The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2017, 08:44 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(22-11-2017 05:46 AM)M. Linoge Wrote:  
(21-11-2017 11:03 PM)Aerika Wrote:  But that doesn't mean my kin in the agnostic community are. And move the line of atheism all you like, by saying 'don't you agree x' and 'that's atheism!'. But that's a trait left over from indoctrination and many of us have now built a defence to that kind of manipulation. My bullshit metre was screaming. Well-intentioned though it was, Seth came in with a conclusion (which is fine), and when that conclusion was challenged, I feel he started getting shaky goalposts.

I just found it frustrating to watch. I understand wanting to band together under the title of atheism. Some of us are just more comfortable since we started in a social group defined by a title, some are just conscious that a stable title gives us a better position politically.
Last time I argued with an agnostic the other party pitched a fit like you wouldn’t believe and posted in caps ‘how would you feel if I called you a rapist’!?
I still don't know exactly what set him off, so I will apologize in advance and hope I don't come across as too offensive.

What Seth did was explain how the caller fit his(and mine and every honest atheist I know) interpretation of the word. It's not a trick.
The line of atheism has never moved for as long as I have been alive. People can be a lot of things while also being an atheist and non-atheists can slander us from the outside but the line remains the same.

I don’t think atheists in general want to band together. If that was important those of us who have converted probably would have chosen to stay where they were.
Much more political power that way.

To me, the guy at the hour mark seemed a little confused. It sounded like he ascribed the negative attributes of people who put bacon in the food of kindergarteners to drive away muslims, to atheism.
The people he talked about who wanted to ban beards, ”because beards are a part of religion”, might be anti-theistic to an extreme degree, or simply anti-muslim.
Which is kinda understandable given the cartoon incident that caused devout Muslims to burn down Danish embassies, murdering hundreds and boycotting their trade. No wonder they're pissed.
To call the beard-haters strictly atheists doing an “atheist thing” is a victory for religious propaganda. It’s wrong, for the same reason it is wrong to label those who want a new holy war “theists.” Not terrorists, fanatics, murders or jihadists – just average theists, when the truth is most who label themselves theist want to live their lives in peace.

Thanks. And don't worry about offending me. I'm socially awkward in the first place (which is why I sometimes make overly long comments) and have offended many people unintentionally. If you offend me I'll explain why and how since I would like (but down always get) the same courtesy.

I do appreciate the qualification. I agree that the caller did seem to have misconceptions about atheism. But I think his case for remaining agnostic was pretty clear. With the goalposts part, I got the impression from the section where Seth was saying 'you're killing me'. On my end, I understood the callers' reluctance to agree. It makes him appear to be conceding to the overall notion of what makes an atheist when he didn't identify that way. It's like arguing with a Christian and when they reach a point where they realize the weakness in their arguments they go 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. Logically, you should agree with them. But inside you're like 'but you're WRONG!!!' lol.

Moving the atheism goalposts to me is where you leave the simplicity of atheism behind and start attaching things to it. Atheist being a lack of belief in god/s. If you then start saying that as long as you live your life in absence of gods, regardless of whether or not you have said one way or the other, you are an atheist. There's a grey area there. You may be an agnostic theist, where you believe god/s can't be proven but believe they do. An agnostic atheist would believe that god/s can't be proven but believe they don't (my perspective), or a pure agnostic who doesn't believe god/s can be proven and doesn't hold a definite belief as to whether they do or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2017, 08:51 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(22-11-2017 08:09 AM)SYZ Wrote:  G'day mate, and welcome to the forums. Smile

(21-11-2017 11:03 PM)Aerika Wrote:  I'm an agnostic atheist but I'm more agnostic than atheist. It's impossible to prove whether a god does or doesn't exist without a stable definition...

In my opinion, there can be no such definition as an "agnostic atheist"—as each is mutually contradictory by definition. One is either an atheist or an agnostic, but you can't be both at the same time. It's like saying a woman is slightly pregnant.

And as an atheist, it's not up to me to prove that gods don't exist. As the proponents of this claim, it's up to the theists to prove that they do exist. If I claim I can fly, then I have to jump off the roof to prove it—I can't realistically expect you to disprove it.

I can also challenge you to prove that leprechauns don't exist, but you'll be unable to.

I gave both definitions of the terms in my post using Seth's own determination of what atheism is at its core (which is also the standard definition). They differ from yours. In context, they are not exclusive.

And thanks for the welcome Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aerika's post
23-11-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(22-11-2017 09:16 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(21-11-2017 11:03 PM)Aerika Wrote:  I'm an agnostic atheist but I'm more agnostic than atheist. It's impossible to prove whether a god does or doesn't exist without a stable definition. There's no way to reach a conclusion.

There are indeed "stable" definitions for gods or God -- several of them in fact (theism, deism, pantheism, etc). And they all have arguments against them which make each of them highly improbable if not impossible. So when you say "There's no way to reach a conclusion," you are actually thinking there must be some one-size-fits-all argument against all gods or God. In fact, there are plenty of different ways to arrive at conclusions, depending on the God concept, and we discuss them here all the time.

That's the point. No matter what there will always be a new definition of a deity. You can debunk each individual religious text, but what you disprove will be partitioned off into the 'metaphor' box. You'll find this with evidence right now, when you talk to Christians and present evidence you'll find that being the common go-to perspective.

There are also people who say that energy itself is 'god'.

But even if we pinned religious people down and got them to confirm what makes a god besides 'nice feelings', there's nothing to say it was a god in the first place or simply a higher intelligence. And if the definition of gods was a higher intelligence, then we are all gods. It also stands that if there is such a being, they would be capable of ensuring they are never found and falsifying facts (many Christians have argued this with me in the past), therefore no evidence we find is relevant to the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aerika's post
23-11-2017, 11:50 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(23-11-2017 08:44 AM)Aerika Wrote:  
(22-11-2017 05:46 AM)M. Linoge Wrote:  Last time I argued with an agnostic the other party pitched a fit like you wouldn’t believe and posted in caps ‘how would you feel if I called you a rapist’!?
I still don't know exactly what set him off, so I will apologize in advance and hope I don't come across as too offensive.

What Seth did was explain how the caller fit his(and mine and every honest atheist I know) interpretation of the word. It's not a trick.
The line of atheism has never moved for as long as I have been alive. People can be a lot of things while also being an atheist and non-atheists can slander us from the outside but the line remains the same.

I don’t think atheists in general want to band together. If that was important those of us who have converted probably would have chosen to stay where they were.
Much more political power that way.

To me, the guy at the hour mark seemed a little confused. It sounded like he ascribed the negative attributes of people who put bacon in the food of kindergarteners to drive away muslims, to atheism.
The people he talked about who wanted to ban beards, ”because beards are a part of religion”, might be anti-theistic to an extreme degree, or simply anti-muslim.
Which is kinda understandable given the cartoon incident that caused devout Muslims to burn down Danish embassies, murdering hundreds and boycotting their trade. No wonder they're pissed.
To call the beard-haters strictly atheists doing an “atheist thing” is a victory for religious propaganda. It’s wrong, for the same reason it is wrong to label those who want a new holy war “theists.” Not terrorists, fanatics, murders or jihadists – just average theists, when the truth is most who label themselves theist want to live their lives in peace.

Thanks. And don't worry about offending me. I'm socially awkward in the first place (which is why I sometimes make overly long comments) and have offended many people unintentionally. If you offend me I'll explain why and how since I would like (but down always get) the same courtesy.

I do appreciate the qualification. I agree that the caller did seem to have misconceptions about atheism. But I think his case for remaining agnostic was pretty clear. With the goalposts part, I got the impression from the section where Seth was saying 'you're killing me'. On my end, I understood the callers' reluctance to agree. It makes him appear to be conceding to the overall notion of what makes an atheist when he didn't identify that way. It's like arguing with a Christian and when they reach a point where they realize the weakness in their arguments they go 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. Logically, you should agree with them. But inside you're like 'but you're WRONG!!!' lol.

Moving the atheism goalposts to me is where you leave the simplicity of atheism behind and start attaching things to it. Atheist being a lack of belief in god/s. If you then start saying that as long as you live your life in absence of gods, regardless of whether or not you have said one way or the other, you are an atheist. There's a grey area there. You may be an agnostic theist, where you believe god/s can't be proven but believe they do. An agnostic atheist would believe that god/s can't be proven but believe they don't (my perspective), or a pure agnostic who doesn't believe god/s can be proven and doesn't hold a definite belief as to whether they do or not.
I see no grey area at all. There is no shred of evidence even suggesting existence of something called god. There is no reason to think that something called god could exists; god is garage dragon, word void of meaning.

Maybe we can't prove that something called god does not exists but there is no reason for even trying given that we know enough to not see deity behind every event of importance. Laplace already didn't needed god, we should just follow his example.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
If somebody wants to call me an atheist, then I guess it's fair for me to call them a moron for believing in some invisible avenger that never shows up for roll call.

....

I'm a double atheist. I don't believe in your god or your politician.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2017, 09:56 PM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(23-11-2017 11:50 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-11-2017 08:44 AM)Aerika Wrote:  Thanks. And don't worry about offending me. I'm socially awkward in the first place (which is why I sometimes make overly long comments) and have offended many people unintentionally. If you offend me I'll explain why and how since I would like (but down always get) the same courtesy.

I do appreciate the qualification. I agree that the caller did seem to have misconceptions about atheism. But I think his case for remaining agnostic was pretty clear. With the goalposts part, I got the impression from the section where Seth was saying 'you're killing me'. On my end, I understood the callers' reluctance to agree. It makes him appear to be conceding to the overall notion of what makes an atheist when he didn't identify that way. It's like arguing with a Christian and when they reach a point where they realize the weakness in their arguments they go 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. Logically, you should agree with them. But inside you're like 'but you're WRONG!!!' lol.

Moving the atheism goalposts to me is where you leave the simplicity of atheism behind and start attaching things to it. Atheist being a lack of belief in god/s. If you then start saying that as long as you live your life in absence of gods, regardless of whether or not you have said one way or the other, you are an atheist. There's a grey area there. You may be an agnostic theist, where you believe god/s can't be proven but believe they do. An agnostic atheist would believe that god/s can't be proven but believe they don't (my perspective), or a pure agnostic who doesn't believe god/s can be proven and doesn't hold a definite belief as to whether they do or not.
I see no grey area at all. There is no shred of evidence even suggesting existence of something called god. There is no reason to think that something called god could exists; god is garage dragon, word void of meaning.

Maybe we can't prove that something called god does not exists but there is no reason for even trying given that we know enough to not see deity behind every event of importance. Laplace already didn't needed god, we should just follow his example.

That's because you're an atheist that treats their atheism like a religion (from your comments). Absolutism is a religious trait. Science doesn't work by cutting off avenues. Science starts with a question. It never ends, but a consensus can be reached until further evidence comes up. Scientists with far more years of education than us both put together, have not managed to reach a conclusion on deities to the point where it can be considered scientific fact. Every time they come out with evidence, the religious will move the goalposts. In this vein, the search never ends.

But if that way of thinking gives you comfort, continue. I'm comfortable with an endless pursuit of truth, and not having all the answers. But that's because I love science. Your journey is your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2017, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2017 08:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(23-11-2017 09:56 PM)Aerika Wrote:  
(23-11-2017 11:50 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I see no grey area at all. There is no shred of evidence even suggesting existence of something called god. There is no reason to think that something called god could exists; god is garage dragon, word void of meaning.

Maybe we can't prove that something called god does not exists but there is no reason for even trying given that we know enough to not see deity behind every event of importance. Laplace already didn't needed god, we should just follow his example.

That's because you're an atheist that treats their atheism like a religion (from your comments). Absolutism is a religious trait. Science doesn't work by cutting off avenues. Science starts with a question. It never ends, but a consensus can be reached until further evidence comes up. Scientists with far more years of education than us both put together, have not managed to reach a conclusion on deities to the point where it can be considered scientific fact. Every time they come out with evidence, the religious will move the goalposts. In this vein, the search never ends.

But if that way of thinking gives you comfort, continue. I'm comfortable with an endless pursuit of truth, and not having all the answers. But that's because I love science. Your journey is your own.

No. Complete nonsense. The existence of the gods is not *even* the subject of scientific inquiry, nor is there any way it could possibly be. There is no published literature. No real scientist has ever actually studied the question. It's not possible to design a study. Your claim about "have not managed to reach a conclusion" is false. They have not even discussed the question. If you have studies, reference them. "They" never come out with evidence about the gods. Clearly your knowledge of science is very limited.

Edit : We are neither limited to anyone's interpretation of Seth's definition, nor are we limited to a standard view of anything.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-11-2017, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2017 11:05 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(23-11-2017 09:56 PM)Aerika Wrote:  
(23-11-2017 11:50 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I see no grey area at all. There is no shred of evidence even suggesting existence of something called god. There is no reason to think that something called god could exists; god is garage dragon, word void of meaning.

Maybe we can't prove that something called god does not exists but there is no reason for even trying given that we know enough to not see deity behind every event of importance. Laplace already didn't needed god, we should just follow his example.

That's because you're an atheist that treats their atheism like a religion (from your comments). Absolutism is a religious trait. Science doesn't work by cutting off avenues. Science starts with a question. It never ends, but a consensus can be reached until further evidence comes up. Scientists with far more years of education than us both put together, have not managed to reach a conclusion on deities to the point where it can be considered scientific fact. Every time they come out with evidence, the religious will move the goalposts. In this vein, the search never ends.

But if that way of thinking gives you comfort, continue. I'm comfortable with an endless pursuit of truth, and not having all the answers. But that's because I love science. Your journey is your own.

I don't see evidence for existence of something called god so I treat atheism as religion? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

If you're comfortable in deluding yourself that something called god might exist but we after untold years of search have found no evidence then go ahead; fact that theists change definition when it suit them does not mean that there is something to be found, god is just ultimate garage dragon.

Edit: Maybe try to read Stenger "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
24-11-2017, 03:01 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
Whatever we call ourselves, I hope we can agree that:

1) The religious cartoon characters are bullshit and don't merit any serious consideration

2) Generic, faceless, ill-defined "gods" are of no relevance whatsoever

Either way, we live as if these things don't exist. Arguing over exactly how much likelihood something relevant has somehow escaped our attention our whole lives is kind of... irrelevant.

Of course, I don't intend to speak for everyone. If anyone does disagree I'd be interested to hear about it, from whatever source.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
24-11-2017, 03:08 AM
RE: The Difference Between Atheist And Agnostic
(23-11-2017 08:51 AM)Aerika Wrote:  And thanks for the welcome Smile

The Atheist Foundation of Australia says in its preamble:

"Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, gods or the supernatural."

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, gods or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

As an atheist, I know that the supernatural (as it's called) does not exist, and the notion of gods is due to nothing more than mans' fertile imagination.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: