Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[AssButt]

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.

Then take chemistry. There is more than one branch of science. Some things are still unexplained, of course.

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

 

[matrix3509]

1st tenet of Agnosticism: Belief in a higher power.
2nd tenet of Agnosticism: Belief that said higher power plays no role in universal happenings.
3rd tenet of Agnosticism: Since said higher power plays no role in universal happenings, the question of whether said higher power even exists is purely academic, as discovery either supporting or refuting their belief results in no change of daily activities.

Agnostics vary in their reasoning for why they believe the 2nd tenet. Reasons vary from, "The higher power is not interested in human activities." to, "The higher power gains sufficient amusement from just observing." to, "The higher power has no ability nor opportunity to interfere in the daily happenings of the universe."

Edit: I've just been informed that this view doesn't necessarily comprise the whole of agnosticism, but rather just a sub-group among other slightly different agnostic beliefs. The sub-group I just explained actually refers to the sub-group called "Apathetic Agnosticism." Given my personality, it makes sense that this would be my belief. Also added a third tenet.

 

[Fbuh]

I wondered about that too sometimes, sort of, when I was 10-14ish. My idea was that our universe was a proton or something on a HUUGE level, and that our protons are universes on a smaller level. It made no sense, though, cuz as you get smaller and larger, it's just a ridiculous infinitesimal WTF. I decided to close it off, make it a loop. So our universe was a proton in another, which was a proton in another, which was a proton in our universe. It still makes no fucking sense at all. Eventually I decided, 'fuck it, I know what I can perceive. Everything else isn't worth bothering with, as I'll get no where. Anyway, I believed in god at the time, and simply thought that he existed on another level of perception. Not like I thought in those words when I was ten, but that was basically the idea. So I said fuck it with explaining god as well when I decided to fuck contemplating the universe. Even if I did figure that shit out, I'm just going to die anyway and it won't matter then.

You are probably the only one here who gets what I was trying to say.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I'm atheist, and I'm a total ass about it. Not because I was raised in a religious setting, I just got pissed about it when I started exploring the internet finding different "interpretations" of the same evidence, and discovered that virtually all people arguing for the existence of a god (be it the Christian God, Muslim God, or their own version of God, usually mixed in with some Buddhism and less emphasis on the Old Testament) resorted to idiot arguments (reasoning that logic is an invention of God and thus can't be against him, even in perfectly reasonable circumstances, arguing with the uncaused cause, etc.) taking parts of experiments out of context to prove points (and sometimes using "studies" with serious bias, such as the Mt. Enta study on radiometric dating) and topping their bullshit off by stating that only people of their religion have the "truth." Any reasonable person would be pissed off by that.

 

[Cakes]

arguing with the uncaused cause

First Cause is actually a fairly compelling philosophical argument for god. The rest of your post is pretty much just complaining about the holier-than-thou religious types who try to pass their stuff off as science, which anyone would agree with.

 

[nbrown48]

I'm pretty much an anti-theist. I personally believe that as a species, in this day and age, we would be better off without religion. However at the same time I wouldn't deny anyone their right to practise it as that would go against why I dislike religion in the first place.

so this is generally an atheist view - however I think someone can believe in God and still think the same thing (though it would be far more rare).

 

[Serge A. Storms]

First cause is a ridiculous argument. For the first cause argument, you have to start with the assumption that the "beginning" of the universe (and thus time and space) was the result of something doing something to something else. Scientists have yet to nail down exactly what was happening in the first few hundredths of a second, but it is definitely known that the laws of nature and the nature of matter and energy as we understand them were still developing in that period of time. One could just as easily argue that the state of all matter and energy being contained in a near-infinitely dense point of light could have resulted in the Big Bang, without adding the supernatural into the mix.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

For the record, no one can prove that a higher power of some kind doesn't exist, although this is the most common straw man ever used by any religious people against atheists. That being said, science can show that such a being is neither necessary for the existence of nor implied by the universe. Any argument about science "not having a full answer" is nothing more than filling in a temporary, and often nonexistent gap (radiometric dating gets shit all the time despite being incredibly reliable) with the all-in-one filler that is "Goddidit."

 

[Captain_Caveman]

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

this

 

[aakibar]

Atheist believe in no higher power while agnostics believe that there is a higher power but don't know what it is or they do not believe in organized religion. Nothing more nothing less

 

[AssButt]

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

Science hasn't yet explained everything, so you turn around and make up some ridiculous god to believe in? That makes sense.

I say nothing is incomprehensible, over time. How and why seem like the same question to me, I guess.

You have to remember that humans are merely animals, albeit the smartest animals that we know of. Plenty of things will be completely incomprehensible to say dogs but as far as the dog knows, it understands everything about the universe. We're several steps up the consciousness evolution, but how does that make us able to understand everything in existence?

Science is still pretty young so we probably aren't aware of its true potential but even if it can be reached, who is to say that humans can understand it?

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

Science hasn't yet explained everything, so you turn around and make up some ridiculous god to believe in? That makes sense.

I say nothing is incomprehensible, over time. How and why seem like the same question to me, I guess.

You have to remember that humans are merely animals, albeit the smartest animals that we know of. Plenty of things will be completely incomprehensible to say dogs but as far as the dog knows, it understands everything about the universe. We're several steps up the consciousness evolution, but how does that make us able to understand everything in existence?

Science is still pretty young so we probably aren't aware of its true potential but even if it can be reached, who is to say that humans can understand it?

Considering how far we've come in only a few centuries, there's no reason to think we're going to stop learning any time soon. Our knowledge of the universe is growing as fast as anything, and there's no reason to believe that some things can't be learned until we run into those things. That most definitely hasn't happened yet.

 

[AssButt]

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

Science hasn't yet explained everything, so you turn around and make up some ridiculous god to believe in? That makes sense.

I say nothing is incomprehensible, over time. How and why seem like the same question to me, I guess.

You have to remember that humans are merely animals, albeit the smartest animals that we know of. Plenty of things will be completely incomprehensible to say dogs but as far as the dog knows, it understands everything about the universe. We're several steps up the consciousness evolution, but how does that make us able to understand everything in existence?

Science is still pretty young so we probably aren't aware of its true potential but even if it can be reached, who is to say that humans can understand it?

Considering how far we've come in only a few centuries, there's no reason to think we're going to stop learning any time soon. Our knowledge of the universe is growing as fast as anything, and there's no reason to believe that some things can't be learned until we run into those things. That most definitely hasn't happened yet.

We've probably made more breakthroughs in the past ~100 years or so than all of history combined, we've also learned some stuff that's becoming increasingly harder to make sense of such as the concept of time, pretty soon we're probably going to run into something that shatters our perception of reality.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

Science hasn't yet explained everything, so you turn around and make up some ridiculous god to believe in? That makes sense.

I say nothing is incomprehensible, over time. How and why seem like the same question to me, I guess.

You have to remember that humans are merely animals, albeit the smartest animals that we know of. Plenty of things will be completely incomprehensible to say dogs but as far as the dog knows, it understands everything about the universe. We're several steps up the consciousness evolution, but how does that make us able to understand everything in existence?

Science is still pretty young so we probably aren't aware of its true potential but even if it can be reached, who is to say that humans can understand it?

Considering how far we've come in only a few centuries, there's no reason to think we're going to stop learning any time soon. Our knowledge of the universe is growing as fast as anything, and there's no reason to believe that some things can't be learned until we run into those things. That most definitely hasn't happened yet.

We've probably made more breakthroughs in the past ~100 years or so than all of history combined, we've also learned some stuff that's becoming increasingly harder to make sense of such as the concept of time, pretty soon we're probably going to run into something that shatters our perception of reality.

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've already gone from a universe revolving around a world dangling from the heavens by a string to our current model of the universe. The more mind-blowing science gets, the better, and if it means breaking down basic truths we had taken for granted and replacing them with confusing things we don't immediately understand, even better, it just means more motivation to think about our existence as we get closer to knowing the true nature of the universe.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

none what so ever as agnostic is a bullshit term. Is there a god? two answers, yes and I don't know. Religious says yes and lives a religious life, or says I don't know and lives a religious life to be on the safe side. Atheist says, show me some proof and goes to live a non religious life. you can't be an agnostic because you still have to live you life either as a religious person or as an atheist. That being said any atheist that says there is no god is either saying there is no proof or needs a good smack upside the head.

There are two answers to "is there a god," and those are "I don't know" and "maybe." All humans are fallible, and claiming to have an understanding of the supernatural is bunk whether you say it exists or it doesn't. That being said, Russell's Teapot was brought up before, and for good reason.

 

[Zeryxis]

Everybody convert to my faith.

Apatheism.

"Who cares about invisible men in the sky?"

I like your idea....but I am a firmer believer in multiple deities based around elemental and physical manifestations of being *aka lots of stuff XD*

I like the idea of reincarnation too...but that's off topic XP

 

[AssButt]

I've taken plenty of sciences classes, the point I'm trying and I guess failing to make is that yes, x has properties y under conditions of z but has properties of 1 under conditions of 2. We know how it works the way it does, but why does it work like that? Some things are just currently unknown but some things may be incomprehensible to the human consciousness.

Science hasn't yet explained everything, so you turn around and make up some ridiculous god to believe in? That makes sense.

I say nothing is incomprehensible, over time. How and why seem like the same question to me, I guess.

You have to remember that humans are merely animals, albeit the smartest animals that we know of. Plenty of things will be completely incomprehensible to say dogs but as far as the dog knows, it understands everything about the universe. We're several steps up the consciousness evolution, but how does that make us able to understand everything in existence?

Science is still pretty young so we probably aren't aware of its true potential but even if it can be reached, who is to say that humans can understand it?

Considering how far we've come in only a few centuries, there's no reason to think we're going to stop learning any time soon. Our knowledge of the universe is growing as fast as anything, and there's no reason to believe that some things can't be learned until we run into those things. That most definitely hasn't happened yet.

We've probably made more breakthroughs in the past ~100 years or so than all of history combined, we've also learned some stuff that's becoming increasingly harder to make sense of such as the concept of time, pretty soon we're probably going to run into something that shatters our perception of reality.

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've already gone from a universe revolving around a world dangling from the heavens by a string to our current model of the universe. The more mind-blowing science gets, the better, and if it means breaking down basic truths we had taken for granted and replacing them with confusing things we don't immediately understand, even better, it just means more motivation to think about our existence as we get closer to knowing the true nature of the universe.

My original post is stating that because of the rate in which we discover things, it is silly to say that we are capable of understanding everything. In terms of advancement, I am very much for it but by the same token, I believe it is bad to cling on to our perception of reality as the truth because eventually it won't be.