Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[Emilin_Rose]

Agnostics are overlooked by the obsessive christians while Athiests are used for target practice.

 

[AssButt]

This is where you are wrong. Science is a temporary summary of our combined knowledge of the world so far. It's not facts, it's all theories. Noone can every say that science is facts, because that would contradict the meaning of science as a whole.

I never said science was facts. Of course science is the accumulation of knowledge. It changes as it develops. All scientific knowledge is no more than the most logical thing to assume. Theories are only theories because they are unprovable, but are probably true, and fit the observable laws as well as they can.

science is still fairly limited in its scope and often times only describes what happens, not why it happens.

Not true. Have you ever taken a science class? Science is about knowing how things work, and why they work that way.

What I meant was yes, science can explain a lot of phenomenon but why is it a certain way? I'm majoring in engineering and so far, I have yet to have any explanation as to why gravitational pull exists or why electrons have an affinity for certain structures and not others.

Alchemy was once considered a valid form of "science", it will only be a matter of time before what we know now becomes obsolete, irrelevant, or wrong.

 

[MaskedMori]

Athiest is for people who are dead set there is no god, Agnostic is for indesisive pricks like me that would believe in God/Gods if proven.

 

[Shadeovblack]

HAIL ERIS!!

 

[AssButt]

The hardcore atheist is just the parallel to the religious nut. Since both claim to know with certainty something with no evidence.

Sorry to correct you but it's no 'hard' evidence. There are long lists of circumstantial evidence for and against religion.

An atheist (like me) is someone who knows for certain in their own mind that there is no God.
An antagnostic is someone who is open to the concept of religion, but has never been convinced by it.

so your basically saying that your close-minded.

Close-minded towards the concept of a god. yes. Unless you can prove me wrong?

Before you say god doesn't exist, you have to define god and assume everyone has the same definition. If I were to say that god is someone who created the Earth in a seven day time span, that's pretty easy to disprove. If I were to say god is the collective sum of all matter, energy (which is just another form of matter), and conscious that's pretty open-ended and abstract. How would you disprove it?

 

[Cliff_m85]

The hardcore atheist is just the parallel to the religious nut. Since both claim to know with certainty something with no evidence.

Sorry to correct you but it's no 'hard' evidence. There are long lists of circumstantial evidence for and against religion.

An atheist (like me) is someone who knows for certain in their own mind that there is no God.
An antagnostic is someone who is open to the concept of religion, but has never been convinced by it.

so your basically saying that your close-minded.

Being close minded on certain subjects is not bad. Are you willing to think about the Holocaust being a hoax by the Jews to gain sympathy? How about blacks being inferior? How about the religion of Breathairianism which teaches us that we can survive on a diet of sunlight?

Certain things that are foolish must be tossed aside. You may call this closeminded, I call it intelligence.

i guess you can call it whatever you want to, but closemindedness never leads to intelligence. study with an open mind and a sense of wonderment. scientist learn new things everyday and learn that things they had recently thought of as fact as untrue or at least untrue in certain situations. did you know there is still not a clear definition that differentiates a living thing from a non-living thing and if we cannot define life how can we understand it. I'm not trying to make you believe theres a god personally i don't care whither you do or don't i just want you to see that there are know absolutes. i know everything my seem black and white to you know but maybe one day you'll understand that its really not.

As you waste your time listening to holocaust-deniers and those who have seen pixies fly around daffodils, I'll be researching biology.

I think you see things as black and white. Either give every nutjob an equal amount of time to speak, thus wasting plenty of time that could be spent on reliable information, or you're "close-minded". The fact is that giving equal time to those who have rational evidence is perfectly fine. Giving equal time to those that are just batshit insane and want to tell you that the Jews did 9/11 because Allah told them that the government was in control by aliens is just a complete idiotic thing to do.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Atheist- There is no god.

Agnostic- I'm not sure if God exists.

Me- agnostic

 

[Terramax]

Agnostic: Does it really matter?

That sums me up. Even if God was proven and did show up, it doesn't mean I should worship him. If I was created just to carry out someone else's wishes then what's the point in being alive at all?

Not to mention.. if christians, catholics.. or jews are right... We were made by the biggest asshole in existence that makes hitler look like a puss.

"Hey! I am going to create a race of things called humans! Then I am going to make them have different color skins despite KNOWING this will cause tension, oppression, violence, and murder throughout humanity. THEN I am going to put a tree near them and tell them not to eat from it, but I am also going to make them very curious and gullible and let an asshole that got tired of my rule last time destroy the lives of humans for thousands of years before I send my son down and let them murder him so that I can actually start forgiving them!"

Agreed. On that point, another thing that gets me is how offending it is that religions like Christianity are allowed to call all human beings a 'sin'. If we convict religions of being evil then we can be sued/ arrested for blasphemy but it's considered perfectly legal/ right for them to publish a book and shout in the streets how we're the entire worlds dirty, scum.

see im talking about the belief in a creator not aliens

What's the difference? None are more plausable than the other.

comparing one with the other is offensive...believe whatever you want just don't be a prick about it.

Cliff_m85's statements are rational, and he justifies this answers logically. If anyone here is being offensive it's you.

 

[theultimateend]

I guess both basically have a non-belief due to the lack of evidence.

But let's supposed the Judeo-Christian God descended to Earth with a heavenly host of angels bathed in holy light. And after scrutiny, are not just really advanced Aliens with a fancy light show.

No Atheist would say, "meh, it's just a trick"

Compare with Marvel or Vertigo's comic universe where omnipotent beings actually exists and to a lesser extent, Gods, demi-Gods, Endless walk among us. You could actually take a picture of Thor flying alongside Iron Man. Are there Atheists in those universes? It's freakin Thor man!

Or Lord of the Rings, the Gods are hardly mentioned and people seldom mention them, it would seem that only a few people actually know they exist, but Sauron is not just a badass general, he's a for real fallen angel.

If a God ever ends up existing I'll be the first person to say "Well shit I was wrong."

.

Albeit one of the only good responses you got in these 7 pages was the first response.

Athesist says "There is no god" and a Agnostic says "There might be a god, not sure". Fairly easy.

Basically everyone after DWP was far less accurate.

 

[Shapsters]

As the old joke goes:

Teacher: "Jeffery, what's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?"
Jeffery: "I don't know, and I don't care."

ARGH... must-not-participate-in-conversation...

I will just quote this post, because its funny, and slowly back away from this thread. Why must we discuss these things? WHY!?

*runs away*

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Agnostic: Does it really matter?

That sums me up. Even if God was proven and did show up, it doesn't mean I should worship him. If I was created just to carry out someone else's wishes then what's the point in being alive at all?

Not to mention.. if christians, catholics.. or jews are right... We were made by the biggest asshole in existence that makes hitler look like a puss.

"Hey! I am going to create a race of things called humans! Then I am going to make them have different color skins despite KNOWING this will cause tension, oppression, violence, and murder throughout humanity. THEN I am going to put a tree near them and tell them not to eat from it, but I am also going to make them very curious and gullible and let an asshole that got tired of my rule last time destroy the lives of humans for thousands of years before I send my son down and let them murder him so that I can actually start forgiving them!"

Agreed. On that point, another thing that gets me is how offending it is that religions like Christianity are allowed to call all human beings a 'sin'. If we convict religions of being evil then we can be sued/ arrested for blasphemy but it's considered perfectly legal/ right for them to publish a book and shout in the streets how we're the entire worlds dirty, scum.

see im talking about the belief in a creator not aliens

What's the difference? None are more plausable than the other.

comparing one with the other is offensive...believe whatever you want just don't be a prick about it.

Cliff_m85's statements are rational, and he justifies this answers logically. If anyone here is being offensive it's you.

Not to mention how some religious groups abuse the law.
"Hey we are going to stand outside of a gay club and protest and shout at them etc, and if gays do the same to us we will call it silly and laugh at them for being so stupid!"
Theres some religious nutjobs that sit outside of porn stores and such, taking pictures of license plates and people and posting them online and labeling them "Rapists" and such... They're rapists huh? This coming from the guy stalking outside a porn shop, hidden in the shadows taking photos of random people to label them as evil... Don't serial killers do things like that? XD

(Note: I said SOME and then I went on to label a SPECIFIC sect of christians, not all, so don't go calling me a stereotyper. There is religious followers, and then there is nutter fundementalists and extremists)

 

[YellowBrickRoad]

No that is not correct.

Atheism = A-theism. i.e. NOT a theist.
Agnostism = A term developed by Thomas Huxley to describe the belief that God cannot be known. (A rather bold and unsubstantiated claim.)

In other words, agnostics are a subset of atheists.

Nonsense. Atheism is about saying God doesn't exist. Agnosticism says that God cannot be known (proven) - it doesn't follow that an agnostic will believe that there is no God. The whole point is that agnostics believe that they don't know, and we don't know. So there's absolutely no connection. Agnosticism is totally separate.

So you claim. But can you show how useful your definitions are?

You can define atheism as holding an equally firm but opposite belief from fundamentalist theism, but my point is that that's a useless and misleading way of reading the labels. Few self-professed atheists, like me, will say that we know for sure that God does not exist. Most self-professed atheists give themselves that label simply because they want to make a social or anti-religious stand.

(It's useful to consider that "atheist" is a label thrown as an insult or accusation in many fundamentalist systems. In places like Saudi Arabia, you're an "atheist" simply because you're not a Muslim. Even in some fundamentalist places in the USA, "atheist" is a deliberately hurtful brand hurled at people who support the teaching of evolution.)

