Athiest vs. Deist vs. Agnostic vs. whatever else i missed in the doubting zone\n\nI think I know the difference but these terms keep popping up here, and I want to be certain and I'm too lazy to grab the dictionary.   Thanks!!
216506
Deist- believes in some kind of God, but does not know who god is on a personal level.\n\nAgnostic- does not believe or disbelieve god. just does not know if he exists. uncertain.\n\nAtheist- denies the existence of God.
320542
"What is it?"\nAgnostics believe that no one really knows whether or not there is a divine presence in the universe. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. They simply don't know.\n\n"Do they consider it to be a religion?"\nNot usually, no. I'm sure there are probably a few who do but they would be in the minority.\n\n"What do they believe?"\nThat we don't know (or can't know) if there is any divine presence in the universe. Seeing as how there is a lack of sufficient data for either side of the debate, they simply state they don't know and get on with their lives.\n\n"What are the rituals?"\nThere aren't any.\n\n"How can you tell the difference between a true agnostic or a fake?"\nI'm not sure why someone would want to fake being an agnostic. There isn't any social or economic benefit to it that I can see. Some people identify themselves as agnostics thinking that it either (a) means the same thing as Gnostic or (b) think it means the same thing as atheist. There's no deliberate deception going on, just misinformed people picking the wrong word.
303978
I pretty much agree with you. An atheist is sure that God does not exist, and an agnostic isn't willing to commit either way. (Sort of like the dyslexic agnostic who developed insomnia. He kept lying awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog...).
652457
Your assumption is incorrect. Atheism does *not* mean that you know for a fact that there is no God without a possibility of being mistaken. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no God.
121958
There is only one agnostic belief that I know of.\nGenerally, agnostics don't believe or disbelieve... they ponder the existence of a God, and are open to any suggestion that may prove or disprove thier opinion.
601826
Rational, sane, thinking, inquisitive, ...\n\nAgnostic is the term you seek.\n\nFor a better appreciation of the evolution of the term, you\nmay want to read more on "gnosticism."  \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism\n\nI note that several posters already answered your question, and a link has been furnished for agnosticism.\n\nI felt you may gain insight through reading on the topic of gnosticism.\n\nHope it all helps.  \n\nThirst for knowledge.
448785
You are 1000% correct. I too used to be an athiest, but gave it up when I finally grasped that it is simply another form of "fundamentalism." And if you require proof of that assertion, just tune into these pages and look at the bible-thumpers sending everyone to Hell and preaching hate at the tops of their lungs. And look at the athiests spewing the same arrogant, self-satisfied (dare I say, "self righteous?") garbage. What they fail to grasp is that they are flip-sides of the same coin that says -- "I KNOW THE TRUTH, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU'RE A TOTAL LOSER AND blah, blah, blah..."\n\nThere are only two rationally defensible positions to take on religion: Agnosticism and Fideism.\n\nThey both say, "I don't know, because the topic is unknowable."\nThe agnostic says, "Though I don't know, the preponderance of evidence does not lead me to believe -- so in my life I will operate as though God does not exist, and freely admit that I could be wrong."\n\nLikewise the fideist says, "Though I don't know, the sense of personal immediacy I feel affirms God's existence to me. And while recognizing that objectively, I too may be wrong, I will nevertheless treat the existence of God as a personal fact."\n\nThe thing that unites and elevates both agnosticism and fideism above the nonsense is that each recognizes the importance for ordinate intellectual humility in the face of what we do not, and cannot, know. You'll never find either group making threats, or hurling insults at the integrity of another's belief systems. And if we all behaved this way, the world would be a safer, saner, and altogether more hospitable place to live. There's just far too much shouting going on.\n\nWonderful to meet a kindred spirit. Cheers, mate.
348649
I am a Deist.  We believe in God, but do not believe in holy texts.  So there is a whole religion out there that believes in God, but no texts.
