There is no practical distinction, but the literal distinction takes the away the argument of "YOU BELIEVE THINGS TOO!!!!" from religious people, which they quite often use as a way to try and invalidate things that atheists say. Another reason why I posted that quote on the third page.The point about agnosticism and atheism is that there is really no practical distinction between believing something doesnt exist and not having a belief on the existence of. Either way you will act as though it doesnt exist, so you might as well call yourself an atheist.
Have a nice day.
If we're going by practical differences, we might as well consider 99% of the population atheistic, since the majority of people masturbate, have pre-marital sex, get divorced, or lie.I dont care at what point. Much like how I dont care at what point a pile becomes a heap.
But there is no point between someone who has no belief in the existence of god and someone who has a belief that god doesnt exist where there is any need to make a distinction. They dont give a shit about god, they are atheists. Tidy.
If you want to make distinctions to win arguments, whatever, just accept that in real life, people who call themselves atheists and people who erroneously call themselves agnostics, basically believe exactly the same things.
Have a nice day.
"My understanding of agnosticism is not just that it incorporates the concept of epistemological doubt (which atheism in general does), but that it considers the concept of God entirely removed from epistemology. That is, it's different from saying "invisible unicorns could also exist" because invisible unicorns do not have the ability to bend the laws of the universe to their will (if they did, they would be God Unicorns). Given that God has such an ability, agnostics consider the lack of empirical proof as to his existence completely meaningless (as opposed to gnostic atheists, who consider it evidence that he probably does not exist)."What evident philosophical differences?
Have a nice day.
This is the type of person I was referring to as insane.I know God exists because He has proven himself to exist for me. He has answered numerous of my prayers; He blesses me and my family every single day; and He has uplifted me when I was at my lowest point in life.
I love my life, my self, my family, and God and to me that is all that should matter.
Simple.
oh yeah well what if your family dies in a horrible car accident and your 5 year old cousin is brutally raped by a creepy pedophile? where's your god then?I know God exists because He has proven himself to exist for me. He has answered numerous of my prayers; He blesses me and my family every single day; and He has uplifted me when I was at my lowest point in life.
I love my life, my self, my family, and God and to me that is all that should matter.
Simple.
I don't know which school of thought you're coming from, as there are many who put forth that point of view, some mainstream, others more esoteric. But why do you believe what you do?
As I've stated in this forum before, I'm a Christian, super duper-style, and since repenting and coming to faith a year and a half ago, I've had the promises of the Bible manifested in my life along with enough experiences to accommodate the supernatural.
At the risk of stepping on some toes, I do think the Catholic church has done more to tarnish the gospel of Christ than any other organization in the last 2000 years, because it has come bearing the name of Jesus. People who have read the New Testament are probably aware that the RC's bloody history and papal assertions look nothing like the early church or even the church today. That is, the church in places where the gospel is spreading like a fire, with persecution only adding to the fuel. Christians today are persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and killed on a daily basis and yet it is in these hotspots that the body is growing most rapidly.
Most of the historical objections to Christianity are easily resolved (mithraic origins, the bible's been changed etc...) but I do empathize with the emotional barriers (the problem of evil in the world, hell). I'd love to answer these individually via PM or in this thread, but I do think a lot of it just comes from a misunderstanding of the gospel.
People often believe the bible is a method for getting the masses subjugated. But the most enslaved examples of human society have existed at times when the bible has been outlawed or limited in some way. Think the middle ages (bibles only available in latin to a largely illiterate population) or the murderous communist regimes of the last century and this. The bible,however, time and again, in both old and new testaments, testify to how corrupt and depraved human government is and encourages us to obey God rather than man when there is a conflict, which is, like, all the time.
Another misunderstanding concerns the role of the law passed down from Moses. The point of the law was to make us aware how far short we fall from God's standard of cosmic perfection (also that those to whom the law was not given will be judged by the standard of their conscience). He very well knows our shortcomings, so, despite being not obligated to do so at all, provided a scapegoat in His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty on our behalf. God's love and mercy will not trump His justice and holiness, but that He went through the trouble at all, on my behalf, to love me despite how much I hated Him blows me away...
This and this. I would have to agree that God is far beyond empirical proof, but I've seen FAR too much anectodal evidence to believe otherwise. Coincidence after coincidence is not just luck, but a pattern.I know God exists because He has proven himself to exist for me. He has answered numerous of my prayers; He blesses me and my family every single day; and He has uplifted me when I was at my lowest point in life.
