Agnostic Atheist and Theist

[skills101]

I read a book on atheism, and it had a piece of agnosticism in there. It defined agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, but the description was pretty confusing. So, in laymen terms, what are they and what's the difference?

 

[Doodlebug02]

I think an Agnostic Atheist is one who generally doesn't believe in a deity but does not rule out the possibility of a deity. An Agnostic Theist on the other hand is one that generally believes in a deity but does not deny the possibility that a deity doesn't exist.

 

[Rex]

One is "weak" and one is "weaker" in their respective beliefs.

 

[Doodlebug02]

One is "weak" and one is "weaker" in their respective beliefs.

I wouldn't necessarily call them "weak". I prefer to say that they lean towards one or the other.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I think that 'weak' is the actual term used to describe them, Holly. It's not meant to be derogatory in any way, it just outlines their stance on things. It is true that Agnostics are not as firmly set in their beliefs as theists or atheists.

 

[Doodlebug02]

I think that 'weak' is the actual term used to describe them, Holly. It's not meant to be derogatory in any way, it just outlines their stance on things. It is true that Agnostics are not as firmly set in their beliefs as theists or atheists.

Oh ok. I apologize if I offended anyone and stand corrected. I have heard the term 'weak' being used to describe some Agnostics and Atheists before but I guess I never fully understood it. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a difference between epistemology and ontology.

• Agnosticism addresses what is known or deemed knowable.
• Atheism addresses what is believed or deemed believable.

There is a vernacular usage of the term 'agnostic' to suggest somone vacillating between theism and atheism, but that was not at all its initial meaning. The man who coined the term, Thomas Henry Huxley, wrote:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. [Agnosticism - 1889]​

To Huxley, atheism was not ambiguity but an epitemological methodology.

I consider myself to be an "agnostic atheist". I acknowledge that the existence/nonexistence of the Supernatural is not demonstrable, while asserting that I find no evidence warranting a belief in deity. The "agnostic theist", on the other hand, is the fideist, a person whose belief in deity is predicated on faith alone.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I don't think that it is fair in any way to describe them as weak. Logical would be a better term, because regardless of your faith, the reality is you do not know the true nature of the universe and the true nature of God. I think that regardless of your religion, you should be aware of your ignorance and aware that the holy books and the speculations you follow may not be inherently true. It is most unfortunate when people think that they know, when in fact, all our condition allows us to do is believe.