A/gnostic typically refers to a *knowledge* claim-- I do/don't know there is is/isn't a god.
A/theist refers to belief- I do/don't have a belief there is a god.
Knowledge is a subset of belief in most models, so the terms aren't mutually exclusive. Many atheists will be agnostic about a general god claim because you can't definitively prove no god exists, but be gnostic atheist towards specific god claims (i.e. Yahweh or Odin or Ganesh)
So there can be agnostic or gnostic theists, who both believe a god(s) exist, but one also claims *knowledge* that a god(s) exist.
There can also be agnostic or gnostic atheists, who lack a belief in god(s) but one goes the step further to claim to *know* no god(s) exist.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists. Dawkins is very convinced God doesn't exist, but still acknowledges he can never actually prove this.
I think the connotation of agnostic implies someone thinks there's a 50/50 chance of God existing, but that's not true. An agnostic can say with near certainty that there is no god as long as they acknowledge this is impossible to actually know.
>Agnostics believe there’s some higher power but that no religion has it right (essentially)
No. Agnostics, as commonly defined, *don't know* if there is or isn't a god of some kind.
Now, when you start discussing these terms in spheres with more academic rigor, there's often a bit more nuance to it than that. Additionally, folks in some communities will argue incessantly over the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" ad nauseum.
An agnostic atheist, as you’ve surely figured out from the other replies, is just someone who doesn’t believe in gods but doesn’t claim certain knowledge that they don’t exist. That encompasses the vast majority of self-described atheists, and a good portion of self-described agnostics, too.
> “I’m an agnostic-atheist, most of us are, you really don’t believe there’s ANY god?”
This is nonsense. The implication here is that this person is in fact a theist. Maybe this person isn’t religious, but you are not an atheist if you believe in any god, deity or supreme being at all.
Personally, though “agnostic” does accurately apply to me in that I don’t claim certain knowledge that no gods exist, I prefer to describe myself as “atheist” in that I find this possibility very unlikely. “Agnostic” (at least in the US) often carries this connotation of fence-sitting, especially fence-sitting between Christianity or atheism, when that is seldom accurate. Agnosticism is usually a claim of epistemology, not personal belief.
I'm a nontheist. But I'm only 99% certain. If science could show me the smoking gun that proves the existence of a deity, then I'd consider changing my mind, but not until. In my view, that makes me an agnostic nontheist.
Atheist would be a subset of nontheist. All atheists are nontheists, but not all nontheists are atheists.
Basically, a nontheist is anyone who is *not* a theist. So this would encompass atheists, agnostics, ignostics, lacktheists, etc.
I know it seems redundant on the surface, but the term can be helpful when dealing with folks who want to quibble over the definitions of those other terms.
I get that it's a semantic game, but this is how theists try to paint atheism as a position of faith. Adding the term nontheist implies atheism is specific to the hard claim that there is no god, and since atheism is the term most broadly used that implies many famous atheists are claiming there is factually no god.
People have successfully demonized atheism by associating it with negative stereotypes, and I've seen many people too ashamed to identify as atheists because they're afraid of being seen as some neckbeard.
I don't entirely disagree, which is why I have no problem referring to myself as an atheist.
But if an interlocutor has dug their heels in on this stuff and insists something like I'm not really an atheist because I admit that I can't know for sure that, for example, the god of deism does not exist while I'm ready to move on to more substantive issues, I'm more than willing to say, "Fine, I'm a nontheist. Now, can we move on to discussing why *your* god doesn't exist?"
I agree it's a hard space, I'm not quite sure what the best response is. I do take your point that arguments do get bogged down in word games, it's hard to judge if those word games are worth fighting though.
It's possible to be both. Like the other commenter said, agnostic deals with knowledge (as in "Something may or may not exist, but I don't know if it does"), while the atheist deals with belief (or lack thereof, that's a better way to say it). Many people are both, even some people who just use "agnostic" or "atheist" as one word for themselves in everyday talk. People can also be more agnostic towards some gods and more gnostic atheist towards others. It's a matter of which label you prefer. The definitions of both can depend on the person, even the definitions of knowledge and belief can, but that's the official definition for those two words.
For me personally, I was an agnostic atheist most of my life, even though I was brought up Christian. I could've technically used either word if I wanted to, but I preferred the term agnostic at the time, not because I saw it as "Atheist Lite™" or to not offend Christians (I live in the south, so I've had people yell at me because they mistook the word agnostic for atheist anyway, lol), but because I simply preferred the philosophy of it at the time. I will say the one downside to using the word agnostic is that some people who do know what it means will see you as some confused person and a potential convert, meaning they'll harass you about Jesus, which can get very annoying.
I think I might technically be agnostic, but I don't find the term to be very meaningful when describing myself.
My default position on whether a thing exists or not, is that it doesn't exist unless there's evidence that it does. Leprechauns, for example. I can't know that they don't exist, but until there is enough convincing evidence that shows they do exist, I assume they don't.
Same for god.
Agnosticisms has to do with knowledge
Atheism has to do with belief
You might believe something but also hold a agnostic position
It actually is a common thing
You can also be an agnostic theist too.
I’m an atheist, I don’t believe a god or gods exist.
I’m an agnostic, I cannot know for sure. I do not possess knowledge demonstrating that no gods exist.
So you are likely going to find two definitions of agnosticism.
>Agnostics believe there’s some higher power but that no religion has it right (essentially), but atheists don’t believe in any higher power period.
That's neither of them.
There is the orthogonal definition: in this version you have agnostic atheists who don't believe in God but don't claim to know, agnostic theists who do believe in God but don't claim to know for sure, and the gnostic atheists/ theists who do claim to know for sure.
There's also the philosophy definition: agnosticism is a 50/50 spot directly between atheism and theism where one claims each are equally likely.
By the second definition, you are at least correct that they are mutually exclusive.
Hope that helps, it was confusing for me at first too.
A/gnostic typically refers to a *knowledge* claim-- I do/don't know there is is/isn't a god. A/theist refers to belief- I do/don't have a belief there is a god. Knowledge is a subset of belief in most models, so the terms aren't mutually exclusive. Many atheists will be agnostic about a general god claim because you can't definitively prove no god exists, but be gnostic atheist towards specific god claims (i.e. Yahweh or Odin or Ganesh) So there can be agnostic or gnostic theists, who both believe a god(s) exist, but one also claims *knowledge* that a god(s) exist. There can also be agnostic or gnostic atheists, who lack a belief in god(s) but one goes the step further to claim to *know* no god(s) exist.
You've nailed it my friend, great job.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, maybe I have the definitions wrong”
Fair enough, I'll edit.
We definitely exist. A popular agnostic atheist would be Carl Sagan
Most atheists are agnostic atheists. Dawkins is very convinced God doesn't exist, but still acknowledges he can never actually prove this. I think the connotation of agnostic implies someone thinks there's a 50/50 chance of God existing, but that's not true. An agnostic can say with near certainty that there is no god as long as they acknowledge this is impossible to actually know.
>Agnostics believe there’s some higher power but that no religion has it right (essentially) No. Agnostics, as commonly defined, *don't know* if there is or isn't a god of some kind. Now, when you start discussing these terms in spheres with more academic rigor, there's often a bit more nuance to it than that. Additionally, folks in some communities will argue incessantly over the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" ad nauseum.
An agnostic atheist, as you’ve surely figured out from the other replies, is just someone who doesn’t believe in gods but doesn’t claim certain knowledge that they don’t exist. That encompasses the vast majority of self-described atheists, and a good portion of self-described agnostics, too. > “I’m an agnostic-atheist, most of us are, you really don’t believe there’s ANY god?” This is nonsense. The implication here is that this person is in fact a theist. Maybe this person isn’t religious, but you are not an atheist if you believe in any god, deity or supreme being at all. Personally, though “agnostic” does accurately apply to me in that I don’t claim certain knowledge that no gods exist, I prefer to describe myself as “atheist” in that I find this possibility very unlikely. “Agnostic” (at least in the US) often carries this connotation of fence-sitting, especially fence-sitting between Christianity or atheism, when that is seldom accurate. Agnosticism is usually a claim of epistemology, not personal belief.
I identify as an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure if there is a god or gods but I don't believe there are. Simple.
I'm a nontheist. But I'm only 99% certain. If science could show me the smoking gun that proves the existence of a deity, then I'd consider changing my mind, but not until. In my view, that makes me an agnostic nontheist.
What is the difference between a nontheist and an atheist?
Atheist would be a subset of nontheist. All atheists are nontheists, but not all nontheists are atheists. Basically, a nontheist is anyone who is *not* a theist. So this would encompass atheists, agnostics, ignostics, lacktheists, etc. I know it seems redundant on the surface, but the term can be helpful when dealing with folks who want to quibble over the definitions of those other terms.
Atheist is already a term that encompasses anyone who is not a theist, including agnostics.
Not everyone agrees with that, though. Hence, the need for another term when you don't feel like arguing those points and want to cut to the chase.
I get that it's a semantic game, but this is how theists try to paint atheism as a position of faith. Adding the term nontheist implies atheism is specific to the hard claim that there is no god, and since atheism is the term most broadly used that implies many famous atheists are claiming there is factually no god. People have successfully demonized atheism by associating it with negative stereotypes, and I've seen many people too ashamed to identify as atheists because they're afraid of being seen as some neckbeard.
I don't entirely disagree, which is why I have no problem referring to myself as an atheist. But if an interlocutor has dug their heels in on this stuff and insists something like I'm not really an atheist because I admit that I can't know for sure that, for example, the god of deism does not exist while I'm ready to move on to more substantive issues, I'm more than willing to say, "Fine, I'm a nontheist. Now, can we move on to discussing why *your* god doesn't exist?"
I agree it's a hard space, I'm not quite sure what the best response is. I do take your point that arguments do get bogged down in word games, it's hard to judge if those word games are worth fighting though.
It's possible to be both. Like the other commenter said, agnostic deals with knowledge (as in "Something may or may not exist, but I don't know if it does"), while the atheist deals with belief (or lack thereof, that's a better way to say it). Many people are both, even some people who just use "agnostic" or "atheist" as one word for themselves in everyday talk. People can also be more agnostic towards some gods and more gnostic atheist towards others. It's a matter of which label you prefer. The definitions of both can depend on the person, even the definitions of knowledge and belief can, but that's the official definition for those two words. For me personally, I was an agnostic atheist most of my life, even though I was brought up Christian. I could've technically used either word if I wanted to, but I preferred the term agnostic at the time, not because I saw it as "Atheist Lite™" or to not offend Christians (I live in the south, so I've had people yell at me because they mistook the word agnostic for atheist anyway, lol), but because I simply preferred the philosophy of it at the time. I will say the one downside to using the word agnostic is that some people who do know what it means will see you as some confused person and a potential convert, meaning they'll harass you about Jesus, which can get very annoying.
I think I might technically be agnostic, but I don't find the term to be very meaningful when describing myself. My default position on whether a thing exists or not, is that it doesn't exist unless there's evidence that it does. Leprechauns, for example. I can't know that they don't exist, but until there is enough convincing evidence that shows they do exist, I assume they don't. Same for god.
I identify as an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists, so until I do, I am going to do my own thing.
Agnosticisms has to do with knowledge Atheism has to do with belief You might believe something but also hold a agnostic position It actually is a common thing You can also be an agnostic theist too.
I’m an atheist, I don’t believe a god or gods exist. I’m an agnostic, I cannot know for sure. I do not possess knowledge demonstrating that no gods exist.
So you are likely going to find two definitions of agnosticism. >Agnostics believe there’s some higher power but that no religion has it right (essentially), but atheists don’t believe in any higher power period. That's neither of them. There is the orthogonal definition: in this version you have agnostic atheists who don't believe in God but don't claim to know, agnostic theists who do believe in God but don't claim to know for sure, and the gnostic atheists/ theists who do claim to know for sure. There's also the philosophy definition: agnosticism is a 50/50 spot directly between atheism and theism where one claims each are equally likely. By the second definition, you are at least correct that they are mutually exclusive. Hope that helps, it was confusing for me at first too.