The Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2021
- In this mini-episode, we define and differentiate the terms 'Atheist' and 'Agnostic.' Sometimes people use them interchangeably, so here's the clear difference!
#atheism #agnosticism #religion
IAYTD (I Am Your Target Demographic) is a place for educational videos on a variety of topics, ranging from comics and entertainment to things like religion and literature. You might be looking to differentiate the term 'religion' from 'cult,' or maybe you're trying to prepare for the next season of The Witcher, we've got you covered.
FACEBOOK: / iaytd
INSTAGRAM: @iaytd
TWITTER: / iaytd
WEBSITE: iamyourtargetdemographic.com
Here are some of my favorites!
Guide to Omega Level Mutants: • Marvel Comics: The Gui...
What is Dungeons and Dragons: • What is Dungeons and D...
I feel like because of my nature I will never be able to go beyond Agnosticism. I am not intensely spiritual and was not brought up in any particular faith. But I am always questioning the bigger picture.
I'm not going to try to force anything on you, but I reccomended trying to learn about or reading some religious texts. Who knows, you might feel something.
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
You cant
Atheism as defined by him is kinda hard to reach if possible
No I do not fall in any of these categories, I am a Christian and I believe in God and that there is only one true God
I myself classify myself as an agnostic, and boy do I get shit from both atheists and theists.
you should.
Atheists classify themselves as agnostic too. It’s not an either/or answer.
You should not get shit from them. Anyone giving anyone else shit for what they believe or don't believe in is a piece of shit themselves.
Thank you so much for this video!
I was Catholic but hearing the same stories I am now to become new to Atheist also
Thank u. I've always had trouble differentiate between them.
I would look further. This video does not explain agnosticism correctly. Many people mistakenly think it’s an either/or answer. For an example, an “agnostic atheist” is someone who says they don’t KNOW if god exists (agnostic), and they also lack BELIEF that god exists (atheist). I would argue that everyone is agnostic, even religious people. Meaning even religious people don’t know for sure that god exists. That’s why they call it faith. So religious people are “agnostic theists.” And people that don’t believe in god (aka lack of faith) are “agnostic atheists.”
Thank you for making this video. I'm a somewhat new atheist and was unsure if I fell into the category of agnostic. I can say pretty firmly that I am an atheist now.
everyone is agnostic concerning god.
@Frances Snowflake
i never found a gnostic theist. Did you? No you didn't else you would have answered differently. So i am right.
@Frances Snowflake
As long as we don't know, i will state everyone is agnostic. And you just said that i am right.
@Frances Snowflake
Show me one who is gnostic.
@Frances Snowflake
you can prove me wrong anytime.
Depends on your definitions at the end of the day since based on how you define each term, one can be an agnostic atheist. One can also being an anti-theist atheist. There is also agonistic theist, and the more common fanatical theist. And each one means different things. What I'm doing now is watching different videos on all of these terms and comparing how people are using them and their official definitions.
I agree with you here. This video is actually pretty off, as most seem to be concerning these terms.
I don't know why these are so hard for people to understand or agree with.
@@LastBastian It's difficult because the majority of people use their language incorrectly. Completely disregarding the history and literal definition of many terms. For example, the word "gay", the literal definition means lighthearted and carefree, only now it is more commonly used to describe someone who identifies as homosexual. Similarly, the word feminism, or literally the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality among sexes. And yet, there is a mainstream push to make the term mean man-hater. I know that these examples are very different from this topic but I think you understand what I mean, and why there isn't a consensus on the words agnostics, and atheists. I for one, when asked my labels, I preface my claim or follow-up my claim by quickly defining what I mean. Thus, I am an "Agnostic Atheist". I don't know for sure if a God exist, but most evidence points to the fact, as traditionally defined, that a God does not exist. One sentence, simple, most people get that and leave it as is. 👍🏼
@@Ajax1063 Words and language do evolve and change over time. Many words have multiple accepted meanings, and usages. What is disheartening is how certain words seem to be *intentionally* misrepresented so often.
I come across so many people who simply refuse to listen to how and why you or I are using words such as agnostic or atheist, and simply insist on telling you what you think and believe. Often making up their own twisted definition and insisting it's the *only real* meaning.
I too self identify as an agnostic atheist, yet I rarely use either term when trying to discuss my beliefs, since as soon as one of those words comes up, people jump to all kinds of crazy misguided conclusions.
And I've yet to come across a video that explains these words fairly and accurately. ...this one surely did not.
