Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[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.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Atheists don't have all the answers but our lack of faith in God stems from our humanism and our strive to find more answers, granted some atheists are douchebags who just attack religious nuts but some of us have spent enough time thinking about life hard enough to conclude there is no god.

Indeed. But sometimes one must speak out. In my COLLEGE (yes, caps for emphasis) Biology course I had to continuously explain to my professor the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I also had to explain the difference of eugenics and evolution to a few students. One of which became Atheist after I talked to her (though she asked to talk to me to show me that god does exist, my questions and hypothetical question made her question enough to eventually settle on Atheism).

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

An athiest is someone who has no blief in God, an Agnostic is someone who is unsure, due to lack of evidence or religious experience.

Oh yeah! A* RS answer!

 

[Deleted]

Atheists don't want to believe in a God because of their own reasons. agnostics will believe if they're convinced or not believed with lack of evidence.

I think they miss the bigger picture because to me religion is about the Golden Rule, and I know some atheists that think they're exempt from it because they're not faithful.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Atheists don't want to believe in a God because of their own reasons. agnostics will believe if they're convinced or not believed with lack of evidence.

I think they miss the bigger picture because to me religion is about the Golden Rule, and I know some atheists that think they're exempt from it because they're not faithful.

I know some Atheists that do want to believe in god. I don't, can't fathom worshipping a monster that would preach against homosexuality but say nothing about pedophilia, not to mention basically saying that women are useful only as a hole and meal provider.

I know not one Atheist who doesn't follow a moral life style, oddly enough prison systems hold predominately Christian prisoners. The lowest amount of prisoners? Atheists.

 

[Bigeyez]

*snip

I can agree with this. It definitely is a combination of several factors that lead to outbreaks of war and violence. And your right, depending on perspective one factor seems to be a larger cause then another. To the average soldier on the battlefield the difference of religion between him and his enemy can indeed be his main reason to go to war. To the commander or general next to him the main reason for him being there could be a lust for fame, glory, power, wealth, anything really.

its a series of misunderstandings in the belief systems of two sides that kept it fueled

^^ this is especially prevelant when discussing the conflict in the middle east and on that point I completely agree that the misunderstandings (be it religious and/or just cultural in nature) is whats keeping those century old conflicts alive. Because we all know men fear and despise what they don't understand.

My general point though is that the person I originally quoted was trying to make it seem like religion was the sole root cause to all the problems in history and the current day world and that removing religion would somehow fix all these issues. Thats just not true in any way you look at it. Religion is one of many factors for conflicts in history, but at the end of the day it's just one part of a large puzzle.

 

[Deleted]

Atheists don't want to believe in a God because of their own reasons. agnostics will believe if they're convinced or not believed with lack of evidence.

I think they miss the bigger picture because to me religion is about the Golden Rule, and I know some atheists that think they're exempt from it because they're not faithful.

I know some Atheists that do want to believe in god. I don't, can't fathom worshipping a monster that would preach against homosexuality but say nothing about pedophilia, not to mention basically saying that women are useful only as a hole and meal provider.

I know not one Atheist who doesn't follow a moral life style, oddly enough prison systems hold predominately Christian prisoners. The lowest amount of prisoners? Atheists.

I understand what you're going at but you're describing what Christians describe God to be which is 'known' for being kinda loopy. The beauty of religion is that you can believe what you want. I believe that there is a God and that you can show you worship him or acknowledge his existence and that will be enough. He will not interfere with anything aside from miracles because he simply doesn't want to. I grew up Muslim so I have a bit of Muslim 'flavor' in my beliefs but its a step above agnostic. I believe he's there but he's not gonna do anything.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

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

But you could argue it's a lack of evidence that causes each side to think the way they do (ie, no proof there is/isn't a God).

 

[Fbuh]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

Which is completely insane since I, as an Atheist, believe in plenty of things. And logically deficit? Are you kidding me?

 

[Cliff_m85]

Atheists don't want to believe in a God because of their own reasons. agnostics will believe if they're convinced or not believed with lack of evidence.

I think they miss the bigger picture because to me religion is about the Golden Rule, and I know some atheists that think they're exempt from it because they're not faithful.

I know some Atheists that do want to believe in god. I don't, can't fathom worshipping a monster that would preach against homosexuality but say nothing about pedophilia, not to mention basically saying that women are useful only as a hole and meal provider.

