C
c659smith
Guest
What’s the difference?
- Status
E
elwedriddsche
Guest
C
c659smith
Guest
So there is no difference. Then how can one impede on someones faith when their belief is that they have no faith?
So one is a “to mate toe” and the other a “to mot toe”.
In retrospect I do not beleve there are agnostic or atheists. To say otherwise is to impede on my beliefs.
This could lead to a whole new religion.
So one is a “to mate toe” and the other a “to mot toe”.
In retrospect I do not beleve there are agnostic or atheists. To say otherwise is to impede on my beliefs.
This could lead to a whole new religion.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
As elwedriddsche’s links showed (and see also the OED), there is a difference, and an important one.
Atheism is an ontological position: a position regarding the nature of being. Being an atheist means firmly believing in the non-existence of gods. This, of course, is logically insupportable, because a non-existence in a generalised situation can never be proven. The most you can say is that you have no evidence for a god, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Martin Rees pointed out. So, atheism is based upon faith.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position: a position regarding the nature of knowledge. Being an agnostic means firmly believing in the unprovability of the existence (or non-existence) of gods. This, of course, is logically unassailable, because no proof can ever be perfect in the face of determined doubt. So, agnosticism is based upon scepticism.
Many modern Americans are agnostics but refer to themselves as atheists, sometimes out of ignorance regarding the actual definitions of the words, and sometimes out of a desire to shock the theistic majority of the population.
E
elwedriddsche
Guest
The dictionary attack…
S
siamesecat
Guest
I don’t believe in god but since I cant absolutely prove it I keep the option open. I can’t say for sure that I know there is no god…I simply just don’t think there is one? So i guess I’m an agnostic? I think there is some proof for the inexistence of the loving compassionate christian god if you spin it a certain way. The horrible things that happen to good people, the fact that god has never “spoken” to us unless you rely on what god said to previous prophets but we have no proof that. Who knows though.
B
buzzcut
Guest
People use the word agnostic in two different senses. When some people use it, they mean “I don’t know.” When other people use it, they mean “I believe it isn’t possible to know.”
C
c659smith
Guest
In Christianity many people spoke with God. So I am a little confused by your statement no-one spoke with God except for the prophets is incorrect as Jesus is God.
If I was to show present day case law through law schools and such trials today being held, logic being used “not faith”, and all such trials including from some liberal universities prove Jesus and his existence is fact and that he is God. Would that not put to bed any logic from atheists and agnostics. Is Agnostics and Atheists just in denial or do they have logic to prove their cases and what is their logic. Funny how atheists and Agnostics need more faith than Christianity to prove non-existence of God.
If I was to show present day case law through law schools and such trials today being held, logic being used “not faith”, and all such trials including from some liberal universities prove Jesus and his existence is fact and that he is God. Would that not put to bed any logic from atheists and agnostics. Is Agnostics and Atheists just in denial or do they have logic to prove their cases and what is their logic. Funny how atheists and Agnostics need more faith than Christianity to prove non-existence of God.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
There is support for your non-existence if we spin it the right way, and maybe I’m just a WMD.
Yes, horrible things do happen to good people, and they also happen to bad people. This does not mean that there is no God. If we assume that God is omnipotent, then God could stop bad things from happening. If God does not stop bad things from happening, then either a/ God is not omnipotent, or b/, God does not want to stop them. We cannot prove which of those is true, nor can we reliably determine God’s motivations.
God speaks all the time. I won’t be trite and say that you don’t hear because you’re not listening, but hundreds of millions of Christians around the world hear from God. Maybe this sounds like we’re all a bunch of crazies who hear voices, but when the voices start telling you to do good things that you would otherwise neither think of nor know about, it’s time to start suspecting that Someone is playing a hand.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
MYSTOPHILUS
Post #4 seems to me technically a perfect distinction between atheism and agnosticism.
I would only add that the distinction is somewhat irrelevant with respect to the fate of one’s immortal soul. Both positions result in the atheist and the agnostic living as though God does not exist.
Which is the more lamentable case from the theist’s point of view? The atheist who denies that God exists? Or the agnostic who ignores God because he cannot know for sure that God exists?
Post #4 seems to me technically a perfect distinction between atheism and agnosticism.
I would only add that the distinction is somewhat irrelevant with respect to the fate of one’s immortal soul. Both positions result in the atheist and the agnostic living as though God does not exist.
Which is the more lamentable case from the theist’s point of view? The atheist who denies that God exists? Or the agnostic who ignores God because he cannot know for sure that God exists?
S
SamCA
Guest
Does the belief have to be firm or certain in order to qualify as an atheist? I mean, I think there’s no such thing as a god, but I don’t claim to be absolutely certain – would that make me an atheist or an agnostic?
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
By the way, God speaks to us all the time.
Many of us don’t know how to listen and miss the message.
Those who have heard and heeded, can attest to His existence.
Horrible things which happen to good people are the result of human choices - somewhere down the chain of events which affect the innocent in a negative way, you will find someone made a decision to do one thing or another, and that one decision put into motion a chain of events.
