I can't wrap my brain around the "philosophical" difference between agnosticism and atheism. It all seems symantic. I've read in these forums every gradation of philosophy applied to both terms. I don't wish to belittle anyone's beliefs, but isn't it possible that the term only exists as a negotiation for acceptance from believers? I've provoked a lot of hostility with this perspective, but have never been satisfied that there is any real difference between the two that does not include bargaining.

When we say Christian we know what that means. When we say Hindu we understand that. When we say agnostic we say those are the ones who are uncertain. But isn't a level of uncertainty inherent in any question with no definitive answer.

I've applied the term atheist to myself, but how can anyone know the unknowable? In every area of study science acknowledges that the body of knowledge is incomplete, does that make them agnostic about science? It seems to me that that just inspires them to learn more.

The crevasse between believers and non seems so wide that it forces a position that rationalizes building a rhetorical bridge to facilitate coexistence. And since believers see no need to build that bridge it forces the responsibility to build it on non-believers, because it is the more inherently flexible position.

What do you think?

[QUOTE=Sailorlal79;677061]This is an easy one. Agnostics are not sure if there's a god. Atheists do not believe any gods exist.[/QUOTE]

To expand on that a little, I believe the better usage of 'agnosticism' relates to how one approaches knowledge.  An agnostic is one who says that God's existence (and non-existence) is unknowable.

A non-agnostic Christian would claim to 'know' there is a God.

A non-agnostic Atheist would claim to 'know' there is not one.

An agnostic Christian would believe in God, even though he could not know there is a God.

An agnostic Athest would believe there is no God, even though he could not know there is no God.

artboyz wrote:

I can't wrap my brain around the "philosophical" difference between agnosticism and atheism. It all seems symantic. I've read in these forums every gradation of philosophy applied to both terms. I don't wish to belittle anyone's beliefs, but isn't it possible that the term only exists as a negotiation for acceptance from believers? I've provoked a lot of hostility with this perspective, but have never been satisfied that there is any real difference between the two that does not include bargaining.

I have even a lessor opinion of 'agnosticism.' Most of those that claim the label do not have a belief in a god. What's the term we use for those that lack a belief in gods? Many do not use the label 'Atheist' because of some strawman argument against Atheists. They like the less definite sounding 'agnostic.'

When we say Christian we know what that means. When we say Hindu we understand that. When we say agnostic we say those are the ones who are uncertain. But isn't a level of uncertainty inherent in any question with no definitive answer.

It is also not what the word was intended for. Agnosticism is not a position for a fence sitter, or one that is unsure of the answer. It originally meant that the question of a god existing or not is unanswerable.

I've applied the term atheist to myself, but how can anyone know the unknowable? In every area of study science acknowledges that the body of knowledge is incomplete, does that make them agnostic about science? It seems to me that that just inspires them to learn more.

Exactly. How do they know the question is unanswerable? How do they know gods are unknowable? If they know the answers, or even make the claims, then they know something about which they claim is unknowable. And once you claim the answer is unknowable or unanswerable all further inquiry stops. That's not a good thing.

The crevasse between believers and non seems so wide that it forces a position that rationalizes building a rhetorical bridge to facilitate coexistence. And since believers see no need to build that bridge it forces the responsibility to build it on non-believers, because it is the more inherently flexible position.

What do you think?

Why build a bridge? If they want to fall into the crevasse of ignorance and myth, then let them. If they want help out, we'll extend a hand.

hortonthrockmorton wrote:

To expand on that a little, I believe the better usage of 'agnosticism' relates to how one approaches knowledge.  An agnostic is one who says that God's existence (and non-existence) is unknowable.

A non-agnostic Christian would claim to 'know' there is a God.

A non-agnostic Atheist would claim to 'know' there is not one.

An agnostic Christian would believe in God, even though he could not know there is a God.

An agnostic Athest would believe there is no God, even though he could not know there is no God.

As an agnostic atheist, this pretty much sums it up for me.

Since I lean towards atheism, at times I use agnosticism and/or atheism  interchangeably but to be honest, that's a pretty lazy approach on my part.  The time taken when describing my position often depends upon who I'm talking to and whether or not they'll appreciate these differences or start rolling their eyes in boredom over the "alleged" hair-splitting.  :)

Agnostic atheist is much more accurate and more than mere semantics.

I've actually known a few agnostic theists as well; those who profess a belief in god(dess) (this is the THEIST part) but will admit they don't have provable, verifiable KNOWLEDGE that h/she exists. (That would be the agnostic portion)

[QUOTE=artboyz;677151]

"A non-agnostic Atheist would claim to 'know' there is not one."

...seems to be a straw man, because who could claim to have proof of a negative? Can one make that assertion from the standpoint of experience? If not, isn't that position as irrational as believing in a deity.[/QUOTE]

I would submit the example of the strict materialist.  A strict materialist might claim to 'know' that there is no God, because according to the strict materialist, there is no reality outside the material universe.  It would be similar to 'knowing' that there's no such thing as a square circle.  Positing an 'existence' that is not material would be in that point of view a contradiction in terms.