Atheism and Agnosticism

[Kaylor]

If there is one, what is the difference between the two?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Kaylor If there is one,

What do you mean by "if there is one", one what?

what is the difference between the two?

The former means you can't prove it and the latter means I don't care if it can be proved or not

[Kaylor]

To word it better,

If there is a difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, what is it?

But I guess you answered my question.

[freedom13]

Theism — The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe.
Atheism — A lack of belief that gods exist.
Deism — The belief that a god or gods exists, but does not interact with the universe.
Agnosticism — The belief that there is no way to know about gods or deities.

[Jack]

Huxley describes how he came to originate the term "agnostic" as follows: When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD] Huxley was delighted to find that the name "agnostic" stuck; he proceeded to expand upon what he meant by it. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889] That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889]

Atheism: Huxley on agnosticism

Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian

[lsbskins1]

Thanks, Ish -

Agnostic and pround of it, I am. (And also, apparently channeling Yoda)

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kaylor If there is a difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, what is it?

What, dictionary.com not working for you or something? freedom13 gave you a good set of definitions in any case.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kaylor If there is one, what is the difference between the two?

You're not one of those folks who thinks atheists are people who are angry at god, are you?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: freedom13 Theism — The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe. Atheism — A lack of belief that gods exist. Deism — The belief that a god or gods exists, but does not interact with the universe. Agnosticism — The belief that there is no way to know about gods or deities.

Atheism- a lack of THEISM all together, from God to Sin to Divinity

Gnosticism- The belief that God holds the ultimate "Truth"

Agnosticism- The lack of concern for the ultimate Truth

The word agnostic is archaic. Its based off a very old dead religion of gnostics, and doesn't mean whats its supposed to mean in modern society. I have a better word for people who don't believe in ultimate truth. Its Ironist.

But, to answer your question, those are the differences, and you can be both agnostic and atheist

[Suburbanite]

Also, agnostic doesn't mean "maybe". It means it is beyond human capacity to attain ultimate truth.

[Kaylor]

Quote by: Zhavric You're not one of those folks who thinks atheists are people who are angry at god, are you?

Naw, if your athiest theres no god to be mad at :)

[Jack]

agnostic doesn't mean "maybe". It means it is beyond human capacity to attain ultimate truth.

What grounds would an agnostic have for even supposing that "ultimate truth" exists? That would indicate to me that they are presuming the existence of an ultimate truth and not being truly agnostic at all.

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood What grounds would an agnostic have for even supposing that "ultimate truth" exists? That would indicate to me that they are presuming the existence of an ultimate truth and not being truly agnostic at all.

True, however, it would be better to say that one never will fully obtain knowledge of reality.