+349 Why do people say they're Agnostic/Atheist? You can't be both, amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because religious people tend to group them together.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm just pointing our they're not the same.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They're obviously not the same thing, but they are in no way exclusive. In fact you cannot be an agnostic without being either an atheist or a theist at the same time.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

no? we dont

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why can't a person who does not believe in a higher power have the sense to realize that his views and opposing views cannot be proven? You can definitely be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic Christian, etc.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No you can't. I go to school with an atheist, he described his beliefs basically as a belief in nothing, while an agnostic believes in a higher power it just doesnt necessarily have to be God.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wrong definition of atheism, wrong definition of agnosticism. Educate yourself please.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then you can tell the kid whose belief system that is that he is wrong. I also have friends who are agnostic, so you can tell them they are wrong too. Agnostics dont claim they know anything to be true, but every instance of agnosticism I have ever heard of involves a belief in a higher power. And atheists don't believe that any deities exist, therefore they don't believe in any God. thats really not wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Your definition of atheist: Someone who believes in nothing. True definition: Someone without a belief in any god. Your definition of agnostic: Someone who believes in a higher power it just doesnt necessarily have to be God. True definition: Someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

told you i had an actual atheist tell me that his beliefs were summed up as a belief in nothing, which is essentially the same as not having a belief in any god. And in my second comment I mentioned agnostics claim they dont know anything to be true, but there are agnostics who believe in a higher power.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"which is essentially the same as not having a belief in any god" No, it's really not. And your second comment wasn't what we were talking about was it? Anyway, my point is you can't pretend you know something just from hearsay. If you don't want to look it up at least don't pretend that you actually know.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Are you atheist? Because my friend is, and thats exactly what he told me. Well, it was what I was talking about. And I have looked it up, I'm sick right now, I've got nothing but time to look random shit up.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes I am. My friend told me that she was a penguin which means she can't fly, so now I'll go around acting like I am an expert on penguins. See the problem with that? I'm not ordering you to look it up, I'm just saying either look it up or don't talk about it like you're sure you know what it means.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're cool.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wow...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I am agnostic and I do lean more towards believing in a higher power-that keeps things in motion. Definitely wouldnt be watching us and judging us. I believe that every being in this universe is all one-the universe is 'god'. I think there would be science to back it, it is just beyond our comprehension.I believe in the possibility of reincarnation-due to the law of conservation of energy. "No energy can be created or destroyed, just shifted or changed". I am also not denying the idea that there could be nothing after life too. I have taken pieces of knowledge from different religions. So I am agnostic that believes there is a higher power for the most part, just not in any way biblical.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Almost 100% correct, but the true definition of an agnostic is: One who lacks knowledge (it could be possible to have the knowledge that God exists/doesn't exist, but an agnostic lacks that knowledge).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

All definitions I can find say that an agnostic is someone who believes that whether god exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It is true that many agnostics believe that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. But the real definition - actually, the literal translation of the word - is "without knowledge". I know many agnostics who think that the knowledge might exists, but that they just don't have that knowledge yet.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Now that you reminded me I actually think I knew that... Oh well, I guess "Someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." is like the extended definition. Or it's like how gay originally meant happy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You obviously do not know what agnosticism and atheism are.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm agnostic, I believe you can't know for sure whether it be science or a higher power. That's what an agnostic is. Agnostic theistic means you believe there is a higher power.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

See, I know people who said they were agnostic who believed there was a higher power but also did not deny the possiblity that they could be wrong because they could not prove it. Is that wrong?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, they would fall under Agnostic Theistic. There's a difference between Agnostic and Agnostic Theistic/Atheistic.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So basically all agnostics claim that they cannot know for sure whether or not something is true, but they also form their own opinions on what they believe still saying they could be wrong?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. They can claim there is no god/is a god, but they still think they can't know for sure.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So because you think that you cant know for sure, would you be more inclined to change your stance on the no god/is a god due to things that occur in your life? If thats too personal you dont have to answer, Im just curious

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, the reason I am Agnostic is I like hard evidence. Science shows me this hard evidence. Maybe if something happened to me, and God, or a deity, showed itself to me, I would more than likely believe in that god or deity. But ever since I was young I always was skeptical, and science explained things to me more.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

oh okay, so if you were given some sort of sign it would have an effect on what you believe? Thats cool, that you would be open to changing your stance on it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Somewhere above I have my views, I am agnostic. I believe in a higher power-just not in the biblical sense that it watches us and judges us. But the small reason that lead me to believe in a higher power are actually scientific. Like Anatomy-if you knew how many things have to happen for a muscle to contract it would blow your mind. There has to be some sort of intelligence behind that, but i dont think that god made a dude and a chick and thats how we are here. Its way more complex than that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, I know what it takes for a muscle to contract and it is really complex. There are a lot of things like that that make it clear that someone had to be there to create all of this. It didnt just happen by accident