I love my life, my self, my family, and God and to me that is all that should matter.
Simple.
I have a friend, a Haitian, who lost his young son, his home, and everything he had in the earthquake. Today he can still stand and say 'Blessed be the name of the Lord'. His daughter is now six months old.oh yeah well what if your family dies in a horrible car accident and your 5 year old cousin is brutally raped by a creepy pedophile? where's your god then?
You are right, that is not how an atheist would respond. An atheist would likely respond with "that argument is empirically non-falsifiable therefore it is invalid", which is an acceptable response. The difference is that an agnostic would feel that God is almost by definition empirically non-falsifiable, and that invalidating a theistic argument on those grounds is not productive.And this distinction is really non existent. Essentially every atheist is an agnostic by that definition. If you say "There exists a God that doesnt want to be found" an atheist will not respond by saying "if the God that doesnt want to be found exists, how come we havent found any evidence of him?" The difference in responses you have suggested really are just differences in question. "Do Gods live on Mt Olympus?" or "Does something that someone might call a god exist?".
Have a nice day.
No. Atheists hold that all arbitrary, specific ideas, whether that be the idea that unicorns exist, or the idea that God exists, are inherently improbable. Therefore, it is rational to believe that these ideas are false a priori. We might be wrong sometimes, but very rarely. Basically, atheism is a "default position", one that requires no evidence. Therefore, evidence is required in order to move away from it. If there is no evidence that God exists, well, there is nothing to change our minds. There is nothing more to atheism than rejection of the arbitrary.Basically atheists hold the lack of empirical proof regarding God's existence as probable evidence of his non-existence
If that is what they believe, it is a case of special pleading which discredits them. That God can "bend the rules of the universe" does not put him out of scope for empiricism, it just makes him unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable theories are usually discarded right off the bat because they are excessively vague and ultimately as complex as what they try to explain. They are maximally arbitrary.while agnostics do not believe the idea of empirical proof can be applied to God at all.
That argument has some credibility when attacking particular religions that hold that God is good, but it is completely toothless as an argument against deity. There is neither evidence nor reason to think God is good. That's just irrelevant to his existence.Agnostics typically express their skepticism through arguments such as the problem of evil, which do not rely on empirical grounds.
A true theist by definition would say there is definitely at least one god.What evident philosophical differences?
I know what atheism is o.oNo. Atheists hold that all arbitrary, specific ideas, whether that be the idea that unicorns exist, or the idea that God exists, are inherently improbable. Therefore, it is rational to believe that these ideas are false a priori. We might be wrong sometimes, but very rarely. Basically, atheism is a "default position", one that requires no evidence. Therefore, evidence is required in order to move away from it. If there is no evidence that God exists, well, there is nothing to change our minds. There is nothing more to atheism than rejection of the arbitrary.
Yes, God is unfalsifiable, that's what I meant when I said he is out of the scope of empiricism. The difference is that non-falsifiable theories are not "rejected"; they simply have no truth value, because they are no longer in the realm of science, much like ethical statements. They are ignored in the scientific method as they have no practical relevance, but they are not rejected because there may be value to them in realms beyond the scientific. Stephen Gould formulated a framework that many agnostics follow, with a few tweaks. So where atheists say "There is no scientific evidence for God so he probably doesn't exist", agnostics say "God is scientifically irrelevant".If that is what they believe, it is a case of special pleading which discredits them. That God can "bend the rules of the universe" does not put him out of scope for empiricism, it just makes him unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable theories are usually discarded right off the bat because they are excessively vague and ultimately as complex as what they try to explain. They are maximally arbitrary.
You're right, many people view agnosticism as a weak form of atheism when in reality it's an entirely different spectrum of belief. That was actually the initial reason I posted about it, arguing otherwise.This being said, the vast majority of agnostic people I know are agnostic because they cannot "prove" that God does not exist and are not comfortable with outright asserting atheism. The kind of agnosticism you are talking about might exist, but I don't think it is common in practice.
Of course. That argument was in reference to common religions, who hold that God is a benevolent being. There are also arguments against the existence of God as a deity as a whole, many of which are variants of the incompatible-properties argument.That argument has some credibility when attacking particular religions that hold that God is good, but it is completely toothless as an argument against deity. There is neither evidence nor reason to think God is good. That's just irrelevant to his existence.
love when people have testimonies like this.I know God exists because He has proven himself to exist for me. He has answered numerous of my prayers; He blesses me and my family every single day; and He has uplifted me when I was at my lowest point in life.
I love my life, my self, my family, and God and to me that is all that should matter.
Simple.
your main logical flaw is assuming 'modern scientific principles' are actually right.Sure, you test your beliefs against the Bible, but who is to say the Bible is actually right? It was written approximately 2000 years ago by men who were completely ignorant of modern scientific principles
This reminds me of a chain mail I keep getting about Albert Einstein. Have you ever seen your brain? no? oh, so you can't prove you have one. Prove why snakes have bones which have no use, while other reptiles use them. Why did God bother adding them in? (I'd give a more exact explanation but I'm too lazy to check my bio textbook). If Satan can conjure up bones why cant he conjure up something, well, more convincing?l
were you there for your big bang?
no?
oh.
so you can't prove it..
so you've got FAITH or BELIEF in a concept that isn't fully assured.
by your scientific analysis the big bang is the likely universal creation method but excuse me, none of you were around before the 1900s, much less however long the universe has been around for.
were you there watching mankind 'evolve' to the form it is now?
no?
oh.
so you can't prove evolution happened in the common scientific process of sapiens and their primitive forms. you've got some old bones but hey, who's to say big bag satan didn't pop some fake bones into the ground to throw you off?
his main goal IS to get people to not believe, after all.
all right, by all means, lets see you show us this pattern which you claim exists.This and this. I would have to agree that God is far beyond empirical proof, but I've seen FAR too much anectodal evidence to believe otherwise. Coincidence after coincidence is not just luck, but a pattern.
The most laughable thing I ever heard was when I went to NYC and saw the planetarium show about the creation of the universe. There were two fundamentally laughable things: 1) It was narrated by Whoopi Goldberg 2) it said that "dark energy" had a hand in the universe's creation.Science does not, and does not claim to prohibit the existence of a god or god-like power, but it certainly does provide just about as much evidence as possible to make that possibility seem non-existent
dumb yeti post said:love when people have testimonies like this.
your main logical flaw is assuming 'modern scientific principles' are actually right.
they are. the proof of this is everything you see around you: electronics, antibiotics, lcd screens...these are all the fruits of the scientific method that wouldn't exist otherwise
you can test the concept of gravity over and over and know that, unless you reach escape velocity of the earth at such a distance from the earth you can remove yourself from its pull, what goes up comes down, but what is truly the force behind this?
maybe it's invisible little men clinging to everything and they swim through the air to push things back down, they grab our feet to make us stay down.
i don't think that's the case but please, your modern scientific principles are no more likely to be 'actually right' than any religious scripture, belief or concept.
here's a fallacy many people fall into: science is not "right". it's best guess. if it works, it's good. otherwise, the theory is discarded. the theory of gravity is one that works.
it seems to be a common atheist flaw to assume science is fully accurate, or at least science that would cause some great dissonance with religion and thus prove it inaccurate (any religion, really). yes we can test gravity, friction, the light spectrum, etc. we can theorize that long ago some big event happened and the universe, it's here, and obviously through some means the human race came to be in existence.
no, this is the common theist flaw. i wish i could stab every person who said "evolution is not scientific FACT, it's a THEORY". the current theory of gravitation is imperfect: if you can come up with a better model of gravity that explains dark matter and/or can be unified with the other fundamental forces then the scientific community would be all ears. until you can come up with a better alternative to what we have, we're sticking to it because it works
were you there for your big bang?
no?
oh.
so you can't prove it..
so you've got FAITH or BELIEF in a concept that isn't fully assured.
by your scientific analysis the big bang is the likely universal creation method but excuse me, none of you were around before the 1900s, much less however long the universe has been around for.
ok now you're just being stupid. again, the fallacious assumption here is that scientific theories are concrete. they aren't, they are just the best explanation we have. religious people fall into this trap because religion is fraught with the idea of being "right" as something that is and always will be true. being "right" from a scientific point of view is if observations match theory.
were you there watching mankind 'evolve' to the form it is now?
no?
oh.
so you can't prove evolution happened in the common scientific process of sapiens and their primitive forms. you've got some old bones but hey, who's to say big bag satan didn't pop some fake bones into the ground to throw you off?
his main goal IS to get people to not believe, after all.
maybe, it's a theory you can't test or make predictions from. believe that all you want, just don't let it get in the way of science.
problem??
yeah, you have the intellectual capacity of a grapefruit