ): lacking belief in a god or gods, claiming to know there are no god or gods.
Agnostic-Atheist ( weak atheism ): lacking belief in a god or gods, not knowing if there are no god or gods.
Agnostic-Theist: claiming a belief in a god or gods, not knowing if there are god or gods.
Gnostic-Theist: Claiming a belief in a god or gods, claiming to know there is a god or gods.

*Note: One could claim to know that 'yawheh' doesn't exist, yet not know if a generic first cause god exists or not.

See? These are really indepth semantical issues and not one so easily tossed aside. It does us no good to offer to speak for others and to avoid where our positions are really not that different at all.

Dear Chad,
Thanks for your well-thought response. I was hoping that my main message would come across, but I can see my words have been taken a little too literally. I was not speaking for "all" Christians and Atheists, just about 76.8% with whom I have had contact. Of course, anyone knows that there are obvious differences on many levels between atheists and Christians. I was simply pointing out that many atheists identify with the statement "There is no God" with the same fervor (and current lack of substantiating evidence) which parallels the same fervor (and lack of evidence) when Christians say "There is a God".
I could go on, rebutting each of your points, but I think I'd rather focus on one point I agree on, which is we, as a people, do need to focus on our similarities, rather than our differences. If we could all do that, perhaps there would be fewer wars.... Perhaps we can focus our energies on accepting other's beliefs/value systems/philosophies rather than tearing them down for being different than ours.
Peace be with you, Diana

Dear Chad,
Thanks for your well-thought response. I was hoping that my main message would come across, but I can see my words have been taken a little too literally. I was not speaking for "all" Christians and Atheists, just about 76.8% with whom I have had contact.

You quite clearly generalized an entire group of individuals. Now you are attempting to justify doing that by summarizing them as the 'majority' based on your own incredulity. I can do the same, with more direct experience then yourself. For example: I interact with the largest active atheist community in the united states. Their use of the term atheism and how it applies to themselves contradicts your generalization in every regard.

Of course, anyone knows that there are obvious differences on many levels between atheists and Christians.

You still do not seem to grasp that the differences are not simply treated as 'different beliefs'.

Atheism as a word is in a categorically different context then the word christianity. Atheism describes the lack of a TYPE of belief system. To say all atheist are X, is as ridiculous as saying all theist are X. The application of the term is PASSIVE, just like the term theism is passive. A christian is a theist, a secular humanist is an atheist. Its a categorization based on the lack of a type of belief. It has nothing to do with a statement of,'there is no god.' The statement itself is irrelevant.

Christianity is actually the definition of a belief system thats categorized under a type ( theism ). The application of the term is ACTIVE, meaning one actively believes in christianity or principles of christianity.

I was simply pointing out that many atheists identify with the statement "There is no God" with the same fervor (and current lack of substantiating evidence) which parallels the same fervor (and lack of evidence) when Christians say "There is a God".

You would be incorrect, in terms of not applicable to the actual definition of atheism and not applicable to the use of 'atheism' among atheist. I've attempted to point this out and you did not bother to address my attempts then. You seem to be emotionally caught up on rejecting the term 'atheism' for bizarre reasons.

Unfortunately, you also included the notion that atheism is baseless. Not only that, but you attempted to rationalize this by stating,"and current lack of substantiating evidence." Which only begs the ridiculous question of,"What sort of evidence could you have that would prove the lack of something?" The only answer is nothing, because no one provides evidence of lack of existence for anything. Which only begs the next question,"How do you disprove something?" The only answer to that is that you address the evidence for that thing or the objective definition of the thing you are addressing.

So, what happens when we address a definition of god?

This is where the logic falls apart for someone that states that there is no evidence of the non-existence of a god being. It becomes more of an argument in the defense of a 'term' and nothing but a term. Just like if I asked you if you believed in a catshorgen, you wouldn't be able to tell me yes or no until I told you what a catshorgen was. The same is applicable to a god and as soon as you define that thing it becomes applicable to logic. Its definition can be tested against logic and a conclusion can made on the existence of that thing based upon that definition. If you insist on not defining a god, then your position is irrational and you are simply defending a meaningless word.

I could go on, rebutting each of your points, but I think I'd rather focus on one point I agree on, which is we, as a people, do need to focus on our similarities, rather than our differences. If we could all do that, perhaps there would be fewer wars.... Perhaps we can focus our energies on accepting other's beliefs/value systems/philosophies rather than tearing them down for being different than ours.
Peace be with you, Diana

I've already made my attempt to come half way to you, you simply repeated your original fallacious generalization. I'm concerned that many people are more caught up on an 'emotional' rejection of a term, rather then actually addressing the basis or meaning of the term itself. As far as agnostics are concerned, they are no different from atheist. Until one of them claims to believe in a god, then they are a theist. Agnosticism being a statement of knowledge has nothing to do with belief.