Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2012, 11:41 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(17-05-2012 10:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think it is best to look at it as believers vs. non-believers. Each group can be broken down further, but the agnostics and the atheists share common ground against the believer crowd. That is both atheists and agnostics would prefer not to be governed by religion or subject to religious rules/customs.
That is, unless one is agnostic to being governed by religion or subject to religious rules/customs...

Or is that just a synonym for apathetic? Huh Drinking Beverage

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Hey, Erxomai.

Did I tell you that I was in the Canadian Army? We know exactly what we did. Adolph Hitler once said, "Give me German officers, American equipment and Canadian soldiers and I'll take over the world." We be bad ass. We don't need you to know that. Just remember, we already beat your ass in a war Cool

Oh, and let's get this right. Agnostics are Switzerland, thank you very much Cool

Hey, BD.

Quote:I think it is best to look at it as believers vs. non-believers.

That is why we disagree Cool

I was thinking of an analogy. Imagine a pregnant woman. Before any ultrasound, before any gender identification, someone says, "She's gonna have a girl." You and I would likely both say, "I don't share that belief," because there's no evidence to prove that the child will be female. We'd both be Agirlists. If it stopped there, there'd be two groups: Girlists and Agirlists. But if you then say, "she's having a boy," then suddenly, you and I aren't the same anymore because now I say to you, "I don't share that belief." The only reason I share neither belief is because neither has been demonstrated. I won't know until a good ultrasound or until birth. The moment I know, the instant, I'll accept whatever sex it is.

That's the thing that Agnostics believe and that Atheists don't get about what we believe. If you're an Atheist and you don't share a Theist's belief, then absolutely, you're a non-believer. But the moment you say, "God does not exist," you are, in fact, a believer. You're a believer in a universe that is Godless; an entirely natural universe. You're a believer because there is no evidence to back up that belief. There's lack of evidence, circumstantial evidence and all manner of things that can be manipulated to appear as if it's a proven fact, but in the end, it is believed because people want to believe it and for no other reason.

Agnostics are not saying that all Atheists believe that God does not exist. We can't say that because it's not true. But the notion that no Atheists anywhere believe that God does not exist is just silly. If you compare the ones that do to Theists, it's actually believers vs believers.

Agnostics are not believers, nor are we non-believers; we're accepters. We accept that which is demonstrated and accept that we don't know a thing when it has not been demonstrated. We make no choice in what we believe. That choice is made for us by demonstration or the lack thereof. There isn't a human being on this planet, alive or dead, that has proven the non-existence of God. We accept that fact for what it is. Atheists that believe there is no God do not.

Agnostics are different than those Atheists the believe there is no God. Pointe finale. And maybe it is entirely fair to say that believing there is no God is not a property of Atheism per-se. But those people are doing it and calling themselves Atheists. Atheism isn't big enough for the both of us. Either they get a new name, or we're going ahead with the divorce. We refuse to be lumped into the same category as them.

Quote:That is both atheists
and agnostics would prefer not to be governed by religion or subject to
religious rules/customs.

No. Agnostics don't want to be ruled by dogma because dogma is arbitrary. An Atheist in the White House who believes there is no God and who will level reprisals on anyone who disagrees is just as bad as an Evangelical who thinks the Bible is literal.





Yeah. We'll take door number three thanks Cool

Quote:If we can "win" that fight, then we can go back to squabbling over who is the superior non-religious group.

You can have the title. Here. Take it. Where do I sign? It's not us and them. It's you and them and us. Triangle.

Quote:Doesn't matter much though in my opinion.

Because you don't lose anything. We do.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
17-05-2012, 11:56 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
I think I can safely chime in that I'm agnostic with regard to this debate - but I find it fascinating Smile

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Seasbury's post
17-05-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Alright, non-religious vs. religious then.

Agnostics get to choose whatever side they want, I am not arguing about that, but someone who is a true agnostic (as you describe it) is surely not swayed more towards the religious side. I'm not saying that means you are de facto on the atheist side, but you share common ground. That's it. Just like Catholics and Evangelicals share common ground under the title "Christian" but differ in more ways than they are similar.

You say triangle, and some would say it is a Cartesian space. I don't see how it matters all that much. I don't see the point in putting agnostics under the title of atheists, but putting atheists and agnostics together under a different title (like non-religious or non-believers) is beneficial in some ways. You say atheists don't lose anything? That's because most atheists would probably identify as agnostic atheists and identify as much with one group as they do the other. I would say I qualify under that. I use the term atheist not because I am 100% certain about the subject of god's existence, but because given our current body of knowledge, it seems to be highly unlikely and necessary to say that a god exists. As I said earlier in this thread, if the invention of god had never been created by man, the invention of atheism would be unnecessary.

In any other realm of debate, I would never define myself off of what I don't believe. I think of atheism as the default setting for all life, and agnostic or theist as an acquired position. I'm agnostic in the sense that non-existence of something that doesn't exist can never be positively proven, but god is an unnecessary assumption and I believe the default to be atheist.

Agnostic vs. Atheist seems to be a squabbling over definitions and what the default belief of a human is, but I don't think it is anything more than that. I don't think an agnostic president would force atheists to do something that goes against their beliefs and I don't think an atheist president would force absolute non-belief on agnostics. The goal here is secularism, and that means free of religion. It doesn't mean "no religion" and it doesn't mean "only one religious opinion" nor is at a synonym for atheism.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 02:55 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Hey, BD.

I want to preface this by saying I have a feeling that the following could very easily be perceived as smarmy. I swear to you that it's not. I'm totally cereal Cool

Quote:Agnostics get to choose whatever side they want, I am not arguing about
that, but someone who is a true agnostic (as you describe it) is surely
not swayed more towards the religious side. I'm not saying that means
you are de facto on the atheist side, but you share common ground.
That's it.

Equivalent means equivalent. I think that Theists and Atheists (the No God [NG] ones we're talking about, not the entry-level belief lackers) are equally dogmatic. What seems implied in your statement is that I'd have more of an inclination to be swayed towards Atheism. But I don't. It's like, "Surely you'd rather be stabbed to death than shot." No actually. I'll take neither please. Neither option holds ANY interest for me.

When discussing the NG Atheists, I share almost no common ground. That's what people aren't getting. To Atheists, Agnostics are viewed as the family member who just needs to calm down and come back to the dinner table. But that's just it. We aren't even related to NG Atheists.

Agnostics are in the middle. Exactly. We don't swing to either side. Well, I suppose that's too absolute a statement and that individuals may feel they lean to one side, but in the strictest sense, we don't.

Quote:I don't think an agnostic president would force atheists to do something
that goes against their beliefs and I don't think an atheist president
would force absolute non-belief on agnostics.

Now you've hit on exactly why NG Atheists are viewed as a problem by Agnostics.

An Agnostic president would only pass laws based on what is known. Theoretically anyway, the rigours of politics seem to turn the best person into a total douche.

But NG Atheists are dogmatic. Their defining choice, to believe that there is no God, was not based in fact, but on desire. They believe the world is the way they want it to be. That CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED because it is ARBITRARY. I can't trust them to base their policy on demonstrated fact because clearly they have the capacity to ignore it when it suits their purpose.

I don't know what they'd impose on me, or on others, if it suited their purposes. And that's not a society I want to foster.

So the difference, to me, between an Evangelical president and an NG Atheist president is six of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't want the separation of church and state, I want the separation of DOGMA and state. I want a government and a society that makes the necessary changes when new facts have been demonstrated, not one that picks and chooses. In the end, nothing's perfect, but I trust science WAY more than I trust people and I want my leaders to trust it too; ESPECIALLY when it's inconvenient.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 03:16 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2012 04:22 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(17-05-2012 11:45 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Agnostics are different than those Atheists the believe there is no God. Pointe finale. And maybe it is entirely fair to say that believing there is no God is not a property of Atheism per-se. But those people are doing it and calling themselves Atheists. Atheism isn't big enough for the both of us. Either they get a new name, or we're going ahead with the divorce. We refuse to be lumped into the same category as them.
No, they are not.

Any respectable, intelligent human being, who philosophically identifies as an agnostic to the question 'Does god(s) exist', also identifies as an atheist outside of philosophy, in science/the real world; not only as a negative stance on the claim/belief that god(s) exist (i.e. theism/deism), but most make that claim you were talking about, that 'god(s) doesn't exist'.

So, if you're in a search for names to be called, with that argument you made, you might as well keep searching.

You're just taking a stance that no one is asking for. How many times has anyone asked you if god exists? They most likely will always ask, specifically, if you believe. Even if they ask does god exist originally they'll always come back to the question, do you believe. Many people, who don't want to be pretentious, pseudo-intellectual bitches, who identify as agnostics, also identify as atheist, not only because that is what they are by definition, but because it answers the question that practical people care about.

Like I said, agnostic is a philosophical term. It's a response to the philosophy on the existence of god. When you ask yourself the question 'does god(s) exist, you are initiating philosophy. After some time, you'll reach the conclusion that it is impossible to know if god exists or not.

Religious people have to identify as agnostic, because they have no footholds in science. Philosophy evens the score, because it allows people to view the answer as 50/50. There is an answer to the question, and there are only 2 possibilities to choose from. It is either up or down, yes or no, true or false: in philosophy that is 50/50.

In science however, it is not even close to 50/50. Science is a discipline that deals with the world empirically and based on observation, hypothesis, examination, experimentation, and evidence. The claim of god didn't make it past hypothesis. It was an idea that came about based on primitive observation. In the realm of science, god doesn't exist; it is an idea that is not experimentally testable or observable. It is, as a truth, pretty much as close as you can get to 0% on the side of the positive claim that says 'god exists' and as close as you can get to 100% on the side that makes the positive claim that 'no god exists'. Is there still possibility in there, yes, but you'd be an idiot to bet your chips on it.

Anyone who identifies as an agnostic over atheist, outside of the philosophy, needs to get their shit together. There is absolutely ZERO, that is none, nothing at all, evidence to support a claim that god exists. Theism is just a silly children's game. Theists base everything in there lives on an idea they made up themselves: that god exists. They operate on an infinitely large football field and continually move the goal-posts/end-zone backwards every time rational, intelligent people get ready to score; we have been in the red-zone for centuries if not way longer. The naive atheists who call themselves agnostics, need to stop purposefully making excuses to warm the bench, purely because they are scared to get hit.

There has been absolutely no reason to believe the claims of theists since the great enlightenment, and the claims of deist, were shredded by science short after that. The only god that could possibly exist, given science, and what we know, would be one that has absolutely zero properties aside from existence. If you're such a skeptic and you think that at some time in the future a god that isn't right now, will pop into existence go ahead, but it is completely idiotic. It looks as certain as certain gets, that god does not exists, and even if there was or could be a god, you have already made the claim that we will never know, so get the with the damned times. Stop living as if the theory of evolution, the theory of general/special relativity, the big bang theory, quantum theory, the Hubble telescope, plate tectonics, meteorology, etc, etc. didn't exist.

If you still say that it isn't reasonable to believe that god doesn't exist, there is nothing I can do more to help you; if you think that scientifically there isn't significant reason to claim that god(s) does not exists you are being naive and forgetting the why the idea of god was even raised.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
17-05-2012, 03:25 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
I would not want anyone in office that dictates any sort of dogma one way or the other or let's their personal beliefs interfere with their governing ability, irregardless of their belief system. I don't care if a christian is elected, an agnostic, or an atheist, as long as their personal beliefs remain separate from their politics. In this sense, an agnostic that asserts themselves and uses their personal views on religion and/or god to dictate government policies would be just as bad as an atheist that did or an evangelical. I think you are arguing against a point I did not really make, that is that I would want an atheist president encouraging atheist beliefs on the country, no. I want a government that is secular and leaves religious views (or lack thereof) out of their governing policies. Individuals choose their views on religion, not the government in a secular society.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 04:36 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Ghost is only arguing 'cause he's a theist. Big Grin

I'm only arguing 'cause I'm an asshole. I'm sure there is some of that going around. I mean, it ain't like you'll burn in hell for calling me an agnostic or anything... you'll just get a punch in the nose. Tongue

I kan understand if they feel the same way.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
17-05-2012, 04:53 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(17-05-2012 10:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am all for individuals labeling themselves, as long as they do so accurately. It is not my place to label you nor include or exclude you. This applies to the term "Christian" too. That was a term that only recently became popular again (around the 50's). If you go back far enough people would have identified by the group they associate with, like Mormon or baptist or evangelical (obviously some still do that). I think they should still. The blanket term of "Christian" is far too inclusive. It includes a wide range of beliefs from the far left to the far right, and politicians brandy it about to capture votes.
I agree. Going back to more specific labels would avoid the unpleasantness of watching one less than humble Christian telling another one that they aren't a "true" Christian.

[Image: rSJ3y4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 05:29 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Now that I got the asshole bit outta the way, I hafta wonder if it's a moral issue. Yeah, I'm like that. Whenever it comes down to peeps saying "I'm right" or "we're right," I'm thinking morality. And I'm thinking that way cause I consider morality to be chemical intelligence, in this case, a biological imperative. So we got peeps talking about a political initiative, but if we can remember that it is evolutionary drive, mebbe we won't hafta kill each other over it...

Then again... if one "lacks knowledge," how can one be certain one is right? Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: