Is there any difference between agnosticism and atheism?

[HockeyDude]

Not really. 

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in particularized gods.  Saying "I don't know" doesn't matter. 

Agnostics also say they don't know.  That is also a lack of belief in a particularized god. 

As someone who has identified as both and settled on "atheist" as a more accurate description overall, but has changed little aside from some variable percentage on how sure I was, I'm just not seeing a real difference between the two. 

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Yes, as they apply to different things.

Atheism is a stance of belief - an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

Agnosticism is a stance of knowledge - an agnostic doesn't now if gods exist or not.

The latter can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

[afleitch]

Yes, as they apply to different things.

Atheism is a stance of belief - an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

Agnosticism is a stance of knowledge - an agnostic doesn't now if gods exist or not.

The latter can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

And of course an atheist and agnostic by strict definition can still be 'religious' as not all religions are theistic and revolve around the existence of or proscribed worship of deities. What is unfortunate is that in modern spiritual and religious debate everything is framed around the existence of a deity ‘a priori’ that then has to be countered by both irreligious and religious folk alike. That muddies the water a great deal in both debate and terminology. With the theist/atheist dichotomy, god becomes the ‘first cause’; from god flows theology, philosophy, morality etc whereas it would be fairer to postulate that such things flow and from them comes either the need for a god or no need for a god.

[HockeyDude]

Yes, as they apply to different things.

Atheism is a stance of belief - an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

Agnosticism is a stance of knowledge - an agnostic doesn't now if gods exist or not.

The latter can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

When it comes to the penultimate question, these two statements are very, very similar.  Atheists, whether they want to say it or not, don't know if gods exist or not.  Agnostics, despite what they say, don't believe in gods by the virtue of their position.  

To me, it's just a degree of something.  Ultimately, they wind up being very much the same.  

Neither have really "accepted" anything... unlike religious people.  Religious people, whether they like it or not, don't know either.  But, accepting and basing your life around that is enough acceptance for me to consider them "knowing", in my book. 

[Governor Scott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

[HockeyDude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

I would argue that "weak atheism" is what is generally understood to be agnosticism.  "Strong atheism" is what is generally understood to be atheism.  Both are atheists in the end. 

I am a weak atheist, but I just identify as atheist if asked.

[asexual trans victimologist]

A lot of the agnostics that I know assign relative likelihoods in ways that don't necessarily square with self-aligning with a position of 'atheism' and sometimes vary according to their mood--so that some could be described as weak atheists more or less consistently, some as a comparable 'weak theist' designation, some as fluctuating--but you're right that there's a vaguer conceptual difference than is usually understood.

[afleitch]

A lot of the agnostics that I know assign relative likelihoods in ways that don't necessarily square with self-aligning with a position of 'atheism' and sometimes vary according to their mood--so that some could be described as weak atheists more or less consistently, some as a comparable 'weak theist' designation, some as fluctuating--but you're right that there's a vaguer conceptual difference than is usually understood.

The same is also true of theists; there's always an element of doubt for some, it's very human. Language being what it is there isn't a common word for an 'almost 100% sure there is a god but can't prove it'...other than theist though that also applies to those who are sure and believe they can prove it.

[Governor Scott]

A lot of the agnostics that I know assign relative likelihoods in ways that don't necessarily square with self-aligning with a position of 'atheism' and sometimes vary according to their mood--so that some could be described as weak atheists more or less consistently, some as a comparable 'weak theist' designation, some as fluctuating--but you're right that there's a vaguer conceptual difference than is usually understood.

The same is also true of theists; there's always an element of doubt for some, it's very human. Language being what it is there isn't a common word for an 'almost 100% sure there is a god but can't prove it'...other than theist though that also applies to those who are sure and believe they can prove it.

Indeed.  You can't have faith unless you have doubt.  Otherwise, it would be called certainty.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Yes, as they apply to different things.

Atheism is a stance of belief - an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

Agnosticism is a stance of knowledge - an agnostic doesn't now if gods exist or not.

The latter can apply to both atheists and theists alike.

When it comes to the penultimate question, these two statements are very, very similar.  Atheists, whether they want to say it or not, don't know if gods exist or not.  Agnostics, despite what they say, don't believe in gods by the virtue of their position.  

To me, it's just a degree of something.  Ultimately, they wind up being very much the same.  

Neither have really "accepted" anything... unlike religious people.  Religious people, whether they like it or not, don't know either.  But, accepting and basing your life around that is enough acceptance for me to consider them "knowing", in my book. 

Many of them do "know". I wouldn't say they "know" for good reasons, but they have certainty in their beliefs that they consider it to be knowledge. Jmfcst is a good example of the type - to him it's just a fact for which there is no doubt. Others might be inclined towards belief and will act based on that belief, but they don't have that same degree of certainty. (though they will likely be less zealous about it)

Also, is an atheist basing his or her life on the presumption that there aren't likely any gods the same as "knowing"?

[Californian Tony]

I'm agnostic, and even though I have almost everything in common with an atheist, I think there is a very important difference, namely the admission that my nonbelief has no more claim to truth than someone else's belief.

[bedstuy]

There's a difference in the definition of each. 

But, both rule out being a religious believer, so they're practically the same in a sense.  It's like how someone who is 95% sure that Christianity is true has the same belief system as someone who is 90% sure Christianity is true.

Personally, I don't really know what it means to be 100% certain that someone super-natural/magical doesn't exist.  Because God(s) are said to exist outside any realm of empirical proof, there's no way to really demonstrate such a thing doesn't exist.  I would prefer to define atheist as someone who sees no evidence in favor of belief in God(s).   

[♀ Komrade Feminazi Kitteh ♀]

But, both rule out being a religious believer, so they're practically the same in a sense.

Perhaps it's a minor point, but not really:

And of course an atheist and agnostic by strict definition can still be 'religious' as not all religions are theistic and revolve around the existence of or proscribed worship of deities. What is unfortunate is that in modern spiritual and religious debate everything is framed around the existence of a deity ‘a priori’ that then has to be countered by both irreligious and religious folk alike. That muddies the water a great deal in both debate and terminology. With the theist/atheist dichotomy, god becomes the ‘first cause’; from god flows theology, philosophy, morality etc whereas it would be fairer to postulate that such things flow and from them comes either the need for a god or no need for a god.

[Oak Hills]

Accidentally voted "no", though I meant to vote "yes". Atheism is the assertion that no deity exists. Just because most atheists aren't absolutely certain about their position, doesn't mean they are the same as agnostics, who are completely or almost completely neutral on the subject. If I may, a political analogy: imagine someone who is completely on the fence on whether society should organize its economy along socialist or along capitalist principles. What you are saying is essentially the same thing as saying that that person is an anti-capitalist, just because he does not claim to support the system. I know this is an imperfect analogy, but I think it's mostly accurate.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Of course.  An atheist is someone who claims to know that there is no god.  Agnostics are those who claim to not know whether or not there is a god.  Isn't that simple theology?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Of course.  An atheist is someone who claims to know that there is no god.  Agnostics are those who claim to not know whether or not there is a god.  Isn't that simple theology?

Only if you go with those definitions for those terms. If you read what others have posted, you'll see that's not the definition everyone uses.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

I think there is a difference between the two, but not in what they 'know' or not. I am fairly certain that no 'gods' are going to prove themselves ever, and especially not in my lifetime, therefore I look at religions as a cultural and moral system only. I don't give a f[inks] about what they say happens after death, but the morals they suggest and what the people actually do. The actual theology of the it doesn't matter to me, but I am assuming it would to an agnostic person. The main difference is what they view religions as, I think that they will never have proof, so I don't go around looking for it, or even considering things that say they are proof, but an agnostic person would at least consider it.