Atheist vs Agnostic

So how do your beliefs and my beliefs differ? I took the key points that I wish to address from this statement. I read the book and found that the beliefs which I have been taught and which I chose to embrace were in fact verified by many like minded people. These are not the swindling televangelists...these are respected (yes there are some!) leaders in Christian teaching. Some key points?

Nobody really seeks God. It is an observed trait that humans really don't wish to find a God who does not allow them to define and draft the terms of the relationship.
Everybody wants a God of human verification and definition, but NOBODY wants a God who actually out thinks us in every capacity. Naturally there is never any evidence for such a God, for He is beyond quantification.

As has already been mentioned, there seems to be as many defintions of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" as there are atheists and agnostics.If someone were to ask me, do you believe in the existance of any god, I'd say no... and to me, this makes me an atheist.In most cases I've found that the word "agnostic" to a lot of people is connected to somehow admitting that believing in god and not believing in god is in some way both equally valid stances on the issue... a 50/50 deal. While this is hardly the useage of the word "agnostic" you find in a dictionary (or on this board for that matter), this is how I've seen the word used most in everyday life, and therefore, I don't like the idea of using the word to describe my stance on god. I simply don't want people to associate me with that sort of wishy-washy stance.I'd like to say though, that I don't in any way consider the issue closed. I don't believe in god, nor do I belive in invisible untouchable dragons, but if there is new and compelling positive evidence that imply otherwise, I'd gladly reconsider both my stance on the existance of god and the existance of invisible untouchable dragons.

This is how I define atheism and agnosticism.Atheist: lack of belief in god(s).
Agnostic: lack of knowledge of god(s).So by that definition I'd be both atheist and agnostic. One could also be theist agnostic (believe, but have no "knowledge"); or plain ol' theist (believe in God and believe they have knowledge of God too.)I guess the stronger atheist position can be taken as "belief in no god(s)" and a stronger agnostic position can be "belief that knowledge of god(s) is impossible to obtain". I don't subscribe to either of these views, however.

Quoting Maxwell's Demon: "I simply don't want people to associate me with that sort of wishy-washy stance."That's cute. My so-called "friends" back in high school claimed the agnostic position and when I said I was atheist they treated me like I was some sort of religious bigot because "all they were claiming was they're not sure" while I was supposedly set in my arrogant beliefs. I'd rather be associated with what most people seem to define as agnosticism ("simply don't know whether God exists or not") but I'm pedantic and it strikes me as a stupid definition because most people aren't sure and wouldn't claim to be certain about their convictions. To define yourself as agnostic that way is to label others as being presumptuous and well, hardheaded (at least in that respect).smilie edit by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-03-2005 01:32 AM

I think a perfectly agnostic person when asked "Does God exist?" would say "I don't know and I cannot say one way or another."Not, "I don't know if God exists just like I don't know if Santa Clause exists." Well, if we were all perfectly logical machines then that's how it would be, but other things factor into our thoughts.The pending existence of God is pretty dang important. I mean if God is the only reason for living and there is an afterlife then the question of his existence is really the most important of life. So for most people I think it is pretty hard to hold a completely neutral ground as an agnostic and say "I don't know and I have no opinion one way or the other." Most agnostics would tend to say, "I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty darn sure God doesn't exist," and then equate God to something absurd because it feels better and is more reassuring to think that you are right rather than to think that you don't know.Some would say that solid evidence for God must be presented to even entertain the idea of God and since no such evidence exists God is a non issue. IMO, since this conatains a judgement that God (whatever that might be) probably doesn't exist this can be called weak atheism expressed in a scientific worldview vocabulary.IMO, there is enough prima facie evidence to make the existence of God a valid question, but then I don't live by a scientific worldview.

To me, saying "God is a non issue" appears to avoid the question. There are many, many concepts that are not supported by solid evidence. Take for example the concept of parallel universes. No solid evidence has been presented for their existence.Do those individuals say "parallel universes are a non issue" or do they say, "I don't know if parallel universes exists".And if parallel universes are considered a non issue, then does that imply they are unworthy of further discussion?

quote:

---

Do those individuals say "parallel universes are a non issue" or do they say, "I don't know if parallel universes exists".

---

If you understand the word "issue" as a point or matter under dispute then parallel universes are a non issue for me.If you ask the question "Do parallel universes exist?" then my answer would be "I don't know if parallel universes exists."If you ask the question "Does an all powerful God exist?" then my answer would be "I don't know if an all powerful God exists."Now if you ask me to categorize my parallel universe beliefs or disbeliefs (pick a specific camp so to speak), I would choose a category closest to my feelings, but I would say that parallel universes are a non issue since my thoughts don't truly fit into the choices given. Plus when the conversation is over, I won't think of parallel universes again, until the subject is brought up again.

quote:

---

To me, saying "God is a non issue" appears to avoid the question.

