Agnostic or Atheist? What's the difference?

[maryelizabeth]

Great video! Can't wait for a future video on humanist. You are so well-spoken, I hope you do many more videos.

[lotusrhysing]

Excellent! Perfectly described and defined! Keep up the great work, Neil! I look forward to more videos from you!

[Limited-Hangout]

I know a surprising amount of people who identify as Agnostic yet think the word means "spiritual but not religious" or "you're not sure, but you believe there is SOMTHING" (whatever that means). And when I tell them that's not at all what Agnostic means they proceed to fight me on it like it's a matter of opinion. People dont care what words mean anymore apparently.

[acwee]

agnostic means that you believe there is a possibility that every religion can be a possibility

[GeminEyeArt]

Though for all intents and purposes I'm an Atheist, I typically reject the use of the term for myself due to it's reactionary connotations. I prefer people know me rather than judge by my possible affiliations. I'm simply how I was when I was born and Christianity couldn't stick to me beyond my teen years. Though neurobiologically this is inaccurate as the brain is a reactionary mechanism, I try to act by this mentality. I can acknowledge that it's impossible to disprove incredible claims like the existence of a supernatural presence, but the scientific probability of that seems so minuscule to me that I think it'd be unfair for me to say I'm even a little Agnostic. I think if there is anything god-like in the universe (multiverse?) it would be in name only... something scientifically explainable, simply of a grander scale and not the grandest thing out there.

[brutusepiglottis]

Hmmm - well now I need to rethink what "I AM" so ask "AM I?"
Maybe a Polyagnostic Apolytheist.

[joshheter]

On the use of "gnostic atheist", etc. and the idea that "atheism" is about belief and "agnosticism" is about knowledge...

It's odd to me; it seems like the debate over God's existence is the only topic in which certain parties attempt to create these overtly complex labels that are a mish-mash of an idea (e.g. that God does not exist, or that God does exist) and a psychological state (e.g. belief, or knowledge). For instance, you'll never hear anyone say "I'm a gnostic determinist." or "He's an agnostic physicalist." I don't know why this doesn't happen elsewhere, but I do know why it doesn't happen often - because it is entirely unhelpful and unnecessarily complex.

We shouldn't prioritize labeling people: "Jim is an agnostic theist, and by that I mean that Jim does believe that there is a God, but he also believes that his belief that there is a God falls short of the standards necessary for knowledge."

We should instead prioritize labeling ideas. Theism is the idea that there is a God. Atheism is the idea that there is no God. If we then want to label someone as "agnostic" (which is a term used often enough to apply to holding no view in other debates) as someone who does not believe, or is not willing to defend either idea, we can.

We can then have a conversation about which of those ideas (theism and atheism) is true. That conversation is unlikely to be resolved any time soon, but I gather it will be much more fruitful than a conversation about 1) whether God exists and 2) whether someone who believes "God exists" knows "God exists".

I tend to think that these labels are created and used by particularly dogmatic individuals who are a little too concerned with "burden of proof". Overt concern with burden of proof is a red flag for overt concern with winning a debate (or being thought of as the smartest person in the room), as opposed to an overt concern with the truth.

[edwardamo]

I appreciate hearing your perspective on this, but I think it's a little different from mine. Specifically, I would say the reason I prefer to call myself an atheist and NOT an agnostic is that I think the chances of there being any god(s) are very low, even though I admit I can't be 100% certain about it. Whereas I'd probably prefer to say I was an agnostic and NOT an atheist if I thought the chances were closer to 50-50 or merely had no idea at all about what they were, even though I'd still lack a positive belief in any god in that case and so would still be an atheist by the usage you prefer.

In other words, I guess in practice I'm one of those people who thinks of the words atheist and and agnostic as basically lying on different (though somewhat vague and overlapping) regions of a spectrum, contrary to how you prefer to use the terms. But I don't think there's any point arguing about which usage is more correct or standard; I think either way is totally fine as long as you just realize that some people might be using the words a little differently than you are.

[TheHuxleyAgnostic]

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not." ~ Thomas Huxley, 1884

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?" ~ Antony Flew, 1984

[HigginsIsHere]

But being agnostic means you literally don't believe in a god. If I ask an agnostic "do you actively believe in any gods, " and the answer is "no, " doesn't that automatically make them an atheist?


Edit: To clarify, I was saying that the people who define themselves as "agnostic" are actually atheist. I'm aware there are agnostic theists, but people who claim purely "agnostic" are in fact agnostic atheist.

[ReverendHowl]

In conversation I describe myself as "deity free" but I'm happy to tick any/all of the "atheist", "agnostic", "none", "(non-theistic) satanist" or "non-theistic Erisian/Dischordian" boxes.

[williamlarochelle]

Ex-Catholic agnostic-atheist here. The way I explain it is that I'm an atheist insofar as I've never had a direct, personal, unmistakable experience of any God, therefore I don't believe in any. I consider myself an agnostic because, beyond the world of my own knowledge and experience, I think there may well be a God, I just don't give a shit.

[IceCreamExplosion]

I know I'm an atheist, I believe and have faith in evolution

[ahermit]

Agnosticism as originally defined by T, H. Huxley is an approach to knowledge. one accepts as true only those propositions which are well supported by evidence and reasoning. And if course this acceptance is subject to change in light of new evidence.  So for me this means I am provisionally an atheist for all practical purposes because of my agnosticism

[sweetpea]

How can you believe some gods could exist, but not have any you have come across that you believe in? Do you mean spiritual? (Where you believe in other forces at work in the world, but don’t necessarily conform to one of the 5 world religions?)

[DoorknobHead]

One thing I don't understand is why agnostics don't say, I am 100% sure there are no gods more often. That seems a reasonable answer. To be more accurate you could say I am 100% sure (rounded up). I mean, really, it has to be somewhere around 0.99... percent, it is just a question of how many nines to add behind the decimal point especially if someone espouses a creator god with particular attributes and history produces no verifiable evidence. If someone asked you, are there any unicorns, the closest answer to give if probed would be that you are 100% sure (rounded up goes without saying usually), it is just, once again, how many nines do you place behind the decimal point. Often when atheists/agnostics say they are not sure, I don't think there is an emphasis on how sure they really are when probed and they say, well I am not 100% sure. Sure you are! Just round up. Any way, I am 100% sure gods don't exist (rounded up).

[tammyjackson]

sorry neil but atheism is the belief that some one does not believe in a deity agnosticism is some one who is not sure if there is a deity or not

[ethanreznr]

Good video. My experience with the word "atheist" is that it is almost like a bad word. People don't care to understand what it actually means, because as soon as they hear the word applied to someone, they know _all_ they need to know about them, which is 'bad, evil, wicked, immoral person'.

[youfube-]

It's strange how even this can be made overly complex.
Right now I declare that in the core of the moon, there lives a purple manatee with staggeringly bad cheese breath.
The fun part starts when people start to build up arguments why they do not believe this to be true and at some point will attack (verbally) each other for it and over even the slightest language nuances and pure semantics.

[Iplaygoofy]

I only say I'm an agnostic to people who don't understand the difference. To them, agnostic is better than the other A word.