@@LastBastian Hmm, you made some really good points. You're right about words evolving and how people have their own preconceived notions about certain words and are unwilling to ask or even accept other usages. The only thing I can suggest is to spend sometime watching the most popular atheist CZcamsrs on here like Cosmic Skeptic, Rationality Rules, the Atheist Experience, etc. I find that many of these popular hosts use the same words in almost identical ways. Plus, watching and hearing them state and defend their base terminology and viewpoints helps me do the same. In fact, I have been an avid watcher of their shows for a couple of years now and I thank them for clarifying many of these controversial topics and for helping me to accurately describe myself to others. Of course I can't help to change someone's viewpoint of me if they are unwilling, but that speaks more about them than me and you for that matter. :)
Hopefully this helps some of you understand the differences between these terms!
I stick to non-theist. It does not pretend to be clever.
Okay dude most atheists for starters define athiesm as lacking belief. Its literally the exact same thing at its base to most people who define themselves by that term as agnostic which is why at least i get annoyed at agnostics for helping theists stigmatise the word atheist. Most athiests add soft or agnostic as just as agnostic as a label is a thing athiests noted its base parts function in such a way it can be used as a adjective to describe ones claim to knowledge on any position. As such athiest is simply the word for is the god belief switch on or off in a sense. It says nothing about why you dont belief or to what extent you dont believe with thats what hard and sodt and agnostic and gnostic are used to describe.
Those adjectives are the on or off stwitch of you claiming to definitively know or not know. Stop perpetuating that tired theist bs about what an atheist is because if you define yourself as an agnostic with no other labels after that than you like i said are only further dividing the nonbeliever community thatn it already is since all us athiests and non believers in general only agree on one thing for certain and thats that we all for one reason or another and to whatever extent lack a belief in a god or gods....
Basically you only make hating athiests as if were terrorists trying to kill theism and as such the heart amd soul of the worl as many theists would likely see it easier....... And your not helping yourselve because you purposefully push yourself away from the people who are trying to help support ya against the people trying to make legislation against all us non believers and .aming stoping that shit harder.
@Frances Snowflake I won't deny that with the base weight of the word functions that is A interpretation as thr prefix can mean no or without and theist is simply a belief in a god or gods. As such no god belief and being without god belief are both ample defenitions. However thr overwhelming majority of atheists use the without belief one since were just unconvinced of the bs presented to us.
An athiest doesnt say firmly there z no god in general
An athiest can disprove a specific god if it can be disproven
Their is a deference between lack of belief and believing in the opposite
I am an agnostic atheist and would disagree. And here is why:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground.
And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of an identity associated with such a position.
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions.The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.
you can't chose to believe something. Either you are convinced or not.
How is lacking a belief a choice? That atheism part in the video was clearly not really thought through. Also, one can be both atheist and agnostic, having no belief in deities and having no idea what deities are supposed to be.
No. If you don't believe in deities, there is no leaving the question to chance. You either believe in God(s), don't know, or do.
@@gens0kyo Not sure how you reply relates to my comment, but I have to disagree with your view there. Since it would be possible to not recognise a deity and thus believe in something without being aware that one believes in said thing. And thus it comes down to what the divine or a deity is supposed to be. I mean I for example don't think that something like karma exist, but even though it is not given personhood, I would say it is a form of the divine, and thus people who believe in karma would be in my opinion theists even though they themselves might not look at it that way like some Hindu do.
@@gens0kyo there is a deference between not believing and believing in the opposite
You should first understand those two
Firmly believing there is no god requires another form of belief not disbelief
in the end its nothing
Our beliefs are known, not by our words, but by how we live our lives. There is no difference between atheists and agnostics when it comes to God in their lives. So the beliefs are the same, either God doesn't exist or He doesn't matter but in either case, they don't want Him running their lives.
The defining question is not whether God exists but rather whether God is worth seeking. I think that here again the agnostic and atheist agree that they will not honestly seek God.
*There is no difference between atheists and agnostics when it comes to God in their lives.*
Yes, there is, dude. Agnostics will remain neutral on the existence of god(s) whereas atheists aren't.
There are two parts of being an atheist. The belief that there isn’t a god/s
And
The lack of belief that there is a god/s
It’s an important distinction, usually they are comorbid but the later has no burden of proof
Lots here I disagree with.
First off, while I know the definitions you use for agnostic are common, I'd like to point out that they are pretty terrible and self defeating.
*"someone who claims neither faith nor disbelief"*
*Claim* it or not, you either have belief or you don't. if you are unable to believe god is real or true, that is the definition of disbelief.
*"Someone who believes the nature of God CANNOT be known"*
-This is self defeating. How do you know enough about god's nature to know it's nature cannot be known?
-Many gods, by definition, have the desire and ability to make themselves known. So to claim they *cannot* be known, is to claim you know they cannot exist.
...it's paradoxical.
Atheism:
First off, belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe something I don't actually believe. I'm either convinced enough to believe something, or I'm not.
atheist: someone who disbelieves or *LACKS BELIEF* in the existence of god/s
You then claim: "the atheist says firmly that there is no god"
...Please re-read the very definition you just offered. Lack of belief, is *NOT* the claim that there is no god.
