Whats the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

[Houmand]

[/quote]There is a lot of evidence that all religion is bullshit, and not any good evidence that it isn't. A lot of chemists have never seen the structure of an atom. In fact, none have. Yet they are very sure that the atomic model they have is correct because they have observed it. Same goes for athiests.[/quote]

You are wrong here, science is a temporary summary of our theories for now. The very essence of science is that you are never sure, but you CAN theorize all you want.

 

[Deleted]

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)

Yeah I don't believe that part. People don't have to be 100% X religion or Y religion.

 

[Houmand]

.

 

[Deleted]

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.

That's how a belief works. You think of something and believe it. Unless someone else told you to.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

dictionary:

agnostic:: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

atheist:: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Agnostic means you can't really believe if there is a God or not.

Atheist means you don't believe in the existenc of any higher power.


Simple.

It's not that simple.

For instance, there are people who claim to be atheist, yet their rejection target specifically the proposed deities of the modern world's religion.

I agree with these people, but I prefer to call myself skeptic agnosticist instead. It would be scientifically unsound to claim that the existence of supreme beings is impossible, but I have no problem with rejecting themost common adopted ideas of what "God" is.

Quite simply, I have no problem saying that "God" (as he/she/it is presented in the bible and held in view by most christians) does not exist. But I can't refute the existence of supreme beings, because im just human after all, and I can only experience reality in three dimensions. I can't really say what sort of beings reside in other dimensions which I cannot see.

The hardcore atheist on the other hand would claim that the existence of supreme or "godlike" beings is impossible. And then there are the atheists im refering too who only reject the idea of Gods as they have been presented in most modern religions, but they still keep an open mind to the possibility of the existence of supreme beings. It's just that they want to see some tangible evidence before believeing in them (something most modern religions haven't been able to produce, hence these atheists rejection of them).

 

[Nmil-ek]

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.

All you have to do for this contrived argument is apply the exact same godamned argument, and what created god? And what created that? and that? and that? Its a copout. All your doing is taking your concept of god and applying him to gaps in knowledge, yes we dont know what occured before the big bang, but to claim it was god? In what way does thta follow any logical connotation, newsflash science always has gaps in its knowledge when we have those gaps we examine them, learn new knowledge and throw out the old its been doing this from day one just as theologans have been trying to jam god into those gaps from the same day.

 

[tan-z]

Nothing, agnosticism simply means that you believe that it is impossible to know the answer to the question 'Does God exist?', and despite what many people think that does not conflict with atheism. Atheism is not 'I know that God does not exist' although it CAN be, usually it is characterised by a LACK of belief in a deity.

Most people who claim to be 'agnostic' are actually ignostic.

Physics states that nothing can be moved without something to move it.

Er......no it doesn't.

 

[Greyfall]

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

That's basically it, yes.

Although I would say an Agnostic believes there is some sort of higher power, they just not sure what it is. (I should know, I used to be one.)

No, that would be Deism.

Or Theism I believe. I'm not sure though, all the lines are pretty blurred at this level.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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)

Yeah I don't believe that part. People don't have to be 100% X religion or Y religion.

Tell that to the thousands of people who have been killed for apostacy in Islam.

And if you don't believe 100% of your religion then you're a heretic.

 

[Houmand]

There is a lot of evidence that all religion is bullshit, and not any good evidence that it isn't. A lot of chemists have never seen the structure of an atom. In fact, none have. Yet they are very sure that the atomic model they have is correct because they have observed it. Same goes for athiests.

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.

 

[Skeleon]

That's how a belief works. You think of something and believe it. Unless someone else told you to.

Well, I attended Catholic and Protestant classes, learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and some Pagan religions and could not believe any of it.

And I doubt people believe because "someone told them to" (unless you mean kids being indoctrinated). Because while people can be pressured into lip services and acting like they believe, forcing somebody to believe does not result in real faith.

I did think about the world, but nothing in it led me to believe in higher powers. I do believe in some things, but not gods. And I certainly did not choose to be an atheist. I just am.

 

[tan-z]

Science is a temporary summary of our combined knowledge of the world so far.

Facepalm.jpg

Yes it is facts, some of those facts aren't entirely complete yet but all of accepted science has undergone rigorous empirical testing to actually become accepted science.

It's not facts, it's all theories. Noone can every say that science is facts,

Now you're just showing your own ignorance. There is a difference between a scientific theory and a regular idiots theory. A laymans theory would be a scientific 'hypothesis', a 'theory' in science is an explanation for a set of empirically observed phenomenon. Next time pick up a book before you put your hands to your keyboard.

 

[Nmil-ek]

There is a lot of evidence that all religion is bullshit, and not any good evidence that it isn't. A lot of chemists have never seen the structure of an atom. In fact, none have. Yet they are very sure that the atomic model they have is correct because they have observed it. Same goes for athiests.

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.

We see this argument alot aswell, science is the best and only system of uderstanding we have, a 10 tonne truck ways 10 tonnes thats a fact we can apply it to the scale of weight we use and conclude that it is indeed 10 tonnes. There you go a fact, you're talking bullshit.

Science is more than just gravitational theory and evolution its a system we use everyday, in every task we preform countless times in our own minds. Even if you could present a different method of thinking guess what you would need to prove it through the scientific method.

 

[Seanchaidh]

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.

To say that you need something that acts outside the laws of physics for the universe to exist is rather medieval and, even if it works, doesn't get you to any recognizable religious entity and certainly nothing that it would be reasonable to worship. (If it doesn't act outside the laws of physics, your question is just pushed back a shade further. You've explained nothing in that case.)

