How to Understand the Difference Between Theism and Atheism
Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics, or are they just two There are theistic agnostics--fideists, for example--who believe in. Atheism and Agnosticism are similar in that neither acknowledge the This is the key difference between Atheism & Theism and Agnosticism. discussion board, I hope you don't mind if we have a friendly debate about it. Learn the definition of Agnostic vs. atheist & other commonly used words, to invalidate what theist hold up as “proof” of the existence of god.
I'll be sure to alert yu that it is published, if and when I do so. Mark Brewster 2 years ago Hi, Catherine. VERY well written piece, my friend. They cannot seem to comprehend the idea that we disbelieve for a reason OTHER than we "haven't heard the 'Word' well enough, or from the right source" yet. Normally, I'm pretty 'live and let live' when it comes to personal beliefs. I'm of the opinion that such should be kept private unless asked I'll argue in a minute if challenged, but I don't ask.
So, I'll just tell the theists here: Don't even HINT at a motivation for me believing in your god. WE know, Catherine, the source of the confusion of terms -- and you dealt well with the primaries. I've also been curious about the "new atheist" label, having heard references to it in other venues.
I enjoy your writing, friend -- perhaps you can bring me up to speed: If so, can you link it on FB, and if not, perhaps consider one What a nice thing to say.
What Is the Definition of Atheist, Agnostic, and Other Related Terms? | Owlcation
I've jsut been so busy. I have ideas for several more hubs. I hope I can get done next week. I miss your hubs. JasonKClark 3 years ago If we're referring to the positive "no god" conviction, then it's not that I, as an agnostic, am without courage in that conviction.
It's that I don't hold that conviction, at all. In that case, this statement is a straw man.
Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics? | Catholic Answers
If we're referring to a conviction in non belief, then I, as an agnostic, am more than happy to state it to anyone and everyone that I have no belief in "gods". I also have no belief in "no gods". I just don't call that being an a-theist, since I find that method of labelling to be illogical and convoluted.
I call it being an agnostic which, to me, screams loud and clear that I don't believe in gods. Sagan presents a fairly positive view of agnostics, as open minded, elsewhere in Contact: Her mind is open. The range of her knowledge is broad. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God.
I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do to be sure that no such God exists.
To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.
An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid. I still like the "courage of your convictions" phrase. I would have to research Sagan's views in detail to see which character or maybe both represented his own views. You add even more terms to describe atheism than even the lenghty list I compiled. I like you superman-alien comparison.
Thank you for your detailed comments. Carl Sagan makes that statement I quoted about agnostics lacking the courage of their conviction in his book "Contact.
Some of the hubs are on the Bible but others are starting to look at what science says! Just so you know Notice that my definition is not "beliefs about God are faiths and beliefs that scientists agree with are not".
You may mistakenly jump to that conclusion, and then I would agree that it is a silly and elitist definition.
But, to me the word "faith" refers not to what is believed, but how that belief was reached and held. On the other hand, for the cosmologists I know it is not a faith but a belief reached though strong evidence and still subject to future reconsideration and new evidence arises.
We could do a study to find out how many people agree with my distinction between "faith" and "belief", and I bet that you'd find most people like me actually think some beliefs are "faith" and some are not.
But, to me, that's beside the point. Bill and Ted Re: As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: A problem with JoeDSileo's definition is that I don't think there is anyone like that. To know anything with absolute certainty you'd have to be omniscient, and to be omniscient you'd have to be a god, and so if you don't believe in gods then you'd have to admit that you don't know that with absolute certainty.
This makes JoeDSileo's definition kind of pointless. It also makes a good weapon for people who want to attack atheism because it makes the word mean something silly. I think it makes sense to use the word "atheist" to mean "a person who believes there is no God" what JoeDSileo called an "agnostic atheist" and not bother having a word for "a person who believes that they know with absolute certainty that there is no God" just like we don't have a word for "a pound tomato that fits nicely in an ordinary sized envelope".
It is essentially a rejection of faith all together. Agnosticism has nothing to do with faith, or the rejection of it. I notice that you argue in later posts that "faith" and "belief" are interchangeable for the record, I disagree with this and think n-atheist did a fabulous job of explaining not only the differences, but how the differences are important to the discussion at handbut "knowledge" and "faith" are definitely NOT interchangeable.
While I acknowledge that some people hold the definition that agnostics lack belief, that is not the definition I maintain. Furthermore, I do not think that a theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that they go hand in hand. One addresses belief; the other addresses knowledge. I consider myself both an atheist I do not believe in gods and agnostic I do not KNOW that there are any gods and I do not believe that knowledge is even possible.
So while some people label themselves as agnostic and are "sitting on the fence," I would not label them agnostic. Keep in mind that, while one definition of "atheism" is "the belief that no gods exist," another accepted definition is simply "the lack of belief.
And that's essentially what you're saying agnostics have in your definition - a lack of belief, one way or the other. But I digress a little. My definition of agnosticism does not address belief or uncertainty in a belief, but knowledge. In other words, an agnostic holds the view that the truth of the existence of a god is unknowable.
By this definition, everyone is an agnostic in my book, so I think the whole labeling of people as agnostic is silly and redundant.
What Is the Definition of Atheist, Agnostic, and Other Related Terms?
For what it's worth, my definitions of atheists and agnostics as addressing two separate ideas belief and knowledge are back up by your thesaurus website. See the Note at http: Would you say that you have faith that there are no unicorns?
Or would you say that you believe that there are no unicorns? But, if I did believe in unicorns, it would be a belief based on faith alone. I also don't believe that a pound tomato will fit in an envelope, even a big one. IF atheists made that assertion, I think you may have a case for opening the door to faith. Let's back up and look at this, though.
As I've said above and as n-atheist has said very wellatheists lack a belief in gods. The atheists I know say they do not believe in gods an assertion of belief, not of factnot so much that there are no gods, period, end of story an assertion of fact.
Because one cannot prove a negative, I might agree that making an assertion of a negative as fact, could be seen as a form of faith-statement. But, I have to agree with Bill and Ted that I don't think there is anyone like that, and we are back at the definition of atheists as those who simply lack a belief in god or believe there are no gods.
JoeDSileo Dec 10 Re: We can't prove all negatives but we can certainly prove negatives in general. Every time a person is acquitted of a crime a negative is proven. That having been said by your own admissions this negative cant be proven therefore it is a belief. Let us assume that belief and faith are not interchangeable. If I ask someone: You will probably say they do but based on your standards its not always the case.
The existence of Phi, any unexplained phenomenon can all be contributed to the existence of God. Now you may respond saying that this evidence is circumstantial, and not concrete. But again using your standards to them this is evidence. All three of you have said "This is what it means to me" paraphrase. So using the same idea the evidence they are using which may seem circumstantial to you and me appears concrete to them and is therefore correct.
That is unless we are all bound to a certain standard. Its about what is.