I know not one Atheist who doesn't follow a moral life style, oddly enough prison systems hold predominately Christian prisoners. The lowest amount of prisoners? Atheists.

I understand what you're going at but you're describing what Christians describe God to be which is 'known' for being kinda loopy. The beauty of religion is that you can believe what you want. I believe that there is a God and that you can show you worship him or acknowledge his existence and that will be enough. He will not interfere with anything aside from miracles because he simply doesn't want to. I grew up Muslim so I have a bit of Muslim 'flavor' in my beliefs but its a step above agnostic. I believe he's there but he's not gonna do anything.

I used to be a Christian so I know the logic or nonlogic behind it. The very fact that he won't step in to prevent child molestation/rape makes me not see him as moral. *shrugs*

Apostacy could cause you death, you know? The Qu'ran preaches that one who is a Muslim and converts to Christianity or whatever other religion has committed apostacy, which is punishable by death. (Think Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoonists)

 

[crazyjay321]

im an atheist, evolution's why we are here, so that makes god some lazy dude watching you(if he exist's)

 

[Skeleon]

Atheists don't want to believe in a God because of their own reasons.

Sorry, but that's simply wrong.
I have always been an atheist and often thought that religion might be a helpful support in times of despair.
But I can't believe, even if I wanted to.

How is belief a choice?!
Do you say: "Well, today I believed in the Abrahamic god, but I think tomorrow I'll go for Thor..."?
I think not.

 

[crazyjay321]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

well being an atheist does not mean i believe in nothing, it mean's i don't believe in religion

 

[Woodsey]

Atheists don't believe in any God.

Agnostics may either be unsure or believe there is 'something out there' without conforming to any traditional religion as such.

 

[Fbuh]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

Which is completely insane since I, as an Atheist, believe in plenty of things. And logically deficit? Are you kidding me?

I was hoping somebody would ask. I am not trying to flame, butt I do believe that atheism is logically deficit. Fortunately, this is provable by physics (yes, science to prove God). Physics states that nothing can be moved without something to move it. Objects need a certain amount of energy to be moved, and therefore there needs to be something to provide that energy. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the big bang theory is what happened. There was nothing but a big wad of matter compressed to roughly the size of a tennis ball. A big explosion happened, and low and behold the universe happened. Now, what caused the explosion? A burst of energy perhaps? Where did the energy come from. God does not have to be omnipotent father figure as Christianity would teach us. In fact, he doesn't have to be anything more than the energy that runs through the universe. Since objects cannot be moved without something to move them, all it had to take was one little push in the right place to get things moving. To say that there is no God (or whatever you want to call him) to have given that push is to deny physics.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't really like atheism, and I think that it is logically deficit. That's not to say that I am very pro-religion, but I would rather try to convince an atheist to believe in something rather than to continue believing in nothing.

Which is completely insane since I, as an Atheist, believe in plenty of things. And logically deficit? Are you kidding me?

I was hoping somebody would ask. I am not trying to flame, butt I do believe that atheism is logically deficit. Fortunately, this is provable by physics (yes, science to prove God). Physics states that nothing can be moved without something to move it. Objects need a certain amount of energy to be moved, and therefore there needs to be something to provide that energy. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the big bang theory is what happened. There was nothing but a big wad of matter compressed to roughly the size of a tennis ball. A big explosion happened, and low and behold the universe happened. Now, what caused the explosion? A burst of energy perhaps? Where did the energy come from. God does not have to be omnipotent father figure as Christianity would teach us. In fact, he doesn't have to be anything more than the energy that runs through the universe. Since objects cannot be moved without something to move them, all it had to take was one little push in the right place to get things moving. To say that there is no God (or whatever you want to call him) to have given that push is to deny physics.

I love when people who don't understand science try to use science to prove anything. For instance, you are talking about energy without an understanding of kinetic energy and potential energy.

The Big Bang has no explosion as well. There was no explosion so there's no need to think about bursts of energy or flames or whatnot.

To use your argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, which in turn shows a fundamental belief in religion that tends to go with such false statements.

 

[Skeleon]

To say that there is no God (or whatever you want to call him) to have given that push is to deny physics.

I fully understand people critizing scientific theories for possible flaws they might have, but I don't understand why these people would then state that a god is the true answer instead of actually looking for it.
If we accepted religious explanations in science, we would not progress at all.

 

[teutonicman]

Athiest: NO GOD
Agnotic: 50/50 chance of a god existing