Atheist vs Agnostic

quote:

---

If you feel comfortable in the stance "Bigfoot does not exist", then why not "God does not exist"?

---

There is no evidence that Bigfoot exists, but it is not 100% impossible that he doesn't.Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or cannot exist.It just means that we can't make a judgement either way.We don't know, and must always remain open to positive evidence.That which we don't have positive evidence for, we just don't pay any attention to.

"I know nothing, not even that I know nothing"

---

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas AdamsI wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor. Orson Scott Card

Premise: God does not exist
Observation: There is no evidence that God exist
Conclusion: God does not exist
Objection: The lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen or is not possible or does not exist.Premise: Dark matter does not exist
Observation: there is no evidence that dark matter exist
Conclusion: Dark matter does not exist.
Objection: the existance of dark matter is still being investigated.Premise: Life on other planets does not exist
Observation: there is no evidence of life on other planets
Conclusion: Life on other planets does not exist.
Objection: Not every planet in the Universe has been explored.Premise: abiogenesis is impossible
Observation: the is no current mechanism to create life from non life.
Conclusion: abiogensis is impossible
Objection: abiogenesis occurred on Earth dispite humanities ignorance of how.Just my own opinion.

To say I do not know is much more honest than to posit a answer without really knowing. It is IMO arrogant to take a position of having full knowlege of the existance of something without first having the means to investigate or even understand what is being investigated. I agree with Crashfrog on the point of what good is a god that is undectectable and unable to be substantiated. But to the faithful and many "believers" God's presence is existance itself. 2000 years ago man knew the brain was a mechanism to cool the blood. How far would humanities knowlege base be expanded if we continued to assert what we thought we knew was fact?

I'm an atheist in regards to many particular gods (IE: the God described in a literally-interpreted Bible, the Greek/Norse pantheons, etc.), but an agnostic overall. In other words, I can say as positively as I can say anything that the biblical God doesn't exist, but I can't say with certainty that no gods exist.Relating that to your question, another possibility may be that so many people define their viewpoint based on a particular god/set of gods. It's easier to think of religion only in terms of Christianity at times when you live in a region where it is so predominant as where I live, for example. I call myself an atheist, generally, as it generates the least confusion.

There is one important point here - the term "weak atheist" has only one definition. Agnostic has several - including the belief that it is in principle impossible to know that a God does or does not exist. As I have already suggested other definitions of agnostic are compatible with strong atheism (as it is possible to believe something without knowing that it is true).On the other hand one respectable source in my library (The Penguin Dictionary of Religions[/B]) explicitly lists agnosticism as a form of atheism.

Hector...(I like the name Jacen better) Here is my take on it:Premise: God does not exist
Observation: I believe that I experienced God but can produce no proof. Many others that I have talked with have had similar encounters.
Conclusion: God may exist.
Objection: The lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen or is not possible or does not exist.All have not experienced the same thing.Still, without proof, it is a matter of belief.Premise: Pink Elephants may exist.
Observation: I have never experienced pink elephants nor has anyone whom I have ever talked to. Perhaps isolated mental patients could claim such an encounter.
Conclusion: Pink Elephants still may exist, but there is much less human testimony in favor of them than with God.
Objection: Without any proof, it is all a matter of belief.Premise: Religion is a fairy tale.
Observation: Religion has caused much turmoil and much passionate extremist beliefs within humanity.
Conclusion: The beliefs within religion are more than mere fairy tales. Much is invested in these personal beliefs.
Objection:Why can't everyone just be rational and reject that poison?!
Counter Objection: Why can't everyone just accept God?

Because there is nothing to accept or trust.You can't show me God.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

It’s funny isn’t it? My Monkey is asking why don’t all atheists accept that they are really agnostics at heart whereas a while ago you were berating us agnostics for being atheists in denial I didn’t get a chance to answer you properly last time (Shraf raised most of the points that I wanted to, and I didn’t get my arse into gear to give a proper clarification), so I hope you don’t mind me explaining my position here, as you seem to be asking the same kind of questions .IMO it’s all to do balancing up the evidence and trying to personally assess the possibility of things happening:

I am for all intents and purposes an atheist(here comes the but) ButAll of these positions are based on weighing up the evidence and coming to a conclusion, but always leaving the door ajar for the possibility of new evidence that would change my mind (in some cases it would have to be nothing short of a white-bearded man-of-the clouds smiting me with holy fire). The possibility of God's or God-like entities can't be ruled out entirely, if only to ensure that I do not fall into the trap of being dogmatic about knowledge.By designating myself an agnostic, I directly acknowledge the tentativeness of my position. My own personal definition of an atheist is one who declares There is no God. This seems just as absolutist a position as There is a God, and I’ve made the decision not to subscribe to it. Practically it makes little or no difference, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling so I guess that makes it alright *Although Dan’s Lemurism deserves further investigation

quote:

---

Premise: God does not exist
Observation: I believe that I experienced God but can produce no proof. Many others that I have talked with have had similar encounters.
Conclusion: God may exist.
Objection: The lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen or is not possible or does not exist.All have not experienced the same thing.Still, without proof, it is a matter of belief.

​

Premise: Pink Elephants may exist.
Observation: I have never experienced pink elephants nor has anyone whom I have ever talked to. Perhaps isolated mental patients could claim such an encounter.
Conclusion: Pink Elephants still may exist, but there is much less human testimony in favor of them than with God.
Objection: Without any proof, it is all a matter of belief.

​

Premise: Religion is a fairy tale.
Observation: Religion has caused much turmoil and much passionate extremist beliefs within humanity.
Conclusion: The beliefs within religion are more than mere fairy tales. Much is invested in these personal beliefs.
Objection:Why can't everyone just be rational and reject that poison?!
Counter Objection: Why can't everyone just accept God?

---

Phatboy, you do realize that just because you use the words "premise" and "conclusion" doesn't mean you are actually following the rules of formal logic, don't you?You have not used ANY logic here at all.For example, your first argument shakes out as:"Not X.""Y"."Therefore, X or not X".Translation:"There is no God.I have experiences.Therefore God may or may not exist."This is not a logical construction at all. It is just rambling.All you seem to be saying is that more people claim to have experienced God than claim to have experienced Pink Elephants.

Well... yeah! That's what I've been saying.Nothing to suggest God exists, so it's kinda foolish to go around working under the assumption that it's an idea worth paying mind to. Of course, if anyone walks up to me with evidence that God (whatever that is) is there, I'm not gonna clamp my hands over my ears and scream "NONONONONO!"I'm also not gonna hold my breath waiting for it.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

Read the OP again. I'm not asking atheists to accept anything. I was interested in fostering a discussion about the distinction between atheists and agnostics and was curious as to why atheists, (or ‘strong atheists’, or ‘semi-permanent’ atheists or whatever----insert a label that best describes the subject. Please excuse me, I insert this lengthy parenthesis lest I be accused of defining words and mapping territory), close the door on the possibility of the existence of God.Yet at the same time, atheists criticize religious folk for closing the door on the possibility that evolution occurred.You at least acknowledge that for you the door is open. IMHO, this makes you more open minded that most and I suspect more willing to engage in meaningful dialog with believers.Where have I berated agnostics and accused them of being in denial?

quote:

---

I'm not asking atheists to accept anything. I was interested in fostering a discussion about the distinction between atheists and agnostics and was curious as to why atheists, (or ‘strong atheists’, or ‘semi-permanent’ atheists or whatever----insert a label that best describes the subject. Please excuse me, I insert this lengthy parenthesis lest I be accused of defining words and mapping territory), close the door on the possibility of the existence of God

---

Many atheists - even strong atheists - don't.

quote:

---

Yet at the same time, atheists criticize religious folk for closing the door on the possibility that evolution occurred

---

So basically you think that there is no difference between a personal opinion and an extremely well supported scientific conclusion ?

For me, it's not an either/or proposition. The vast majority of my opinions are formed on the basis of extremely well supported scientific conclusions, but not exclusively.

Your reply does not address the point. Rejecting evolution is quite different from rejecting belief in God sicne there is vastly more evidence for evolution.