As for agnostics - most self-professed agnostics probably don't even think about the issue much. They give themselves that label because they think it's the most non-confrontational one. To me, Agnosticism isn't a reasonable stance. I'm not agnostic about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I'm an "a-Santaist" and an "a-Bunnyist". Can it ever be proven that Santa doesn't exist? Can the Easter Bunny ever be "understood"? No. But I'm going to lead my life as if they don't exist, rather than behave as if the verdict is still out and there's 50-50 chance either way.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

I guess both basically have a non-belief due to the lack of evidence.

But let's supposed the Judeo-Christian God descended to Earth with a heavenly host of angels bathed in holy light. And after scrutiny, are not just really advanced Aliens with a fancy light show.

No Atheist would say, "meh, it's just a trick"

Compare with Marvel or Vertigo's comic universe where omnipotent beings actually exists and to a lesser extent, Gods, demi-Gods, Endless walk among us. You could actually take a picture of Thor flying alongside Iron Man. Are there Atheists in those universes? It's freakin Thor man!

Or Lord of the Rings, the Gods are hardly mentioned and people seldom mention them, it would seem that only a few people actually know they exist, but Sauron is not just a badass general, he's a for real fallen angel.

If a God ever ends up existing I'll be the first person to say "Well shit I was wrong."

.

Albeit one of the only good responses you got in these 7 pages was the first response.

Athesist says "There is no god" and a Agnostic says "There might be a god, not sure". Fairly easy.

Basically everyone after DWP was far less accurate.

I will be right there next to you.. why? Because then there will be fucking evidence XD Until then.. there is none XD

 

[WhiteTiger225]

No that is not correct.

Atheism = A-theism. i.e. NOT a theist.
Agnostism = A term developed by Thomas Huxley to describe the belief that God cannot be known. (A rather bold and unsubstantiated claim.)

In other words, agnostics are a subset of atheists.

Nonsense. Atheism is about saying God doesn't exist. Agnosticism says that God cannot be known (proven) - it doesn't follow that an agnostic will believe that there is no God. The whole point is that agnostics believe that they don't know, and we don't know. So there's absolutely no connection. Agnosticism is totally separate.

So you claim. But can you show how useful your definitions are?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Done. Next case!

 

[Terramax]

Theres some religious nutjobs that sit outside of porn stores and such, taking pictures of license plates and people and posting them online and labeling them "Rapists" and such...

Do you know what the site is called?

I just wanna check if my license plate is on there.

 

[bigolbear]

Athiesm is the firm belief in tha lack of a god. Surely hard evidence would not sway the most fanatical of athiests, just as religious fanatics continue to fight against the Theory of Evolution (considering that athieism is merely the antithesis of religion). I'm pretty certain that the common knowledge of the existance of god(s) (as in the marvel universe) would only ENCOURAGE fundamental athiests.

Quite to the contrary. I am an anti-theist, and if you could give me ACTUAL proof or argue for the existence of a god without the use of a non-credible holy text, I would then re-examine my beliefs and ponder on the existence of this deity.

Id like to take up that challenge!

lets take a credible theory.. evolution.

ok evolution dictates that whatever is fit enough to survive will do so, and that through mutation new species will come into being.

I there fore propose that given sufficient time, and a sufficiently varied environment - both of which our universe (which mathematicly is said to be aproaching infinity) provides that a species will evolve that is capable of perceiving time correctly.

please bear in mind that the human perception of time and space is a simple method but it is 'sufficient' for our survival.

To take this species further along its evolutionary tree it is entirely feasable that a species could arrise that not only percives time and space for what it realy is but is capable of moving through it in a fashion other than simple mamalian life does.

HERE IS THE CRITICAL POINT.

once a species moves outside of the limited scope of movement we have through time it will cease to evolve - it has removed itself from this universe and become an observer (see heisenbergs principles)

For this species to continue to learn, adapt, grow, evolve it will need to reintergrate itself - it has in effect become a god through the process of evolution. An observer outside of time NEEDING to cojoin other species (that exist within the universe space time)in a parasitic or symbiotic relationship in order to further evolve.

I hope what ive said here can open some minds to a few posibillities - time is not a simple thing, it is entirely possible that 'god' made the universe that 'god's' species evolved in.

While that IS a really cool theory, it seems a little sci-fi/fantasy, but then we need to remember we're looking at evolution and life from an Earth chauvinist perspective, so, why CAN'T this be possible? Unfortunately, I doubt our species will ever reach that point without deliberate engineering, we no longer conform to the laws of selection, and it would take some serious stress to make us do so again.

Totaly agree - our species is probably doomed - especialy if we never migrate from mother earth.

The theory isnt sci fi - just maths realy. In a universe of infinate posibilities given certain scientific laws we take for granted the existance of life forms that are so far above us to be god like (omnipotent, omnipresant etc) is actualy enevitable. The big question for me is why would any 'god' be interested in humanity? Thats the question I always find my self coming back to when pondering religion.

oh and im certainly not trying to push this idea as beter than any other or some great truth.. just another posibility ;-)