Atheism vs Agnosticism?

[Pikachu]

There is a big difference between

I believe there is no god

and

I dont believe there is a god.

what’s the difference? To me it seems like two ways of saying exactly the same. Can you explain why the difference is so big?


-I believe there is no coffee in my cup

-I don’t believe there is any coffee in my cup

Either way, I believe my cup is empty. Time to fill it up.

 

[col]

Its about belief and non belief.

Not believing in something IS different from believing in nothing.
I dont have any kind of belief. Not even belief in nothing.

Belief implies an irrational process that requires no evidence that we simply know as true. I dont have that.

To say that "I believe that god doesnt exist" isnt true for me. I dont have any such 'belief'.
To say "I dont believe god exist" is to deny that I possess this thing called 'belief in god' . This is true for me.

 

[Mise]

But col, you have to have an opinion on whether or not God exists, surely?

 

[col]

I have no belief in any supernatural beings. Based on my experience and observation, god is not a working hypothesis. Like any scientist I'm preapred to change that theory that given repeatable and quantifiable evidence.

Certainty plays little or no part in my life - as Akka indicates.

 

[Akka]

The difference is in the certaintity.

"I believe that there is no coffee in my tass" : I'm quite certain there is no coffee.
"I don't believe there is any coffee in my tass" : I'm not quite sure, but if I would have to take a guess, I would say there is not.

 

[Mise]

@col: IMO that counts as a belief, if not strictly speaking, at least colloquially. You think that that opinion is the correct opinion, and although you are open to the possibility that you are wrong, it's still a belief in your opinion being the correct one (at least the way I take "belief" to mean). "I believe I am correct in my opinion about God" implies a belief that there is no God.

@Akka: A belief in something is, IMO, the same as an opinion, and the strength of that belief (or the strength of its wording) doesn't matter. I can believe weakly that there is a God, or strongly, or I can believe weakly that there is no God, or strongly that there is no God, but the only way I can not believe either way is if I have no knowledge or understanding of what God is. Again, that's just the way I take "belief" to mean though.

 

[col]

It seems like youre claiming that if I say I have no pictures of porn stars then you are insisting that I have a collection of pictures of no porn stars.

I dont have a ford car doesnt mean I have a car which isnt a ford.

I dont have a belief in god doesnt mean I have a belief in no god...

 

[Gothmog]

To me the key distinction is the question of first principles.

Ask yourself #1 - do you believe that there is any evidence to suggest that reality was created by God?
Now #2 - do you believe that there is any evidence to suggest that reality was not created by God?

an athiest gives - No, Yes
an agnostic - No, No

Of course one can also not have an opinion on the question of first principles.

and this is another chance for me to post this quote by Thomas Huxley the 'father' of agnosticism:

"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

and just for fun the definitions from the OED:

atheist: 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
(note that disbelief is: The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.)

agnostic: 1. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

 

[Mise]

It seems like youre claiming that if I say I have no pictures of porn stars then you are insisting that I have a collection of pictures of no porn stars.

I dont have a ford car doesnt mean I have a car which isnt a ford.

I dont have a belief in god doesnt mean I have a belief in no god...

Well, lets use the old analogy: Do you believe in leprechauns? Do you believe that leprechauns do not exist? Do you have no belief in leprechauns?

 

[col]

I dont believe in leprechauns.

It is a working hypothesis that they do not exist. I am prepared given evidence to reconsider that position. Belief doesnt come into it. Belief is not any way to decide the truth or otherwise of the existence something. I dont use belief as a means of determining the existence of something. I dont therefore 'believe' that leprechauns do not exist. It is simply a working theory.

 

[Mise]

Then I guess it's just a semantic difference in what the word "belief" means, and what you personally mean when you say "I don't believe in leprechauns". I think that if someone has an opinion on the subject, then they believe that opinion to be correct, which naturally implies/requires a belief in the opinion. So when I say "I don't believe in leprechauns", I am also saying "My opinion is that leprechauns don't exist", and since I believe I am correct, I am also saying "I believe that leprechauns don't exist". OTOH, when you say "I don't believe in leprechauns", you mean "there is no evidence to suggest that leprechauns exist, therefore there is no reason to believe that leprechauns exist, therefore I don't believe in leprechauns". I personally think there is no difference, since I don't think many (let alone all, as the definition implies) pure atheists would, if presented with undeniable evidence of God, still believe in no God.

