Are agnostics better lover than atheists?

[cho_pilo]

If not, why not? If yes, why is agnostics better lover?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

What context are you referring too? I believe you may need to clarify your question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

How on earth could you prove it either way?

 

[Heliotropium]

I dont think either are going to be good lovers since both are lost and have no sense of direction. Just a little bit of thiest humor

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

“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, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

Since the set of agnostics and the set of atheists are not mutually exclusive, and in fact most atheists I’ve met are also agnostics, so it’s a fairly silly question. If you prefer, I don’t believe my transition from atheist to agnostic atheist resulted in me being a better or worse lover. Also, I was speaking to a woman this weekend who transitioned from Catholic to atheist to agnostic atheist, and she didn’t note any positive/negative changes to her lovelife. On the other hand, I do believe life experience has had a major impact on how I treat romantic partners, mostly positive but occasionally negative.

 

[tonyrey]

Your question is certainly complicated because it is so vague.

Theists believe God exists, agnostics don’t know whether God exists and atheists don’t believe God exists. None of those views has any direct implications for the nature of love.

Christians have a better** opportunity** to love others to the greatest extent of which they are capable because their faith inspires them to follow the example of Jesus. Yet agnostics and atheists often put Christians to shame! That has nothing to do with their philosophy. The way people live doesn’t always correspond to what they claim to believe (or disbelieve) …

 

[mdrummer5]

“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, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

Since the set of agnostics and the set of atheists are not mutually exclusive, and in fact most atheists I’ve met are also agnostics, so it’s a fairly silly question. If you prefer, I don’t believe my transition from atheist to agnostic atheist resulted in me being a better or worse lover. Also, I was speaking to a woman this weekend who transitioned from Catholic to atheist to agnostic atheist, and she didn’t note any positive/negative changes to her lovelife. On the other hand, I do believe life experience has had a major impact on how I treat romantic partners, mostly positive but occasionally negative.

Since you label yourself as such I’m curious. How can you be an agnostic atheist?

I’m not at all trying to judge your beliefs I just don’t understand how one can be both. As I understand it agnostics are unsure or undecided as to whether or not God exists and atheists flat out don’t believe He does. So how can you not believe in the existence of God and be unsure about the existence of God at the same time?

I would think one would lead to the other. For example;

Bob is agnostic… after thinking on it he’s decided that he doesn’t believe God exists and therefore becomes an atheist

or…

Bob is an atheist who truly doesn’t believe God exists… but after discussing it and reading some things he’s now unsure so is agnostic.

Again, please understand I’m not trying to give you a hard time I just find it to be kind of an odd label unless my understanding of both is way off which I will gladly admit could be the case.

Edit: on topic… I don’t understand how you can judge one’s capacity or capability to love physically or otherwise solely on their beliefs.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Of all the agnostics I have encountered, I haven’t seen one that thinks, “I don’t know if God exists, but I’ll live as if He does just in case!”

In terms of lifestyle agnostics and atheists are usually the same, from my experience.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

MrDrummer> Since you label yourself as such I’m curious. How can you be an agnostic atheist?

Most well-known atheists and also atheists I’ve met are actually agnostic atheists.

Tony> Theists believe God exists… atheists don’t believe God exists.

My position on the Catholic God and on subterranean insects on Mars is the same. I do not believe in them without compelling evidence. I’m an atheist.

Huxley coined the word “agnostic” with this meaning: “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, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”

At the same time, I do not claim to know for certain whether the Catholic God or subterranean insects on Mars exist. I’m agnostic.

mdrummer> "Bob is agnostic… "

In other words, Bob doesn’t know for certain whether there’s a God or not. But is he a theist (believes God exists) or an atheist (doesn’t hold that belief)?

mdrummer> “after thinking on it he’s decided that he doesn’t believe God exists and therefore becomes an atheist”

Assuming he’s still an agnostic, he’s now an agnostic atheist. He doesn’t believe God exists, and yet he logically doesn’t claim to know for certain whether or not God exists. In his camp are many such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, arguably Ayn Rand, etc.

