0 votes
in Living by

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are redundant topics here, but this particular question has been gnawing at me.

Is an agnostic an atheist?

Oxford Dictionary's definition of Agnostic:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of *** or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in ***."

Oxford Dictionary's definition of Atheist:
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of *** or ****"

If we investigate these words on a grammatically fundamental level, the prefix "a" means to negate (not; without; opposite to) and the root word "gnostic" means of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Theism means belief in the existence a of *** or ****.

There is also a term called "Agnostic Theism" which is defined as believing in the existence of a *** but not claiming to know for sure that this *** definitely exists.
This would essentially prove that agnosticism is not limited to atheism. I have possibly answered my own question in the process, but what you think?



Your answer

Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

41 Answers

0 votes
by
"Is there a ***?"

Atheist:
hahaha no
Theist:
yes
Agnostic:
i dont know
0 votes
by
I think you've over complicated it as it's the belief or lack of that defines them not the grammatical interpretation, so an atheist says no there is no ***, an agnostic says I have no idea.
0 votes
by
"Is there a ***?"

Atheist:
hahaha no
Theist:
yes
Agnostic:
i dont know
0 votes
by
What about gnostics then?

And I'm Agnostic-Atheist. Half way between "HAHAHAHAHAHAH no" and "no idea".
0 votes
by
"Is there a ***?"


Gnostic:
[Insert "Probably-not gif" here]
0 votes
by
No no, gnostic doesn't mean "probably not". Agnostic means that it cannot be known if a *** exists and gnostic means that it can be known. Here's a nice illustration for understanding:

gnostic agnostic god exists gnostic illustration understanding
0 votes
by
Too many labels. :I
0 votes
by
What do you mean?
0 votes
by
I would guess no, but I am NOT one, so I can't tell for sure.
0 votes
by
Some lean more towards theist and some (like me) lean more towards atheist
0 votes
by
My ******** are agnostic as they have not developed a belief about the idea of ****. I on the other hand am an atheist because I do have a firm position on the existence of ****.
0 votes
by
You just answered your own question in the description.

"If we investigate these words on a grammatically fundamental level, the prefix "a" means to negate (not; without; opposite to) and the root word "gnostic" means of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Theism means belief in the existence a of *** or ****."

Simply put: Agnostic = Not knowing - Atheism = Not believing ***(s) exists. They have different definitions for a reason.
0 votes
by
Most are.
0 votes
by
From what I've read:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not ***, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of ***.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with ***') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, ****** abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, entirely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others. However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.

You're gonna make me learn whether I want to or not, aren't you?
0 votes
by
Well, I originally had the idea that agnosticism referred solely to the uncertainty of religious beliefs as opposed to the uncertainty of knowing whether or not a *** or **** exist. So I ***** up learning quite a bit myself!
0 votes
by
See When you're 15 - 20, you know everything there is to know... After that you start learning the real stuff, and that never ****. I had to figure that out on my own... with the help from my wife. :-)
0 votes
by
in a way, most true atheists are agnostics.
0 votes
by
Seems so. Only the most pretentious of atheists deny any probability of ***/****.
0 votes
by
I like to call them "religious atheists" but in reality, if there was actual evidence of a ***, all of us would acknowledge its existence. ****, there's more evidence of bigfoot than there is of ***
0 votes
by
That would be a contradiction in terms.
0 votes
by
Hmmm. Why would you ask that question?

I can only tell you for sure that **I** am an atheist. Therefore not being an agnostic I can't tell you what they are. I guess it would be up to them to tell YOU, rather than you telling them.
0 votes
by
Agnostics are literally people who do not know if there is a *** (that is the definition). Atheists believe there is no ***.
0 votes
by
I agree, this isn't binary. Agnostics are neutral. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

Atheists, on the other hand, have made a choice to disbelieve, even though there is no evidence for either position.

When there is some sort of evidence, then I can stop being neutral. Perhaps when I die?
0 votes
by
atheist coffee
0 votes
by
I am agnostic, my personal definition is that it means I believe in a higher power but don't pretend to know what it is, like organized religion does.
0 votes
by
The two terms have different meanings
0 votes
by
Most atheists are agnostics (we don't know, but we don't believe either), but not all agnostics are atheists. There are agnostic theists too. To be honest, everyone should be an agnostic. There is literally NO way to know what lies beyond the universe. It could be a ***, but it could just as well be nothing. And in fact, that's probably the more likely case. But still, we can never KNOW for certain.
0 votes
by
an agnostic is on the fence, can't fathom there being a *** or not being a ***, needs time to seriously study the situation
if you are an atheist you say you are an atheist
same with an agnostic - no agnostics are atheists they are agnostic
0 votes
by
agnostics haven't made a choice, atheists have.
0 votes
by
This isn't binary. You believe there is or isn't, or you don't know. Agnostic simply doesn't know. They don't HAVE to choose.
0 votes
by
We'll only ever know the answer to that after death, I believe.
0 votes
by
they have never been observed, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that they exist. At least, they've never been observed by ME, personally, and someone's else's account isn't proof.
0 votes
by
And once that happens, we can't give that answer to anyone else.

Not that anything other than personal experience could be considered proof.
0 votes
by
Atheism refers to BELIEF. Agnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE. You can be both an agnostic and an atheist. You can admit that you do not know for certain, but then add that you do not believe there is a ***. Likewise, you can admit that you do not know, but add that you DO believe there is a ***. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's a scale. I, as most atheists do, consider myself an agnostic atheist. There is simply no way to prove for or against a ***, but I still find it to be very, very unlikely.