 

[Pikachu]

Belief implies an irrational process that requires no evidence that we simply know as true.

Is this sentence supposed to be readable?. I am afraid I don’t understand it.

Certainty plays little or no part in my life

Isn’t to believe to have an opinion without being certain?

The difference is in the certaintity.

"I believe that there is no coffee in my tass" : I'm quite certain there is no coffee.
"I don't believe there is any coffee in my tass" : I'm not quite sure, but if I would have to take a guess, I would say there is not.

This one I understand. I can see that there is a minor difference, but not a big one.

It seems like youre claiming that if I say I have no pictures of porn stars then you are insisting that I have a collection of pictures of no porn stars.

I dont have a ford car doesnt mean I have a car which isnt a ford.

I dont have a belief in god doesnt mean I have a belief in no god...

When you say god, do you mean a particular god or just any or all of them?

If not, how can you deny that all gods exist without acknowledging that no gods exist?

 

[col]

Its semantic.

"Belief" to me means accepting as true something that one has no evidence for. It is an irrational faith the something must be true.

I do not 'believe' in anything. I hold working hypotheses that there is evidence for somethings being true.

I dont accept that I have any kind of belief - either that something exists or that something doesnt exist. That seems to me to be irrational. I may have an opinion that there is evidence that something may exist - or that there is no eivdence that something exists. There cannot be evidence that something doesnt exist. I cant therefore logically say that there is evidence that there is no god but simply that there is no evidence that god exists.

 

[Shadylookin]

Give this a name:
I think god most likely doesn't exist.
I don't think there'll ever be absolute proof one way or the other.
I think we'll have to wait till we die to find out.
Mainly out of respect for millions of people who believe that god does exist I'm prepared to accept the possibility that I'm wrong.
Therefore, should it turn out that he does exist, I don't want to have anything to do with him.
Not now, not after my death.

your an atheist and an agnostic the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ayatollah So]

your an atheist and an agnostic the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

At last, someone who gets it! Especially on the definitions you gave earlier, the 2 are compatible. Two notes: (1) your definitions are etymologically correct, as you explained. (2) Other uses are also sufficiently widespread as to make for multiple correct definitions. Which leads to confusion, naturally.

"Belief" is another multiple-definition word. Is it simply a willingness to assert something? Considering it absolutely indubitable? Considering it probable yet not entirely certain (as Pikachu suggests)? Is belief not just a state of mind, but also implies a lack of evidence, as col implies? Well, I've seen the word used in each of these ways, many times each.

 

[col]

I think where 'God' is concerned, believing becomes BELIEVING. I've asked Christian friends to describe this thing called faith and they assert that they just know that GOD exists. They have this feeling of certainty that GOD exists. They dont need any proof or evidence they just know. They call this FAITH or BELIEF. They think that one day because I'm such a good person,I may feel this too. I ask what I can do to acquire this thing and they shake their heads and say there isnt any way to get it. It just happens. They pity me. I pity them.

I dont have anything like the thing they call faith or belief.
I dont BELIEVE God exists.

 

[Stapel]

What col said!


On the leprechauns:

I don't believe they exist, yet I do not believe in their non-existance.

Now, could anyone tell me what a leprechaun is supposed to be?

 

[Mise]

Now, could anyone tell me what a leprechaun is supposed to be?

A little green irishman.

 

[The Last Conformist]

To me the key distinction is the question of first principles.

Ask yourself #1 - do you believe that there is any evidence to suggest that reality was created by God?
Now #2 - do you believe that there is any evidence to suggest that reality was not created by God?

an athiest gives - No, Yes
an agnostic - No, No

What if I beleive the answers are Yes, No, and still do not believe in God?

 

[The Last Conformist]

As for the actual topic, I'm used to the definitions from the OP. I've been known to get pretty annoyed to be called an "atheist", but these days I've accepted by some people's definitions I am one, and labels, on supposes, aren't the point.