 

[mdrummer5]

Assuming he’s still an agnostic, he’s now an agnostic atheist. He doesn’t believe God exists, and yet he logically doesn’t claim to know for certain whether or not God exists. In his camp are many such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, arguably Ayn Rand, etc.

Ya know… I always thought Atheism and Agnosticism were fairly simple to understand… and they are… til you pair them up… lol

So, If I understand you correctly someone who’s an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe there’s a God but doesn’t accept it as a fact as they also acknowledge that they don’t know for certain whether or not God exists? So it’s still in it’s own way a matter of faith?

Edit: if it’s more complicated than that just say “sure” and give me a smiley lol

 

[Warrenton]

This the comprimise position put forth in the final two stanzas of the poem Dover Beach.

It’s a strategy of despair. Arnold plans to make love, while the ignorant armies clash by night. Touching, really.

Under either analysis, atheist or agnostic, the “best” lover is the lover who gets the most love, since that is all that is demonstrable. Even “Dr Love” cannot prove which of us “loved” the love we got more.

Not surprisingly, that’s the “worst” lover from the Christian perspective.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Assuming he’s still an agnostic, he’s now an agnostic atheist. He doesn’t believe God exists, and yet he logically doesn’t claim to know for certain whether or not God exists. In his camp are many such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, arguably Ayn Rand, etc.

Ya know… I always thought Atheism and Agnosticism were fairly simple to understand… > and they are… til you pair them up… lol

If you don’t understand them together, you don’t understand atheism. All the notable atheists I can think of just now are agnostic.

So, If I understand you correctly someone who’s an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe
there’s a God but doesn’t accept it as a fact as they also acknowledge that they don’t
know for certain whether or not God exists?

Almost.

someone who’s an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe there’s a God

Check.

but doesn’t accept it as a fact

Actually, it’s a fact that I don’t believe in the Catholic God.

as they also acknowledge that they don’t know for certain whether or not God exists?

Yes. I don’t know for certain whether the Catholic God exists or not.

So it’s still in it’s own way a matter of faith?

Not at all. Forming a belief that “God exists” or “God is impossible!” requires faith. Lacking these beliefs–in the absence of compelling evidence–does not.

Edit: if it’s more complicated than that just say “sure” and give me a smiley lol

Allow me to use a less emotionally-charged example. Ask yourself the following questions:

a) Do you claim subterranean insects EXIST on Mars?
(The theist says yes, the atheist says no.)

b) Do you claim subterranean insects on Mars are IMPOSSIBLE?
(This is misunderstood by many Christians as the general atheist position.)

c) Are you certain about their existance or non-existance?
(Agnostics say no.)

I have never been presented with compelling evidence for the existance or non-existance of subterranean insects on Mars. I don’t claim “They exist!”, nor do I claim “That’s impossible!” My position accepts nothing on faith.

I hope that helps you to understand better. May you have a great afternoon.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

This the comprimise position put forth in the final two stanzas of the poem Dover Beach… It’s a strategy of despair.

“Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”

It’s a beautiful poem, but you’re confusing atheism / agnosticism with nihilism. To me, the world contains joy, and beauty, and music, and friendship, and light, and love, and peace and help from pain.

Under either analysis, atheist or agnostic, the “best” lover is the lover who gets the most love,

I don’t get your meaning that the ‘best’ lover is the one who gets the most love from me? My ideal lover and I would feel chemistry when we’re near each other. She would be my intellectual equal, a trustworthy and supportive friend, independent, romantically and sexually compatible, and we’d have interests and traits that complement one another. Oh, and mentally stable! Granted, in the real world we both have to accept some compromises.

Not surprisingly, that’s the “worst” lover from the Christian perspective.

If what I described above is the ‘worst’ lover from the Christian perspective, then I’m genuinely sorry you can’t marry a best friend who you’re attracted to.

More seriously, I believe the ideal Christian and Agnostic/Atheist lovers actually have much in common. Ours would simply do more in bed and use the pill. Yours would… regularly encourage being good?

 

[mdrummer5]

I hope that helps you to understand better. May you have a great afternoon.