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You may find this enlightening: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I always thought an agnostic was some one who beloved a higher power, just didn't know what it is. And an atheist as someone who doesn't belice at all, so IMO an agnostic atheist would be a contradiction.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

An agnostic just says that they can't say for sure if there is or isn't a God. An athiest flat out says their isn't.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Close, but that's not entirely right. Only a gnostic atheist would claim to actually know and there aren't really any gnostic atheists.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you're thinking of a deist not agnostic. although you can also be an agnostic deist.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

agnostics believe that there is no way to definitively say yes, there is some sort of higher power, nor is there a way to definitively say no, there is not some sort of higher power. atheism is the belief that there is no sort of higher being, or the lack of belief in such. based on personal interpretations of the two terms, i could see how someone might consider themselves both, or how someone might consider them to be entirely separate things unable to coexist within the beliefs of one person. nothing is simply black and white, children(im only 15, so perhaps i shouldnt be calling other people children, but i will regardless of whether or not i should). or, its possible that the person describing themself as both just hasnt decided for sure what there beliefs are. i sure as hell dont know.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

THANK YOU! Jesus, I'd been trying to explain this to people and they just said I was dumb and you could be both. Wrong -_-

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Those people were completely right.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh? Please, enlighten me as to how you can be both. You may can be in between them, but there is no way in Hell you can be both.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

why can't someone be both? explain.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't not believe in something AND not be sure about it's existance. It's just not possible...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

from dictionary.com ag·nos·tic –noun a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable a·the·ist –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. so an agnostic atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in in god, or doubts the existence of god, but believes that the true answer is unknowable. there's no contradiction.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How can you act so certain about something you know nothing about? This page should explain it: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This article has numerous problems: 1) It doesn't logically follow that one can take either position on the second claim and still be an atheist. If we are to apply the terms "atheist" and "theist" to the claim "at least one higher power exists", then actually, this argument is black and white. This argument still deals entirely with belief (faith, really) at this point, and knowledge hasn't come into play. If one disbelieves the claim "there is not at least one higher power", then what does one believe? 2) The author does not seem to understand the differences between belief, knowledge and apathy, or intentionally confuses the three. Faith (or belief as the author likes to term it) is merely the acceptance of the validity AND correctness of a claim independent to the supporting or violating evidence. Knowledge is describes one's mental store of supporting or violating evidence for the claim. This is independent of faith.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It may seem that the author has looked over implicit atheism, but I don't see how that changes any major part of the article. Your whole comment is pretty cryptic, could you be a bit more straightforward?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry, I get that a lot actually. Basically, the author defines atheism as relative to a particular belief system (such as an atheist to Christianity but not Hinduism). But to believe, have evidence or care to believe there is not at least one higher power is not relative, but absolute. If you don't believe in any, you are grouping all other beliefs into one separate category. The ideas are in fact mutually exclusive and so you can't take the position "I reject that there are no gods" and still believe/know/care that there are no gods. The argument presented only applies between several belief systems and not between the one being argued: any higher powers vs. no higher powers. An agnostic isn't a weak atheist. They've pretty much just changed topics.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying. But more importantly, could you point out the specific part out of all this that makes it impossible for someone to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They define gnostic as the assertion of whether a claim is true and agnostic as a lack of assertion. Even if you accept their definitions, you should realize that if you claim to not know, which better fits their definition of gnosticism, you are not an agnostic. Their definition of agnosticism relies on their definition of belief, not knowledge. Having information is useless unless you accept it. To not assert is to not state belief. If you state "I do not know" then you are just making a contrast to the statements "I know this is true and I know this is not true", which are gnostic by this definition. This leaves "I do not believe in the existence of any deity" (atheism), "I don't believe in deities because of my faith in evidence that says so" (positive gnostic atheism) and "I don't believe in deities regardless of my faith in the evidence that says otherwise"(negative gnostic atheism). An agnostic atheist would just disbelieve, which is just atheism.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm sorry, but I still find your comments cryptic. I do not believe there is a god, but I would not claim that I know for sure. I my opinion that would make me an agnostic atheist, what would I be according to you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