@@KindNine Sure. One can believe just about anything, and it need not make logical sense. I simply pointed out that this belief in particular is self contradicting.
@@KindNine If a particular god is an "all powerful" type by definition, then such a god could make it's existence known.
So to claim such a god's existence is "unknowable" is to claim said god does not exist.
Which logically contradicts the original claim of being unknowable.
It *is* a self defeating claim, or *belief,* if you prefer.
@@KindNine I just explained it. And I never said deny.
I'm simply pointing out a logically self contradicting position.
It's perfectly fine to admit you don't know if there's a god.
But the claim or belief, that a god's existence is *"unknowable"* ...is a self defeating position. As I've explained.
If you changed "unknowable" to something like: "unknown to me" ...then I don't see a problem.
Why are they constantly compared when they are not the same thing? It's like saying the difference between black and white.
Well, it's more like saying (in a lot of people's mind) "What is the difference between being red and wet?"
He is wrong. An atheist simply does not believe in gods. Atheism does not claim there is no god, it is simply a lack of belief: a-theist means «without god»…
I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed in this video compaired to your other videos. Read some of the comments
It's fair to say I seem to be agnostic.
I have been a student of religions for many years. And I have become an atheist. I take issue with your definition that atheists are "lacking" something as I think that is an insult. I have no proof that there is a god or any gods. If someone can give me some evidence, any proof at all, but there isn't any. I think that people who believe in god are not actually good at critical thinking.
I thought it was strange that you have 66k subscribers but aren’t getting many views now, seems like you had a lot of videos before the “deep fakes” video.. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Yeah it’s odd. I think I cover so many different topics that my audience is only interested in specific things. It also sometimes takes a while for them to build momentum, I’ve got videos from four years ago that just started getting steam. It’s all hard to predict!
@@IAYTD keep up the good work man!
You are not going deep enough into the definitions. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. From the title, I thought that might be the message you are trying to convey. Agnostic has nothing to do with belief, but to “know”. I’m agnostic because I don’t know if there is a god or gods or not. Atheists, when asked, “do you believe in god?” respond typically with “no”. That does not mean that they believe there are no god or gods. They just don’t believe the claims laid before them. So much simpler.
Agreed! Crazy how so many people struggle to grasp this. It's pretty simple.
Agnostic 😐
Agnosticism: *existence* of god is unknowable
100% agnostic
Whatever we are both atheist and agnostics unbelievers.
That's just a false analogy with beleif and knowledge to divide us.
You make it sound like agnostic people are searching for the answer if god exists or not. I consider myself agnostic but i KNOW god exists. I just don't know what god is, i think god's existence is beyond human comprehension. If the big bang theory is true then whatever caused it is a god...whatever it might be :D For me "god" is just a word. A word for something that created us. Is it sentient? Is it a cosmic anomaly? No one can answer it for sure
The use of 'disbelieves' presupposes there is a god and Atheists refuse to believe that. 'I do not believe your assertion there is a god' is about the best definition. It would be hard to find an Atheist who 'says firmly that there is no god' 1:19, which is a knowledge claim thus a Gnostic Atheist. A little research on your part could have actually made a more informative and accurate video. The easiest path to Atheism is hell. You really think that an all loving god created a place of infinite torture. No, Satan didn't create hell. Before the Universe was created, god knew that there was going to be a hell, in xtian mythology. god put in motion the events leading up to hell. After this revelation, the rest falls away easily.
Not trying to be combative but perhaps helpful/expansive, so sorry if my tone ends up coming across that way in the end.
Two things from me:
1. As a theist, I have definitely come across a lot of militant atheists who not only firmly say that there is certainly no G-d, but also that anyone who believes in such is stupid/ignorant/being mislead. I would never pretend that this encompasses all atheists-- I am currently dating an atheist and she has been nothing but respectful about my religion, she simply doesn't agree, like any other civil disagreements. That being said, I am not hard-pressed to find them at all. I dated an atheist whose entire family was like this for about a year and a half as a teenager, and they took me, a person they knew was religious, to multiple gatherings of local atheists where several people expressed this attitude, much to my discomfort. There's a common culture among atheists (that I have observed, anyway) of mocking anyone who believes in a "magic man in the sky" or "sky fairy" or any other silly name they come up with for G-d, which I would argue is very similar to firmly stating that there is no G-d ("Anyone who believes this could be true is clearly dumb").