---

It doesn't avoid the question, it explains their position. Understand their position and adjust your paradigm.

quote:

---

And if parallel universes are considered a non issue, then does that imply they are unworthy of further discussion?

---

No, but you aren't discussing parallel universes, you are discussing the categories, or your labels assigned to each camp of thought.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hello again (well...later can mean next day can'y it )I’d better be careful here, I get the feeling that I could stray into a couple of unrelated topics all too easily.Although I try and avoid over-use of analogies, I’d like to try and expand on the "leaving the door open" thing a bit:Not every door is equal — some are more open than others. How draughty each ‘door’ gets is directly related to the amount of evidence that I see to support it. My evolution door is wide open, whereas my door to a literal Christian God is almost entirely closed.In science the amount of supporting evidence a theory has defines how established it is and how confident we are of basing ideas and actions upon on it. I believe the same principle can be applied to faith based actions.For example, you mention parallel universes in another post. I don’t fully understand the latest developments in String theory (or M-theory or whatever they are calling it nowadays), but I’m fairly certain that people aren’t building spaceships based on those calculations. Many people of faith on the other hand are basing their attitudes and actions on something, which to me is even less tangible than theoretical physics, and (as demonstrated by the EvC debate) this has very real consequences.So, to sum up my thoughts on this comment: it’s a weight of evidence thing. I still accept the possibility of a 'God' existing in some form but he's got a lot of work to do to tip the balance, and I start acting on it.

quote:

---

So how do your beliefs and my beliefs differ?

---

Two main ways, I think:1) I doubt the existance of that for which I have no objective, reliable, physical evidence for. By contrast, you have totally embraced an evidenceless belief and hold no doubt at all.2) I have a great respect for and a descent understanding of the ways humans are easily fooled and self-deceived. I know that we are, at our cores, creatures of convenience and comfort. Rationality and logic are not natural for us; they are hard and have to be taught. The tendency for making snap judgements before we have all information, and making group alliances and close bonding that comes from religious thought both seem plausible to me as being selected for early in our evolution.I think you have some pretty large blind and deaf spots regarding this kind of evidence and you put WAY too much trust in your own feelings being indicative of reality.

quote:

---

I took the key points that I wish to address from this statement. I read the book and found that the beliefs which I have been taught and which I chose to embrace were in fact verified by many like minded people. These are not the swindling televangelists...these are respected (yes there are some!) leaders in Christian teaching. Some key points?

​

Nobody really seeks God. It is an observed trait that humans really don't wish to find a God who does not allow them to define and draft the terms of the relationship.

---

I would say that humans have been drafting the terms of the arrangement of the "relationship" for as long as they have believed in God/gods/spirits.Do you believe that the ancient Greeks pretty much made up their pantheon of gods to explain various natural phenomena and justify their actions? I do, and I think you probably do, too.Now, I also believe that the ancient Jews made up their one God (borrowing heavily from previous religions and other mythological stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh which you probably do not accept as True) to explain various natural phenomena and to justify their actions.What you have not been able to tell me is why your belief is any different from their belief? They had lots and lots of people believing just the same as they. The Greeks and Romans ruled much of the world for around 3,000 years. Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism all go back much farther than Christianity and the Chinese culture which sustained all three is hundreds of thousands of years old. Taoism especially is extremely old.If you want to place a ot of stock in how many people believe the same thing, they you had better convert to one of these older religions which has had many more people practice them over the centuries compared to Evangelical Christianity, and they have shown their truth through survival.

quote:

---

Everybody wants a God of human verification and definition, but NOBODY wants a God who actually out thinks us in every capacity. Naturally there is never any evidence for such a God, for He is beyond quantification.

---

But the God of the Bible is NOTHING if he isn't a God of human verification and definition!

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

The pending existence of God is pretty dang important. I mean if God is the only reason for living and there is an afterlife then the question of his existence is really the most important of life.

---

I guess so, if you accept those two rather enormous "ifs".But, you don't really know if those two "ifs" are valid or not.

quote:

---

So for most people I think it is pretty hard to hold a completely neutral ground as an agnostic and say "I don't know and I have no opinion one way or the other."

---

To not be able to reach a conclusion, yet still be leaning one way or another due to the consideration of evidence or logical analysis, is not a flawed position.

quote:

---

Most agnostics would tend to say, "I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty darn sure God doesn't exist," and then equate God to something absurd

---

But the idea of God existing IS absurd from an objective standpoint.You are coming at this already invested in your own mythology. You have great respect for and awe in your own conception of God and no respect at all and nothing but disdain for any other concept which you happen to not agree with. You have your personal preferred beliefs set up on an untouchable pedestal, revered and honored, but all the rest of the world's beliefs you can look at without reverence, and so can label them "absurd".An agnostic is not invested in any mythology, so they can evaluate all of them on a fairly equal basis, or at least with much less prejudice than you can. We have no sacred cows.

quote:

---

because it feels better and is more reassuring to think that you are right rather than to think that you don't know.

---

This sword cuts both ways, my friend.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2005 10:12 AM

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

Hi Ooook!I do have a reply for you, but the pesky needs of my day to day existence encroach on the available time I have on this board. I'll get back to you later.

Very well put. This is precisely how I feel about god. While it may be entertaining now and then to speculate what constitutes 'god' or whether god exists, I feel the same way about parallel universes, time travel, extra-terrestrials: at the end of the day, these are non-issues for me. For all practical purposes they have no impact on my life.It is NOT a copout to say belief in god is a non-issue. What makes that answer unpalatable to MyMonkey, and others, is that belief in god obviously plays an important role in his life so he just can't fathom that some people say this is a non-issue, not because they are equivocating, but because it actually is a non-issue for them.This is similar to the attitude I get from ardent vegans who just can't stomach (sorry) the idea that I care more about how my steak was cooked, than whether the steer had a fulfilling life.

Not to nitpick, but I'm a bit of a history buff so it's hard to let this go.This was a minor slip: It was about half that at best. The Greeks didn't rise as a 'world' power until after Alexander defeated the Persian empire around 330 BC. The last vestige of the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, ended in 1453 at the hands of the Turks.But this was downright criminal: To the best of my knowledge 'Chinese culture' could be considered to go back as far as 1000 BC, when 'China' was comprised of many smaller Kingdoms.But I think you make a compelling point in spite of these historical errors.I especially like this statement:

quote:

---

I would say that humans have been drafting the terms of the arrangement of the "relationship" for as long as they have believed in God/gods/spirits.

---

Absolutely agree.

quote:

---

I think a perfectly agnostic person when asked "Does God exist?" would say "I don't know and I cannot say one way or another."

---

This has been stated by me and others and I would like to expand on it a little. When I say that I "don't know" I am saying that I can't tell the difference between a genuine religious experience and something my mind is just making up. Some people, such as yourself, put faith in these experiences. They believe that they can tell the difference. This is perhaps the biggest difference that I see between theists and agnostics.

quote:

---

Well, if we were all perfectly logical machines then that's how it would be, but other things factor into our thoughts.

---

I will be the last one to claim that humans are perfectly logical machines. I also think it is a good thing that we are not machines. Theology and philosophy have shaped our history as a species, both of which can be quite illogical and irrational at times.

quote:

---

The pending existence of God is pretty dang important. I mean if God is the only reason for living and there is an afterlife then the question of his existence is really the most important of life.

---

I gave up on an afterlife a long time ago, so the "pending existence" really isn't that important. What is important is the one life I am guarateed, the one I am experiencing now. I can't think of a way to express it, but there seems to be a difference in how one approaches life with these two opposing viewpoints (ie belief or non-belief in an afterlife). Maybe if I fart out some evil demons my thought processes will clear up (this is a little inside joke here at EvC, so don't worry if you don't get it).

quote:

---

Most agnostics would tend to say, "I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty darn sure God doesn't exist," and then equate God to something absurd because it feels better and is more reassuring to think that you are right rather than to think that you don't know.

---

I see just the opposite hapenning. I see theists who need to believe in a god because it makes them feel better and more reassured about their place in the world. As Schraf says, the sword cuts both ways on this one. I often hear people proclaim that after their religious conversion they felt "a weight lifted off their shoulders" or "an inner peace that I had never felt before". It would seem to me that religion has soothed the savage breast for quite some time within human societies. We even have adages such as "there are no atheists in foxholes" that portray this sentiment. I think we all tend to go with what makes us feel best. For some it is more emotional and for some it is more intellectual. I don't think one is better than the other, but they can have different outcomes.

quote:

---

Some would say that solid evidence for God must be presented to even entertain the idea of God and since no such evidence exists God is a non issue. IMO, since this conatains a judgement that God (whatever that might be) probably doesn't exist this can be called weak atheism expressed in a scientific worldview vocabulary.

---

I wouldn't say it is "scientific worldview vocabulary", at least it isn't with me. I have entertained the idea of God, but without evidence that would rule out my own mind playing tricks it is impossible for me to trust my mind. This is a philosophy, not a science.

For more than 20 years I considered myself an agnostic and for most of those years I didn't think about God at all. I understand the viewpoint perfectly well.But in light of various discussions in this thread I should explain what the term agnostic meant for me. I wasn't at all convinced that God existed, I didn't know. I believed that if God did exist, then he existed at the 'macro' level. (i.e. caused the big bang and perhaps setup the physical laws of this universe, but then sat back and allowed his creation to operate on its own). But even then, this was a loosely held belief.