Also, as Catholics, I know you can’t understand this right now, but we are able to see the good which comes from suffering. It doesn’t make logical sense, certainly, but our living proof is in the horrible way our Lord was killed. He told us it had to be that way in order to fulfill the sacrifice necessary for our salvation, so agony begets redemption, and on some level we believe this continues to be true. Our agony can save the souls in purgatory, our agony can help make the difference for someone else on earth. We don’t see the answers or the justification for the agony, but the faith and trust that good comes from it sustains us and helps us to endure the worst man can inflict upon us.
As you can see, our faith helps make sense out of events and circumstance which would baffle non-believers, so for us, our faith in God brings comfort and peace.
E
elwedriddsche
Guest
Using the definitions most atheists or agnostics themselves use, the two are not mutually exclusive. Using the theist’s definitions, neither one may be fully applicable. Your call. By and large though, not affirming that god exists is necessary and sufficient to qualify as an atheist.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Many people are less than utterly certain about their beliefs, but they still hold those beliefs as most probably true. If you believe that, on the balance of the evidence and probabilities as you perceive them, there is no god, then you are an atheist. You just also happen to be one of the few people with the intellectual maturity to admit the possibility of error.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I have met many a zealous atheist who has chosen that position because s/he feels that God (or the Church) has mistreated him/her. All too often, this feeling has just cause. I pity such people, not for their position, but for the psychological wound which they carry and are unable to allow to heal. This is what I would describe as lamentable.
I have met other atheists who think that God does not exist because they have yet to encounter any good evidence for a deity. The inherent instability of such a position has meant that most of these have rapidly moved to another, more definite, belief, which has usually been either theism or agnosticism.
Most of the agnostics whom I have met chose their position out of scepticism and a love for the purity of logic. For them, the issue is far less emotional, which means that they generally live happier and healthier lives than the zealous atheists.
In other words, I do not lament their choices, because I do not think that anyone will go to Hell for being an atheist or an agnostics, any more than I think that they would go to Hell for being a Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian.
With respect, I’m not sure that a conclusion can be made, on the basis of ideological position, about the fate of one’s immortal soul. Not being God, I am unable to know either way, but I suspect that God cares far more about what a given individual tries to do with his/her life than about whether or not s/he believes in God.
I am only a theist, rather than the theist, and my views are unconventional in many respects, which may invalidate my answer. Nevertheless, were I to attempt the question, I would suggest that it depends upon the reasons for the choice of position.
I have met many a zealous atheist who has chosen that position because s/he feels that God (or the Church) has mistreated him/her. All too often, this feeling has just cause. I pity such people, not for their position, but for the psychological wound which they carry and are unable to allow to heal. This is what I would describe as lamentable.
I have met other atheists who think that God does not exist because they have yet to encounter any good evidence for a deity. The inherent instability of such a position has meant that most of these have rapidly moved to another, more definite, belief, which has usually been either theism or agnosticism.
Most of the agnostics whom I have met chose their position out of scepticism and a love for the purity of logic. For them, the issue is far less emotional, which means that they generally live happier and healthier lives than the zealous atheists.
In other words, I do not lament their choices, because I do not think that anyone will go to Hell for being an atheist or an agnostics, any more than I think that they would go to Hell for being a Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
That is not entirely true. If you specify a certain god image, ie giving god certain attributes, then that image can logically be disproven. Eg when the attributes are contradictory. That way you know this particular god cannot exist.
Unless, of course, you dismiss logic, but then any reasoning is meaningless.
E
Everstruggling
Guest
Wow, that’s well done, but I have a one bone of contention.
It is true that believing in the non-existence is logically insupportable, but that doesn’t mean much. All of the following beliefs are logically insupportable: There are no Martians on earth, all crows are black, and one should only believe observable phenomena.
Almost everything that people believe is based on faith.
One point about agnosticism, a lot of people will say they are agnostic simply because they don’t actually care whether there is a god. Of course, probably not on this board. If people didn’t care, they wouldn’t be here.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Compare the highlighted points with “a non-existence in a generalised situation”, and you will see the point.
It is certainly possible to prove a specific non-existence. There are no live, fully-grown, African elephants currently sitting on my keyboard.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
This is absolutely true, and absolutely necessary if we are not to waste our lives constantly re-examining our own perceptions.
Logic can be over-rated.
They might not care whether there is a god; they might be interested in the sociology of religion. That is, after all, one of my reasons for being here.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
:yup:
Now the theist’s, who firmly believes in live, fully-grown, African elephants sitting on keyboards, response: You cannot prove, it is not there. The LFGA-elephant is a transcendent being, you cannot see it, but do pray to it with all your heart and he will hear you.
Oh and there’s plenty of evidence of its existence. The keyboard would not work without one for a start. Then often different letters appear instead of those I intended to type, so it must be the elephant hitting the keys.
See? To deny the elephants existence is logically unsupported. So you cannot be atheistic towards it, just agnostic.
Which, in real life, makes no difference whatsoever. And that’s why I prefere the term Atheist over Agnostic, because it is much more precise in describing the worldview in question, though it is not quite accurate in a generalised situation.
- Status