 

[Joshimodo]

Atheist-"There is no God."

Agnostic-"Meh."

 

[Marowit]

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

I would take out god for agnostic and replace it with, "a higher power."

I don't know any agnostics that think there may be some sort of god, as portrayed in Islam for example, but that they think there is some sort of power at work behind the scenes (read by some as the same thing as god).

 

[G1eet]

I'm an anti-theist, and think that you should have included my view in there. There are a portion of us in the atheist crowd, though the definition varies based on who you talk to, I define it as someone "opposed to religion itself, with a will to see religion removed from human society".

Removed? That's not really a great idea. Even if it turns out that there is/are no god/gods, things like going to church and similar activities in other religions are great stress relievers that have been linked to longer life. Long life is good. Therefore (while very little is ever proven) it can be argued that even false religion is a very good thing.

Church is TOTALLY a non-stressful, non-judgmental environment.

There are other relaxation techniques and stress relievers, and most come without the danger religion comes with.

Are you basing that just on the Judeo-Christian model?
Because the church I go to is verrrry laid back...

I also think that Taoism and Buddhism are pretty laid back "in church"; in a temple or whatever the closest thing is that they have to a congregation.

Edit:

There is a lot of evidence that all religion is bullshit, and not any good evidence that it isn't. A lot of chemists have never seen the structure of an atom. In fact, none have. Yet they are very sure that the atomic model they have is correct because they have observed it. Same goes for athiests.

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.

We see this argument alot aswell, science is the best and only system of uderstanding we have, a 10 tonne truck ways 10 tonnes thats a fact we can apply it to the scale of weight we use and conclude that it is indeed 10 tonnes. There you go a fact, you're talking bullshit.

Science is more than just gravitational theory and evolution its a system we use everyday, in every task we preform countless times in our own minds. Even if you could present a different method of thinking guess what you would need to prove it through the scientific method.

Leading scientists of the time also thought your heart and/or liver controlled your body, and that emotions were caused by an imbalance in humours.

Just a thought.

P.S. Anybody heard of eugenics? That supposedly bulletproof theory was supported by Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), H.G. Wells, Arthur Balfour, and... Adolf Hitler.

P.P.S. Yes, according to the laws of genetics, it makes total sense, but it also opens the floodgates for ethical and racial mistreatment.

 

[tan-z]

Leading scientists of the time also thought your heart and/or liver controlled your body, and that emotions were caused by an imbalance in humours.

Yes, but then later they acquired more empirical evidence and expanded and changed their model to support the facts. That is the fundamental difference betwee scientific truth and religous truth. Science is willing to learn from it's mistakes, develop better models, expand our outlook on the universe and generally strive closer and show the best truth possible. Religion is dogmatic and generally inflexible to change. See: Just about every major scientific breakthrough that happened when the church still had a great deal of power in the western world that contradicted pre-existing church dogma.

P.S. Anybody heard of eugenics? That supposedly bulletproof theory was supported by Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), H.G. Wells, Arthur Balfour, and... Adolf Hitler.

P.P.S. Yes, according to the laws of genetics, it makes total sense, but it also opens the floodgates for ethical and racial mistreatment.

Maybe you could read any of the countless books showing the hollowness of social darwinism as a scientific theory specifically in regards to the inbreeding present in trying to create any kind of master race and of course the development of humans as a social species and the concept of group evolution put forward by Peter Kropotkin in the book Mutual Aid.

 

[G1eet]

Leading scientists of the time also thought your heart and/or liver controlled your body, and that emotions were caused by an imbalance in humours.

Yes, but then later they acquired more empirical evidence and expanded and changed their model to support the facts. That is the fundamental difference betwee scientific truth and religous truth. Science is willing to learn from it's mistakes, develop better models, expand our outlook on the universe and generally strive closer and show the best truth possible. Religion is dogmatic and generally inflexible to change. See: Just about every major scientific breakthrough that happened when the church still had a great deal of power in the western world that contradicted pre-existing church dogma.

Maybe you could read any of the countless books showing the hollowness of social darwinism as a scientific theory specifically in regards to the inbreeding present in trying to create any kind of master race and of course the development of humans as a social species and the concept of group evolution put forward by Peter Kropotkin in the book Mutual Aid.

Ahh, well played. That's just one little thought that's been bouncing around in my head for a while, and I wanted some feedback/dialogue.

That book's going on my list. Although it may be put out of my mind for a few days because of something of Michio Kaku's that I've been dying to finally get into. I just can't remember the name of it for the life of me.

 

[Scrythe]

I dunno what's with the misconception that Athiests are "WE KNOW THERE IS NO GOD", but it's quite annoying.

In it's core, athiesm is just "*I* simply don't believe in a god."

All those "athiests" who claim "oh we just know there isn't a god" or "SCIENCE PROVES ALL!!" or those fucktards who go to "athiest meetings" and raise funds and such? Those aren't real athiests.

Saying you're an athiest should be on par with saying, for example, that you're a vegitarian.

---

Now agnostics, on the other hand, come in many flavors, such as:

1) I was raised religious, but I think the apples and snakes story is retard. But juuuuust in case...
2) Well I'm not sure either way, so I'm sticking to the middle, see who wins. Basically 1940's Switzerland.
3) I'm an athiest, but I'm sick and tired of getting into arguments, so I'm just going to say "I don't believe in organized religion" and cover my ass

Agnostics are generally just too afraid to pick a side, so they made their own and gave it a name. Which is fine, I suppose... People have the need to fit into some kind of group.