According to what the article should say, a negative gnostic atheist. I'd term you a Liberal Atheist. 'Liberal' as opposed to 'Absolute' (liberal= having weak faith in absolute knowledge as pertains to the existence of a deity), and 'Atheist' as you do not believe in any deity. 'Weak' here is simply constrasting 'Intense'. An Agnostic would be someone who is ignorant (the knowlede just isn't there) to the issue entirely. If the thought of a higher power's existence has never crossed your mind, you can't be an atheist too. 'On the fence' is more of a 'Liberal Theist' or 'Liberal Deist': their faith in the absoluteness of knowledge is weak, and their faith in the truth of theism (involved deities) or deism (abandoning deities) is likewise weak.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"If the thought of a higher power's existence has never crossed your mind" That's not what agnosticism means. If the thought has never crossed your mind I believe you would fall into the category "implicit atheist".

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You asked what you would be according to me, so I used the literal definition of agnostic: unknowledgable, oblivious; a(not)+gnost(knowledge)+ic(related). If you wish to call yourself an implicit atheist, fine. That works better than agnostic There's no point in saying my definition of agnostic is wrong. The article's def'n is actually closer to 'implicit' as you stated, but with a little added 'ignorance'. The colloquial def'n is malaproped, yet for the most part unbiased, so I don't think its definition should be disputed. Originally, it meant ignoramus (which I don't like); it later came to mean what many modern dictionaries describe: someone who has faith that the truth of the existence of deities is unknowable (which does not mean ignorant, implicit, unprofessed or on the fence as is commonly misused). All I've been saying is you shouldn't treat that article as an authority. The author doesn't know what they're talking about. I bid you a good Sunday.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The uniting factor is pathos: how much you care to take a side. As a theist for the sake of this argument thesit encompases pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism... basically anyone who supports the claim "there is at least one higher being" in terms of faith, knowledge or pathos. You can not care whether any god exists or not and as such don't necessarily take either position. 3) The subjective definitions of gnostic and agnostic don't really make sense. They seem to flip flop between the classical and their own definitions. If someone is ignorant of whether or not there actually are higher powers, it does not mean they do not believe such information can be known. If someone claims to know or claims not to know, it's a statement of beliefe in the validity of evidence, not the god. An agnostic atheist would be someone who is ignorant of the truth but still believes either way. Basically, the colloquial definition of an atheist: entirely faith base

by Anonymous 14 years ago

an agnostic atheist is one who doesn't believe in god but reserves the possibility of the existence of a god.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Like an agnostic theist believes in a higher power, but reserves the possibility of no god xD

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think that apethists and agnostics are similar enough to be grouped, but atheists are on their own.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"agnostic noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." If atheists don't believe in a God, then I think the line 'a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God' proves that you cannot be an agnostic atheist.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't know where you have that definition from, but it is an incorrect definition.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

1. Agnostic atheist does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists 2. Gnostic atheist believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true Theist 3. Agnostic theist believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true 4. Gnostic theist believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The high score of this post is a perfect example of wilful ignorance and being way too comfortable about offering your opinion on a subject you know nothing about.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because, while they don't believe that a god can be proven, they are closer to believe that there is no god than to believe there is a god

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wait what? Scrantoncity isn't here yet?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

k, so in answer to the post (because I read about half of the replies and don't feel like reading the rest, haha) it IS possible for someone to be agnostic / atheist. For me (and I'm pretty sure I am an agnostic atheist, if I were to categorize myself) I don't believe in a higher power - but if a deity were to manifest in front of me and prove that she/he/it or whatever IS real then I would almost positively believe, unless I thought I was insane. hopefully that cleared something up haha.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Linds: what your friend is claiming is to be a nihilist, which may include atheism, but is expanded beyond that. S/he just may not know that word, but it literally means you believe in nothing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I consider myself an atheist; more specifically, a rational empiricist. Basically, I require empirical evidence to support any belief I adopt, period. At this point, as their is no empirical evidence to support the existence of an omnipotent creator being, I don't believe in one; I don't throw in any "ifs'. So to call me "agnostic" wouldn't be accurate. I don't believe the answers we all seek are unknowable; I just don't think we know how to figure it out yet. However, if quantifiable empirical evidence were found of such a thing, my beliefs could be adopted/expanded to include any such findings, without actually changing what they are now. Isn't that nice? =)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*adapted/expanded

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*there; wow, I'm on a roll today >.< we need edit for mobile, Ant!! Please! Lol

by Anonymous 14 years ago