2. As a Jew, I believe in G-d and a lot of religious traditions, but I do not believe in hell and I would say probably about 90% of religious texts are metaphorical. I think there's often a really bad-faith assumption made by atheists that all religious people reject science and view the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. as a literal historical document. Outside of the things that can be historically proven to have happened (such as Exodus), I don't really believe any of it is literal but rather metaphorical and/or greatly embellished. This went off on sort of a tangent. The point is: To me, religion is simply about the way that you interact with the world, and what motivates those interactions. In that way, atheism is a lot like a religion (and you can see it in the way a lot of atheists, like the ones I was talking about earlier, engage with that), though most atheists I know would reject this notion. So to speak broadly of what religious people do or don't believe is about as incorrect and offensive as speaking broadly of what atheists do or don't believe. Many of us also don't believe that an all-loving G-d would create a place of infinite torture, and thus don't believe it exists.
Again, not trying to be combative or proselytize or anything, just wanted to contribute to the conversation. I am Jewish and living in the Midwestern United States so I often see people talk broadly about religion through a very White Xtian-centric lens, without considering the hundreds of other religions that exist in the world and have wildly different beliefs and practices.
@@chronicAngel
1. So, you met a few dozen Atheists who were shall we say were uncivil. Most Atheists are closeted, as the backlash from coming out is oft-times detrimental. From personal experience, I have relatives that don't talk to me, but then it could also be my grating personality. Atheism is one of the fastest growing demographics. In most encounters, I found, Atheists don't go looking for the argument, but are forced into it by persons prying into someone's beliefs. As a past participant in the Secular Student Alliance and being an internet Atheist since 56k dialup, I can say that very few Atheists are militant.
2. Having very many Jewish friends over the last 5 decades, most are social Jews and are Atheists, but that could be biased as birds of a feather... In the USA, very many people of a christian persuasion want their flavor of dogmatic bible reading instilled into law. And over the course of these last 6 decades, very many people have, as their initial rebuttal, said that hell awaits the Atheist. I have met people that actually believe the planet is 6000 years old, and they vote. Do we really have to slow the bus down for their beliefs, or we just let the Science run them over. That is OUR fear, a legislative return to the Dark Ages. The problem is TOO many religious people DON'T 'think' that religious texts are 90% metaphorical. I have met many a religious person who has never read the bible but believes everything in it. So, an Atheist ranting on religion, I think, is a lot less problematic then having wackadoodles legislating Intelligent Design into Biology class.
I've been to 42 States in the US and there are too many people that think their beliefs should be forced on every one.
Did you mean that the Exodus actually happened or didn't, the wording is -subjective- confusing?
@@djvger6876 @Dj Vger I am amused by the certain sort of irony in your comment for in one point seemingly criticizing me for my confirmation bias regarding atheists (fun fact: living in the Midwestern United States, I go out of my way to avoid talking about religion because atheists and Xtians are just the same when reacting to a Jew in their midst here, and I'd rather not have any of those conversations, so no, I didn't force anyone into it), but in the other saying most Jews are actually atheists. No offense, but I am not interested in continuing this conversation. I never made any defense of Xtian evangelicism or religion in politics. All I said was that broad critiques of religion centered on Xtian ideals ignore the non-Xtian religions that make up more of the world's population in total, and that people should probably be sensitive to that. A whole lot of atheists project their religious trauma from Xtianity onto religions which have nothing to do with it, often in very islamophobic and antisemitic ways.
@@chronicAngel
1st I didn't say "most Jews are actually atheists", I said "Having very many Jewish friends over the last 5 decades, most are social Jews and are Atheists, but that could be biased as birds of a feather..." You speak of militant Atheists, but it seems that you are not reading what I wrote, and ironically you said "I would never pretend that this encompasses all atheists"
2nd "I never made any defense of Xtian evangelicism or religion in politics", but I critiqued it and you responded to my comment.
3rd "All I said was that broad critiques of religion centered on Xtian ideals ignore the non-Xtian religions that make up more of the world's population in total, and that people should probably be sensitive to that." FUCK that, no religion should get a pass because it might hurt someone's feelings. And it does not matter that more people believe in other mythical and supernatural claims, if what someone believes flies in the face of Science and Reason and they ignore the wake call, it is their fault not ours. You (collectively) have not proven ANY of it is real, the supernatural claims that is.
4th "A whole lot of atheists project their religious trauma from Xtianity onto religions which have nothing to do with it, often in very islamophobic and antisemitic ways." WTF Why are you assuming Atheists are ALL EX-xtian, you do seem to NOT be reading what I'm writing. One of the largest growing demographics is Ex-muslim, and would most likely be larger if not for the fact of death to apostates. So, yea, that xtian trauma - oh you hurt my feelings vs death.
You didn't even answer "Did you mean that the Exodus actually happened or didn't, the wording is confusing?"
So you pick and choose what you -what- want to believe, this is why it is difficult to have a conversation with religious people. How does someone argue with "I would say probably about 90% of religious texts are metaphorical." WHO the FUCK decides what is metaphorical and what is real.
@@djvger6876 Your deluded now continue to read Islam.
How dare you make a Video about Atheism without at least touching parody religions. May HER hooves never be shod!