84656
Normally I would just post a link to the previous answer, but I want to be sure that you read this, so I'm going to cut and paste my answer from a previous post that I made:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=Ah9yXNiCcb0dEXnmauCUf58jzKIX?qid=1006021512780\n\nThe question was: Why do so many athiests, agnostics, pagans, and other assorted scoffers show up on the religion thread?\n\nHere is the answer I gave:I know that I have written several responses to this question. However, I now have too many answers to sort through and find the ones I'm thinking of. (New features needed!)\n\nSo, I'll start from scratch.\n\nFirst of all, I resent being lumped in with "assorted scoffers." I believe that I have been nothing but curteous to the people of faith here. I openly deny their belief-system. They openly deny mine. That's fine. We have, however, engaged in some very respectful debate, much to the benefit (I hope) of both sides. I know that my beliefs have not changed, but my preconceptions about young-Earth Christians have been shattered by some of the people I have found here. I think that they are wrong, but I am thrilled to have the opportunity to debate with them without resorting to name-calling or rudeness.\n\nGranted, this requires an openness on both our parts. I think that their faith is "wrong." They think that my lack of faith is "wrong." This is where most people get hung up and debate can go no further. If someone disagreeing with you is "offensive," you're stuck. Once you accept this disagreement, you are quite free to exchange ideas. This is what I have found here (for the most part.)\n\nAs for why I spend so much time in the religion and spirituality forum, I see faith as playing a huge role in the lives of everyone in the world, be they moderate Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, Pagans, or Atheists like myself.\n\nIn my supposedly free country I see gays discriminated against due to faith. People who would never think of using the N-word openly hate and criticize homosexuals for what they are, not who they are. \n\nI see medical advances that could help millions of people stymied by arguments that have their basis in faith. Stem cell research could potentially ease the suffering of billions around the globe, but people of faith stand in the way.\n\nWe are currently involved in what may or may not be a holy war. This is an issue of faith.\n\nOur current government supports "faith-based initiatives" in what may be a breach of The Constitution itself.\n\nI know that faith helps people sleep at night. This doesn't undo the tremendous amount of suffering it has inflicted at every turn of history. \n\nI see faith as a problem, and would like to encourage people to put aside their myths and embrace reason. However, I realize that this is futile. As Jonathan Swift said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."\n\nThat said, I think that Yahoo Answers provides a wonderful opportunity to try to see where other people are coming from. I disagree with the Christians (and Muslims and Pagans...), but I think it is very important for me to try to understand them. I would hope that they will try to understand me. Once we find some common ground and some mutual respect, we can truly start to talk about things.\n\nI hate the name-calling. The largest problem I have with religion is that it is divisive. I feel that this is the most important aspect of faith that needs to be removed from the equation. Name-calling is also divisive and does not fit into my attempts to act reasonably.\n\nI feel that I deny, but do not scoff. I embrace and enjoy open debate. I think that the things discussed here are important. I'd like to think that some of the things I have to say are pertinent. \n\nIf you want a place for only Christians (for example) to exchange ideas, there are plenty of places on the web for th
323563
OK. Good to know. Wasn't trying to in the first place, though. Seems you are now doing the same, so I guess I could ask you the same question. \n\nI'm OK if you don't believe in a deity. Please be OK that I do.\n\nWhy so angry, though? *hugs* :)
49512
AMEN!! \n\nThis is what is so confusing to me about religion. I do believe in God. But I question religion. If differing visions mean that we battle due to our beliefs, I want to do away with all religions (as if!!) and allow people to just "believe." Ok ok ok........so that's not going to happen. But you put it so perfectly. God would never torture or codemn us for our beliefs. Why do we do it to each other?? *sigh*
572862
IF you truly are NOT A BELIEVER... then why on Earth would you even bother to reason out with someone who may or may not be able to FULLY EXPLAIN things to you in the first place?? Like, what's the big deal anyway, right?\n\nHowever, I suggest that if you are CURIOUS enough to know or to find out, it is best that you ask THOSE who have the knowledge and capacity to do so personally rather than in an open forum since, by asking it HERE, I'll bet that you'll get even much MORE CONFUSED than ever before with the myriad answers you'll get from all three sides of the coin.\n\nKnow what I mean?
149818
First off, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, for the former deals with knowledge and the latter deals with belief.  I am an agnostic atheist, for I claim no knowledge of the existence of any gods, and therefore I hold no belief in any.  You also seem to be an agnostic atheist.  Most people take the term "atheist" to mean "a person who knows there is no god and doesn't believe in one."  This is the other kind of atheist, a gnostic atheist.  Most atheists are of the former, agnostic variety.\n\nThe reason why theists want to debate you are surely many, though I have come to believe through my experience (which is similar to yours) that religious people feel like they are being presented with an opportunity to save someone's soul when I tell them I am an atheist.  You see, many religious people get some wacky ideas about atheists (and gays, for that matter) from their respective churches: that we have no morals, that we eat babies, that gays being allowed to marry will open the door for people to marry their pets (swear on my honor, I heard a pastor at an Austin church say that on TV one Sunday morning).\n\nThey are too used to letting men of the cloth do their thinking for them, and the men of the cloth tell them that their job is to witness to others.  Save those souls, for they know not what they do.  \n\nThe problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that we DO know why we think the way we do, specifically because the fairy tale doesn't make sense.  We pulled back the curtain to find that there is no wizard.  Most American atheists were once believers, and it has been claimed by many an atheist at The Atheist Network (website listed below) that the single greatest argument AGAINST Christianity is The Holy Bible.  There are enough inconsistencies, false prophecies, and flat out lies to get anyone who is serious about searching for truth and meaning to deconvert.  Unfortunately, most people are so weak-minded that they won't allow themselves to admit they may be wrong about their beliefs and so continue their lives under misguded delusions.
334257
Hmm...  Apparently slacking on your agnostic studies are we?  Well, ok, here is what my scouting has taught me:\n\nYou will not get one answer on this question because the many religions have conflicting messages and then the sects have conflicting messages within the religions.  Some christians think you will be damned if you don't accept Jesus in your lifetime, some will say you're damned if you don't recognize God after you die, some say you have to have secret passwords (like God's true name is ""Jehovah" or "Erasu" or "Dave"), while others say that your level of salvation will depend upon the level of your faith.  Some will even say you can be a completely vile, evil person and still get into heaven as long as you praise God!  The sheer volume of confusion on this matter seems to me what I call "the agnostic's dilemma" within "Pascal's Wager."\n\nPascal's Wager states simply that if betting on whether God exists, it is better to bet on God and be wrong than bet against a God and be wrong: There is no risk in betting on the idea that a God exists from the perspective of life after death, but being wrong and rejecting God might lead to damnation.\n\nThe bloody difficult agnostic, however, throws a wrench into the works by asking what your question begs: "How the heck do I know which God is the real God?!"  You don't, hence Pascal's wager is ALMOST meaningless.  Hedging the bet as much as possible, the agnostic keeps studying to find an answer, while avoiding signing on with one religion or another lest they later learn that they stepped on the wrong set of divine toes.\n\nSO, now the real meat of the question!  What is the sense in being good?  Now that has been something of a concern.  It seems to me from my studies that a number of things are universal among religions, with the number one thing being true nature of Good and Evil.  While there may be some disagreement in what exactly constitutes bad behavior, it apparently exists, hence there must be some basis for morality, regardless of religion.\n\nMy answer has generally been this:  If God created me, God made me this way - agnostic.  If that is unacceptable to God, then God has a self-conflict, not a conflict with me.  I exist because God made me so and to be untrue to my own form would be more of an insult to God than to try to be something I didn't believe (to live a lie - which appears to be universally wrong among religions if you think through all the consequences).\n\nI also think about what kind of God would I WANT to worship.  If God is a vile, selfish, hateful creature that tortures the good for petty reasons, I often think that I would rather be tortured right along with them than cowtow to such a hideous thing.  This has actually been very helpful in sorting out several religions right away as simply unacceptable- even if... maybe especially if that is the correct God!  It is not perfect, however, as there are still plenty of sects, branches, religions, and whatnot that are not so filled with hate, so I am still left with agnostic uncertainty.\n\nAt the very least, be reassured that, where ever you end up, I will probably be right there along with you.  Whatever that fate may be, I hope it is at least a mildly pleasant one.
625112
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in ANY gods. A-theism means the absence of theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The same root forms the words "monotheism" (believe in one god) and "polytheism" (belief in many gods).\n\nA non-believer, from your point of view, might be someone who doesn't believe in the same god or gods as *you*. That doesn't make someone an atheist, though.\n\nThus, to an evangelical Christian, a Hindu might be a non-believer, but the Hindu is not an atheist.
614140
someone who does not believe in God and religion-- theist means you do, that you believe in God and with an "a" in front it negates it. You will see both theist and atheist A LOT in here.\n\nAtheist-One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods\n\nTheist-Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world\n\nyou are a theist. ;)
87714
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labelling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.