Is agnostic different from athiest? How so?

by wanderlustguy 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    We've been here before; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/123456/1.ashx

    The simple facts are;

    [1] If you believe god exists you are a theist (or polytheist).

    [2] If you lack that certain belief that god does exist you are not a theist - literally, you are atheist.

    Now there is certainly a broad spectrum of atheism, from the very uncertain individual who traditionally mislabels himself as agnostic to the strident evolutionist who proudly wears his atheism as a badge of pride. Interestingly, even Richard Dawkins allows room for the possibility of God's existence but that most certainly does not mark him out as agnostic - he is an atheist.

    We are ALL atheists unless we definately believe that god exists!

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk
    If youlack that certain belief that god does exist you are not a theist - literally, you are atheist.

    Interesting article...

    Is the definition of an Atheist really someone who denies the existence of God?

    By capella

    Belief or without belief. Assertion or lack of assertion.

    The words atheist and atheism are inaccurately defined in many dictionaries as someone who is a disbeliever/denier or has a doctrine that there is no God. Some dictionaries even include in their definitions phrases such as “immoral” or “someone with nothing to touch their inner being.”

    My experience is that most atheists think an atheist is someone that is simply without any belief in gods.

    This may not sound like a significant distinction to some, but it’s very important because sometimes atheism is portrayed as an assertion of a negative, which is a false argument. Sometimes atheism is also portrayed as a religion or doctrine which comes down to a matter of faith.

    Although some dictionaries at least include the “without belief” phrase, the problem seems to be that dictionaries are about the common use of words, not whether the concept is necessarily valid.

    For example:

    “A nether world in which the dead continue to exist : (2) : the nether realm
    of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment.”
    (Merriam-Webster definition of “Hell”)

    “The appearance of the sky when the sun starts to rise”
    (Cambridge Dictionary definition of “sunrise”)

    Although these definitions are how the words are probably most often used, some people might not agree that the definition of hell was factual and many people would agree that the sun doesn’t really “rise” (it appears to rise because of the turning of the earth).

    Again, nit-picky? Yes, but the atheism definitions are often pulled out of dictionaries and paraded in discussions about the validity of atheism as if they are precise, valid, technical definitions.

    Isn’t a lack of belief agnosticism?

    Yes, but an agnostic is someone who asks a question about the existence of a particular god or gods and says that the answer is unknowable. The difference is that the atheist is not asking a question.

    Does this imply the atheist thinks the matter is settled? No, it just means the atheist is not pursuing the question any more than the atheist would have a burning desire to know if Fred Flintstone exists.

    http://www.goatstar.org/is-the-definition-of-an-atheist-really-someone-who-denies-the-existence-of-god/

  • B_Deserter
    B_Deserter

    Agnostic and Atheist are tricky terms because you can't really pin one definition on everyone. Most Atheists (not even Richard Dawkins) do not claim to 100% certainty that there is no God. Think about it this way. If I said that I have an invisible tiger, you probably wouldn't believe me. But, you couldn't prove to 100% certainty that there is no tiger, but you are 99.9999999% sure that there isn't one due to lack of evidence. Does that make you a tiger agnostic or atigerist? Atheism and Agnosticism are essentially two ways to say the same thing.

  • Gopher
    Gopher
    If I said that I have an invisible tiger, you probably wouldn't believe me. But, you couldn't prove to 100% certainty that there is no tiger, but you are 99.9999999% sure that there isn't one due to lack of evidence. Does that make you a tiger agnostic or atigerist?

    Provability isn't the issue. Belief is the issue.

    Personally, I don't believe you have an invisible tiger. So to answer your question, I'm an ATIGERIST.

    If I had doubts, but thought perhaps your invisible tiger was possible, I'd be a TIGER AGNOSTIC.

    If I believed in your tiger, I'd be a "TIGER THEIST", I guess.

    But I enjoyed the fantasy that was "Calvin and Hobbes".

  • Liberty
    Liberty

    By every meaningful definition of God (omnipotent, omniscient) I would have to say I am an anti-theist since the universe is too chaotic and full of horrors for there to be an omnipotent and omniscient creator super being who would not be totally evil and insane. I would be against such a being even if it existed and would happily let it destroy me rather than bend to its crazed will. I am 100% convinced that no such being exists and have no wish for such a thing to be true, hence, an anti-theist.

    Does that mean I would discount the possibility of higher beings existing somewhere in the universe? Certainly not. I would just say that they will not be omnipotent and omniscient creators of the universe and hence not Gods as most western modern people would define them.

    All my research and studies in various fields has led me to conclude that the Bible is wholly man made and Christianity is as false as Islam, JWism, and Mormonism. Completely made up nonsense by my fellow human beings.

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    The distinction is really quite simple.

    An agnostic doesn’t actually believe in God. He just hasn’t completely closed the door to some sort of surprise. Basically, an agnostic is an atheist without any balls – my apologies to my agnostic friends. I can say this because I’m not worried about being beaten up by agnostics, because well, they don’t have any balls.

    I am an orthodox fundamentalist atheist.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk
    I can say this because I’m not worried about being beaten up by agnostics, because well, they don’t have any balls.

    LMAO!

  • changeling
    changeling

    I thought I was agnostic, till I realized I'm an athiest!

    changeling

  • changeling
    changeling

    Just read Running Man's post.

    I guess "I grew a pair"! LOL

    changeling

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    I think it mostly has to do with a misunderstanding of what atheists are. Adding to the confusion I think some people claim to be atheist without understanding what atheism is.

    Atheism does not state that there is no possiblity of there being a god/s. Atheism is a rational choice. Rational tells us we cannot disprove the existence of god. Therefore an atheist cannot say that 'there is no god' 'god is impossible'

    What an atheist can say is "I dont believe in god"

    I dont believe in god is very different from god is impossible; there is no god.

    Just as I do not believe in the toothfairy without evidence, I do not believe in god without evidence.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit