To understand these concepts let's first define them

Atheism can be defined both narrowly and broadly.

1.(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2.(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).

Agnosticism : The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable,unproven, or unprovable.

Theist believes that God exist with evidences from their religious text whereas Atheist believe that logic and rational thinking (and even evidence from science shows no proof of God existence.
The truth is that science cannot prove or disprove God existence. The existence of deities is unknown. Seeing this, the agnostics are more correct than the atheist.
Therefore to me, Agnostics are way better than atheist.

What's your view on this, anything contrary?

Both are false,but an atheist at least has total faith in his delusion.

tartar9:
Both are false,but an atheist at least has total faith in his delusion.

How sure are you that both are false

Kalatium:
To understand these concepts let's first define them

Atheism can be defined both narrowly and broadly.

1.(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
2.(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).

Agnosticism : The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable,unproven, or unprovable.

Theist believes that God exist with evidences from their religious text whereas Atheist believe that logic and rational thinking (and even evidence from science shows no proof of God existence.
The truth is that science cannot prove or disprove God existence. The existence of deities is unknown. Seeing this, the agnostics are more correct than the atheist.
Therefore to me, Agnostics are way better than atheist.

What's your view on this, anything contrary?

You also forgot to group the types of agnostics

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism":

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism":

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism:

The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.


NB: Most atheists i know fall into the weak agnosticism...

tartar9:
Both are false,but an atheist at least has total faith in his delusion.

donnffd:


You also forgot to group the types of agnostics

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism":

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism":

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism:

The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.


NB: Most atheists i know fall into the weak agnosticism...

The only one I can see are apathetic Agnostics

KingEbukasBlog:

As in,Atheists stiff-neck dogmatism is beneficial to them-imagine the sort of mental crises agnostics will be going through,especially at the time of death.The only possibility they would consider then will be that of God actually existing.

The modern definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any God. If you ask any atheist to define her beliefs, that's what she will tell you. The distinction between atheists and the agnostics is nonexistent in reality because almost all atheists are agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins.

Seun:
The modern definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any God. If you ask any atheist to define her beliefs, that's what she will tell you. The distinction between atheists and the agnostics is nonexistent in reality because almost all atheists are agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins.

KingEbukasBlog:


Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

But according to Robert Flint :

"... it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other"

If you are an "agnostic atheist" you are saying that though you don't believe in the existence of God , His existence is unknowable in principle and currently unknown in fact .

This is basically saying I don't believe in God because of lack of contrary evidence which is an appeal to ignorance fallacy .

Therefore agnostic atheism is illogical .

Seun:
The modern definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any God. If you ask any atheist to define her beliefs, that's what she will tell you. The distinction between atheists and the agnostics is nonexistent in reality because almost all atheists are agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins.

Actually, its more like this:

Gnostic Theist: A god exists and I know a god exists!

Agnostic Theist: I believe a god exists but I don't know for sure.

Pure Agnostic: I don't know if a god exists and I believe that whether or not a god exists can't be known for sure.

Agnostic Atheist: I don't believe a god exists, but I can't say for sure that no god exists.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god and I'm absolutely sure of that!

KingEbukasBlog:




If you are an "agnostic atheist" you are saying that though you don't believe in the existence of God , His existence is unknowable in principle and currently unknown in fact .

This is basically saying I don't believe in God because of lack of contrary evidence which is an appeal to ignorance fallacy .


Therefore agnostic atheism is illogical .

No, it isn't an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Here's why:
You classify something as an appeal to ignorance when there is lack of evidence, and the person in question states that because of that, he/she knows for sure that the motion is wrong. An example of that is Gnostic Atheism.

Agnostic atheism on the other hand has reviewed the available evidence, and rejected it. It dies not state with certainty that the motion (whether or not god exists) is false, but it highly doubts whether the motion is true.

The word 'gnostic' = 'to know'

Which is "better" I don't understand; is it a debate or a battle


Agnosticism and Atheism are different positions held by different people for different reasons.


There is no "better"; it's not a competition.

Seun:
The modern definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any God. If you ask any atheist to define her beliefs, that's what she will tell you. The distinction between atheists and the agnostics is nonexistent in reality because [b]almost all atheists are agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins.

[/b]


Seun you are talking from both sides of your mouth here.

Are you Agnostic? If you say you are then why are you always emphatic about your atheism and its lack of belief in God or gods?

An atheist lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews.

This is the true description of Atheism and Agnosticism. So which are you?

AnonyNymous:

Actually, its more like this:

Gnostic Theist: A god exists and I know a god exists!

Agnostic Theist: I believe a god exists but I don't know for sure.

Pure Agnostic: I don't know if a god exists and I believe that whether or not a god exists can't be known for sure.

Agnostic Atheist: I don't believe a god exists, but I can't say for sure that no god exists.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god and I'm absolutely sure of that!

I have two words for all that you just wrote up there and that is CONFUSED SOUL!

KingEbukasBlog:
If you are an "agnostic atheist" you are saying that though you don't believe in the existence of God, His existence is unknowable in principle and currently unknown in fact.

You changed an "or" from the definition to an "and", which totally changes the meaning. Why did you do that?

If you want the truth here it is: "agnostic" is what atheists call themselves when they want religious people to like them. For example, let's say I meet a Christian lady tomorrow and I wish to get into her skirts. When she asks me about my beliefs, my best bet is to say "agnostic". The word "atheist" conjures an image of someone that is vehemently opposed to religion in their minds. The word "agnostic" sounds more friendly. You can also call yourself a "pantheist", which allows you to claim to believe in God by asserting that everything around us is God. What a neat trick.

Seun:

You changed an "or" from the definition to an "and", which totally changes the meaning. Why did you do that?

If you want the truth here it is: "agnostic" is what atheists call themselves when they want religious people to like them. For example, let's say I meet a Christian lady tomorrow and I wish to get into her skirts. When she asks me about my beliefs, my best bet is to say "agnostic". The word "atheist" conjures an image of someone that is vehemently opposed to religion in their minds. The word "agnostic" sounds more friendly. You can also call yourself a "pantheist", which allows you to claim to believe in God by asserting that everything around us is God. What a neat trick.

Hehe
Ryan Gosling gives his approval

Seun:

You changed an "or" from the definition to an "and", which totally changes the meaning. Why did you do that?

If you want the truth here it is: "agnostic" is what atheists call themselves when they want religious people to like them. For example, let's say I meet a Christian lady tomorrow and I wish to get into her skirts. When she asks me about my beliefs, my best bet is to say "agnostic". The word "atheist" conjures an image of someone that is vehemently opposed to religion in their minds. The word "agnostic" sounds more friendly. You can also call yourself a "pantheist", which allows you to claim to believe in God by asserting that everything around us is God. What a neat trick.

So in a nutshell Atheists are deceptive and hide under agnosticism to be accepted while their motive was to deceive. So how many ladies have you used Agnosticism to get under their skirts?

AnonyNymous:

Actually, its more like this:

Gnostic Theist: A god exists and I know a god exists!

Agnostic Theist: I believe a god exists but I don't know for sure.

Pure Agnostic: I don't know if a god exists and I believe that whether or not a god exists can't be known for sure.

Agnostic Atheist: I don't believe a god exists, but I can't say for sure that no god exists.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god and I'm absolutely sure of that!

This is a very neat terminology but I don't think it will ever catch on, because only 2 of those 5 groups are popular in real life.

naijadeyhia:

So in a nutshell Atheists are deceptive and hide under agnosticism to be accepted while their motive was to deceive. So how many ladies have you used Agnosticism to get under their skirts?

it's not deception they are basically the same thing just that there are some agnostics in the middle of it all really
Deception is lying to the girl your a christian which I have never done personally

jonbellion:
it's not deception they are basically the same thing just that there are some agnostics in the middle of it all really
Deception is lying to the girl your a christian which I have never done personally

.

jonbellion:
it's not deception they are basically the same thing just that there are some agnostics in the middle of it all really
Deception is lying to the girl your a christian which I have never done personally

Read seuns comment again for clearer understanding. He said in essence that a true Atheist uses agnosticism to be accepted into the society even though they are not agnostic. Is that not deception? So why not be yourself and be proud of who you are?

naijadeyhia:


Read seuns comment again for clearer understanding. He said in essence that a true Atheist uses agnosticism to be accepted into the society even though they are not agnostic. Is that not deception? So why not be yourself and be proud of who you are?

but about 95% of athiests are agnostic
Apart from Stephen Hawking who sad
"because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That's like the only gnostic athiest in this world
Na in know

NEITHER AS JESUS CHRIST IS LORD AND SAVIOR

Seun:
This is a very neat terminology but I don't think it will ever catch on, because only 2 of those 5 groups are popular in real life.

I feel like there are many agnostic theists as well. A lot of them make their way to churches and just sit down but they don't really believe in what's being preached. They're just scared of being wrong to not believe in god. There are many here on Nairaland as well. I don't believe that there are up to 200+ atheists on here, yet, when a religious topic was moved to the front page, one atheist asked a thought provoking question that got 200+ likes which are most likely from people who voice their approval but want to remain anonymous because they're not entirely sure, and one voice in their head is still telling them that the god of their religion exists and is the correct one.

jonbellion:
but about 95% of athiests are agnostic
Apart from Stephen Hawking who sad
"because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That's like the only gnostic athiest in this world
Na in know

Where did you get this your 95% from? Seun says Steven Hawkins is agnostic and you are contradicting that. What manner of twisted confusion are you guys in?

Your whole lives are ruled by definitions and not actuality to the extent you are all contradicting yourselves outwardly and if this be the case how then would your mental contradictions look like?

naijadeyhia:



I have two words for all that you just wrote up there and that is CONFUSED SOUL!