Ok… last one… I think… so… basically you don’t believe in any god because it’s not been proven that one exists but don’t disregard the idea that one may exist because it also can’t be proven that one doesn’t exist?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Ok… last one… I think… so… basically you don’t believe in any god because it’s not been proven that one exists but don’t disregard the idea that one may exist because it also can’t be proven that one doesn’t exist?

By Jove, I think you’ve got it!

I would only make one minor tweak–I would substitute the wording “it’s not been proven” with “it’s not been proven and imho there’s no compelling evidence”. As with most things in life, compelling evidence is sufficient for belief, in lieu of a mathematical proof.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Not at all. Forming a belief that “God exists” or “God is impossible!” requires faith. Lacking these beliefs–in the absence of compelling evidence–does not.

I agree with most of your assertions, but I do disagree with some. The bold is one that do I disagree with. The part I especially disagree with is “in the absence of compelling evidence”. Obviously, I believe the contrary and you believe it as it stands (which I think is based on faith but that is a moot point). But, later on you claimed “imho, there’s no compelling evidence”. In addition to my disagreement, one time you assert that there is no compelling evidence and then you offer an opinion that there is no compelling evidence. I know this is being nit-picky but I just thought I should let you know.

As with most things in life, compelling evidence is sufficient for belief, in lieu of a mathematical proof.

This is another of the few things I disagree with. I believe most things in life require very little evidence, if any is even required. And most of THAT evidence is hardly compelling anyway. In any case, does it take compelling evidence for a sufficient belief? In other words, how compelling does the evidence have to be in order to just suffice for a rational belief? I am sure there are examples for your position, but there are WAY more examples for the other.

Perhaps, this is your way of going; that is that evidence is all we can to believe anything. I do not know but I sure hope not, for your sake.

Anyway, take care buddy…

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

But, later on you claimed “imho, there’s no compelling evidence”. In addition to my disagreement, one time you assert that there is no compelling evidence and then you offer an opinion that there is no compelling evidence. I know this is being nit-picky but I just thought I should let you know.

LifeIsAbsurd> Forming a belief that “God exists” or “God is impossible!” requires faith. Lacking these beliefs–in the absence of compelling evidence–does not.

LifeIsAbsurd> imho, there’s no compelling evidence

Actually, in the first case I’m discussing what is true if there is no compelling evidence. In the second case I’m stating my opinion that there is no compelling evidence.

This is another of the few things I disagree with. I believe most things in life require very little evidence, if any is even required.

LifeIsAbsurd>As with most things in life, compelling evidence is sufficient for belief, in lieu of a mathematical proof.

What you say doesn’t contradict my above quote. I said compelling evidence is sufficient for belief. I didn’t say compelling evidence is necessary for belief.

In other words, how compelling does the evidence have to be in order to just suffice for a rational belief?

That depends on the importance and repercussions of the belief. For example, there are differing standards of evidence in criminal and civils courts. The amount of evidence you need to verify the ID of someone asking for a $1 bill for charity is much less than the amount of evidence you need to verify the ID of someone you’re entering into a $500,000 contract with. This is common sense and you see it in action everyday.

Giving up 10% of my income and suffering in my present life in hopes of future rewards of course requires more evidence than paying $2 for a church bake sale cookie.

PS - Would it be better to discuss via PMs? I don’t wish to derail the original poster’s thread with a theism vs. atheism discussion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

There have been no studies done on the subject as far as I am aware of.

Are opinions found on this site the way to find the truth of the matter, and satisfy your question?

 

[cho_pilo]

What context are you referring too? I believe you may need to clarify your question.

Ok, both athiests and agnostics claims that love isn’t based upon any religion or the absence of it, it’s just one of those things that occurs. From a biological basis this is caused by a number of chemical reactions that occur. Do you agree?

Now, let me rephrase the question whether you agreed on the statement above or not. Are atheists better lover than religious one? Why or why not?

 

[Warrenton]

The ideal of which you speak does not exist.

What the world contains, my friend, is simply certain phenomena that produce various impressions in your mind.

If that.