Even Richard Dawkins, the most outspoken atheist ever, considers himself an agnostic atheist. It is disbelief, not knowledge, that leads us to atheism. Much like how Christians do not believe in Hinduism, and Hindus do not believe in Christianity. Atheists simply don't believe in ANY religion. Knowledge may influence it, such as scientific discovery, but we do not know for sure if a *** exists or not.
0 votes
by
and knowledge should be the basis of belief, or the belief is unfounded.

until I have the knowledge, I cannot form a belief, nor can I disbelieve it. I have to have knowledge first.
0 votes
by
So, basically, what you're saying is, since you do not KNOW for certain if there are pink unicorns that live at the center of Mars or not, you neither believe nor disbelieve in them? That is an absolutely silly stance to take. There are answers more likely to be true than others. There are probably not any pink unicorns that live at the center of Mars. Can I prove this? No. But I don't think there are. I don't believe in them. There are many things that we cannot prove for or against. *** is not a unique case. You are holding on to religion a little too tightly.
0 votes
by
Without absolute knowledge, neutrality is the only logical course. Schrodinger's cat: the cat is alive or dead, but I do not care to hazard a guess as to which. I prefer to open the box and find the answer.
0 votes
by
That's all well and good, but there are variables that you can use to predict an answer. That is the foundation of science. Has the cat eaten? Is there enough air? How long has it been since it drank water? Etc. Depending on the answers to these questions, the cat is either likely to still be alive, or not. We could be wrong, of course, but we are still using probability based on prior knowledge/what we already KNOW to be true. If the cat has had food and water, and there is enough oxygen in the box, then chances are, the cat is alive. Likewise, if not, the cat is likely dead. This is not a guess. This is an educated prediction. We don't have to "hazard a guess". We only have to use our brains.
0 votes
by
I don't "predict" or "guess" anything. I don't play games of chance. I need clear cut answers one way or the other.

I thought you might look up Schrodinger's cat to understand the situation. The cat is in a box with a toxic compound that will be released IF a radioactive particle is detected. The compound will instantly kill the cat. The particle may or may not be detected though. I'm not going to take a guess at whether it's alive or dead, I'm going to check for myself. This isn't the case with things like **** and aliens. It isn't possible to know with any certainty if either of those things exist (the two could be one and the same thing).
0 votes
by
I know what schrodinger's cat is. You can still make an educated prediction using science.
Aliens are not unknowable, because they exist within the observable universe, meaning that they CAN be observed. We just have to find some to observe. Until then, we can make an educated prediction about the existence of alien life using what we already know about our own planet. I can use this as an example to explain how we can "know" without knowing.
We have been able to reproduce the conditions of early Earth, and we have been able to make artificial organic compounds in these early conditions. The next step is to get them to form a proto-cell, which is a little more difficult, but it only needs to happen once, in such a way that it would copy itself. We also know that this is possible, using the theory that lipids formed around bubbles which contained some solute and RNA (the precursor to DNA). After that happens, then evolution can take over, allowing for speciation. Evolution was slower at first because ****** reproduction had not yet evolved, but it started to speed up when oxygen bagan to appear in the atmosphere. The oxygen killed off many of the photosynthesizing, unicellular life, and allowed for natural selection to begin. The ones who could use oxygen thrived in this enviro...




I know what schrodinger's cat is. You can still make an educated prediction using science.
Aliens are not unknowable, because they exist within the observable universe, meaning that they CAN be observed. We just have to find some to observe. Until then, we can make an educated prediction about the existence of alien life using what we already know about our own planet. I can use this as an example to explain how we can "know" without knowing.
We have been able to reproduce the conditions of early Earth, and we have been able to make artificial organic compounds in these early conditions. The next step is to get them to form a proto-cell, which is a little more difficult, but it only needs to happen once, in such a way that it would copy itself. We also know that this is possible, using the theory that lipids formed around bubbles which contained some solute and RNA (the precursor to DNA). After that happens, then evolution can take over, allowing for speciation. Evolution was slower at first because ****** reproduction had not yet evolved, but it started to speed up when oxygen bagan to appear in the atmosphere. The oxygen killed off many of the photosynthesizing, unicellular life, and allowed for natural selection to begin. The ones who could use oxygen thrived in this environment.
Knowing these things, we can look for the right chemicals on planets to create life as we know it. We do this using spectroscopy. The elements in the atmosphere reflect certain wavelengths of light, and we can gather information from the colors we get. We look for things like methane a lot, and oxygen is good too. Water is obvious, as it is one of the only compounds we know of that has the right chemical conditions for life. There are others, but water is most likely for life, seeing as how hydrogen and oxygen are 2 out of 3 of the top three most common elements in the universe.
Anyway, the probability that life exists elsewhere is huge. We have even found the materials needed to form life on freaking comets. This, by the way, is interesting, because it backs up the theory of panspermia, which is the explanation that life actually originated somewhere else, but came to Earth on a comet. I find that idea interesting, but it would still require that abiogenesis occur elsewhere to be brought here.
As you can see, we are pretty certain that aliens exist. We don't know about intelligent life, because that brings into question the Fermi Paradox, but life in general is highly probable.

***, on the other hand, is not within the observable universe. However, its existence can be reasoned about. We can come to a logical conclusion, even when we cannot know for sure.
(more)
0 votes
by
Which is why you can't prove the existence or non-existence of a *** or other Deities.
That comes under the realm of faith, whether false or not is up to the individuals beliefs.
...