Did you read what you quoted
I merely gave definitions by using examples. Your point is not clear. Who is the confused soul, me? Or the agnostic/gnostic theist/atheist What exactly are you saying

AnonyNymous:

I feel like there are many agnostic theists as well. A lot of them make their way to churches and just sit down but they don't really believe in what's being preached. They're just scared of being wrong to not believe in god. There are many here on Nairaland as well. I don't believe that there are up to 200+ atheists on here, yet, when a religious topic was moved to the front page, one atheist asked a thought provoking question that got 200+ likes which are most likely from people who voice their approval but want to remain anonymous because they're not entirely sure, and one voice in their head is still telling them that the god of their religion exists and is the correct one.

Awww what a very small community!

naijadeyhia:



Awww what a very small community!

Wait. It seems your mission is to attack all people who are atheists. For the record, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. Agnostic and deist because I believe in a non interventionist god, the nature of whom cannot be known. I also don't state this with any certainty, its just my philosophical speculation.
So now, can you process to actually make effort to read through my posts instead of jumping at the opportunity to attack?

AnonyNymous:

No, it isn't an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Here's why:
You classify something as an appeal to ignorance when there is lack of evidence, and the person in question states that because of that, he/she knows for sure that the motion is wrong. An example of that is Gnostic Atheism.

Agnostic atheism on the other hand has reviewed the available evidence, and rejected it. It dies not state with certainty that the motion (whether or not god exists) is false, but it highly doubts whether the motion is true.

The word 'gnostic' = 'to know'

Both gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism reject evidences . The difference is that gnostic atheism claims to be certain , no matter how cogent the evidence , there is no God ;but agnostic atheism rejects evidences presented as proof for God's existence with the claim that it is unknowable or is currently unknown . That means due to absence of cogent evidences and knowledge to ascertain if God does exist or not , there is no God and that is an appeal to stone fallacy .

The underlined text in the above paragraph is that lack of contrary evidence . It is relevant if the notion - there is no God- is stated with certainty or not . The belief is centered on the underlined text

And rejecting evidence does not invalidate the evidence provided. Just like God creating Nature and atheists rejecting Nature as evidence for God , their rejection of nature does not invalidate it .

None. Atheism suggests delusion. Agnosticism suggests confusion.

AnonyNymous:
I feel like there are many agnostic theists as well. A lot of them make their way to churches and just sit down but they don't really believe in what's being preached. They're just scared of being wrong to not believe in god. There are many here on Nairaland as well. I don't believe that there are up to 200+ atheists on here, yet, when a religious topic was moved to the front page, one atheist asked a thought provoking question that got 200+ likes which are most likely from people who voice their approval but want to remain anonymous because they're not entirely sure, and one voice in their head is still telling them that the god of their religion exists and is the correct one.

Yes, but if you ask them, they will tell you that they are sure that God exists (by faith, I guess). I think this claim makes them gnostic theists.

naijadeyhia:
Read seuns comment again for clearer understanding. He said in essence that a true Atheist uses agnosticism to be accepted into the society even though they are not agnostic.

No, that's not what I said.

naijadeyhia:
Seun says Steven Hawkins is agnostic and you are contradicting that.

No, I didn't say that.

KingEbukasBlog:


Both gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism reject evidences . The difference is that gnostic atheism claims to be certain , no matter how cogent the evidence , there is no God ;but agnostic atheism rejects evidences presented as proof for God's existence with the claim that it is unknowable or is currently unknown . That means due to absence of cogent evidences and knowledge to ascertain if God does exist or not , there is no God and that is an appeal to stone fallacy .

The underlined text in the above paragraph is that lack of contrary evidence . It is relevant if the notion - there is no God - is stated with certainty or not .

And rejecting evidence does not invalidate the evidence provided. Just like God creating Nature and atheists rejecting Nature as evidence for God , their rejection of nature does not invalidate it .

Yes, you're missing my point.
@the bolded, agnostic atheism is not a logical fallacy because it doesn't explicitly state that there isnno god. Replace the bolded with 'so therefore, I do not believe your claims of a god'.

Here's an example, before the US election, all data, polls, statistical analysis,etc pointed to Hilary Clinton winning. (Good thing she didn't ) Now imagine someone came to you during the elections and said 'Donald Trump is winning'.

The logical fallacy (gnostic atheism) would be to say 'No, Donald Trump is not winning because you haven't shown me proof'

Agnostic atheism, on the other hand, says 'I don't believe that Donald Trump is winning, and until you show me proof (e.g switching on the TV and showing me a channel where the results are being displayed), I won't believe that Donald is winning because all my available evidence points to Clinton winning.

Agnostic atheism doesn't state that there is no god, rather, the agnostic atheist claims that he doesn't believe that there is a god - though his belief may be proven wrong. Agnostic atheism is nothing more than a hypotheses, waiting for available, valid/logical proof of the existence of god before it accepts that a god exists.