Agnostics and Atheists

a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't know homie, I think at least some certainty is a major requirement for it to be considered a religion.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Point is the two terms are used to describe the same position, yet people like to drop one in favour of the other for absolutely no reason other than a misconception.

I think you're the one with the misconception. You're confusing etymology with definitions.

The OED defines an atheist as:

"A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods."

It defines an agnostic as:

"A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

These are very different things. And the OED is a credible source. So if people choose to use those definitions, they are on firm footing.

Also as the OED notes agnostic has come to mean "being noncommittal", i.e. "I am agnostic on the subject of UFOs". This further bolsters its use in reference to religious belief.

a reply to: Prezbo369

I think you need to define a little further than you are. What people think may not come under either of your specific headings.

I don't have a problem knowing that there is either a universe that works and ticks like clockwork and importantly has an actual life span, or that creation within itself creates intelligent design as a natural occurrence of different forms of life coming into being. Overwhelming planetary evidence shows that many creatures, climates, landmasses and all sorts of different changes have happened in the incredibly long, long past and they have come and gone like some kind of haphazard experiment. If you look at the design of the human body we are not as well designed for life as we could have been.

Also absolutely no sign of any conscience is shown anywhere to indicate that some kind of super, supernatural eternal being is watching this planet's extinctions and challenges, otherwise our planet, were it this being's pride and joy would have been moved out of the way of disaster - but we have been left to evolve as we wish.

Its the claims about a God that I suspect most people cannot stomach - he is watching everything and recording everything one does. We live on a globe so his eyes have to be quite something to see and record every one of us at all times and our misdemeanours - it simply cannot happen. He counts each hair on our heads - he'll be busy at the rate we all replace our hair not to mention the amount of heads he is claimed to examine. Do you see the nonsense of claims made for an all seeing and knowing God and also the fact that no religious man has any answer for the fact that he never appears. You cannot get past that fact as he is claimed to have appeared to certain people in the past - has he died? His age has to be linked to the planet so 4 +billions years have passed. Perhaps he got bored with this planet and has gone off to create something else elsewhere.

The minute some man claims this or that about God as though he has met and is his best friend you know he is lying.
He cannot be doing anything else and we are lying to ourselves if we believe him. This we do as a habit, which becomes a tradition and once that, its supposedly carved in stone and only the brave dare to question the original thing done purely as a habit.

God is more linked to politics unless one goes into the personal relationship with the spiritual realm which doesn't exist within the desert religions which were all made up for political reasons by men who demanded that people listened to them and did/do as they said/say today.

To bacterium we are Gods.

Is there a universe populated by beings correspondingly superior to us?

Could be.

Does this make me 'Theist', 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic' ?

I reject religion because it is shackles on humanity so I call myself an anti theist because I believe in God.
Iam not Atheist nor agnostic.
I go by the dictionary but many are about and have different meanings.
I think If we use labels we should label ourselves.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable". Not the same as an Atheist at all. An Atheist view on a deity...is flat out rejection, period. Not knowing, is not the same as rejecting

I am an Agnostic and I have no problem admitting it. I believe that anything might be possible but until I see or know it I don't put my faith into it.


Who are you to tell us who we are and what we should claim?

originally posted by: Psynic
To bacterium we are Gods.

Is there a universe populated by beings correspondingly superior to us?

Could be.

Does this make me 'Theist', 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic' ?

Exactly this! What makes a being a god? Worship?

a reply to: windword

Nah just BE thats what god wants.
Only man made Gods are the ones with any type of human trait.
God begins where humanity's imagination ends.

How will I look at anyone differently?
Names are what they are, just names. Agnostics, atheist, Christian, catholic etc. All it comes down to is what kind of person you are, not you're religion.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: borntowatch
This is a strange one.
What does it matter to anyone what someone describes themselves as.
Do we have to compartmentalise/dictate what people have to be to satisfy ourselves.

If someone states to me they are an agnostic, cool, an atheist, cool. You can decide what you want to be and how you want to define yourself.
I just dont get the point of this thread and the labels some body chooses to apply to others.

I am not sure the difference between agnostics and atheists is that fine, why dictate

Religious people often bring out the numbers game, telling people not of their religion just how outnumbered they are e.g. "the US is 96% christian" and this is often close to the truth because all christians, despite belonging to very different churches and belief systems, will congeal under the label 'christian'. If people describe themselves as either agnostic or atheist then we have two separate minorities and so a lot less to bring to the table.

Point is the two terms are used to describe the same position, yet people like to drop one in favour of the other for absolutely no reason other than a misconception.

So you are just claiming the difference is the same to boost up numbers
Is this some kind of us against them mentality, that sounds sad.

My enemy is not the atheists or agnostics, I dont have an us against them mentality with those who dont believe in God.
I accept your different views, dont agree but accept them.

As you stated, Christians are not united, so why do agnostics have to come under the banner of atheists, its their choice

Sounds like battle lines are being drawn and allies sort. 96% Christian really, care to proof that statement

If what you want is fair and reasonable I would support atheists, as would many other Christians.
What do you want, more control over Christians?
Why the call to unity???

originally posted by: Prezbo369
People seem to think that to be an atheist is to claim to know that there is no god, and this is simply not true at all. An atheist is merely someone that isn't a theist, someone that doesn't have a belief in a god.

They probably have this frame of mind because every reputable source defines Atheist this way.

Merriam-Webster - Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

An Atheist believes God does not exist. An Agnostic believes we do not or cannot know whether God exists. They are similar concepts, but definitively different.

I was a Christian until I decided to think for myself. I then became an Atheist because I thought religion was BS. I then realized how strange and mysterious life is and became an Agnostic. Now... now I don't know what to call myself. There is proof enough for me of something greater than us, but I have yet to learn what it is.

a reply to: Prezbo369
So before anyone wants to kick the crap out of me this is just MY OPINION. It seems to me the basis for the "label" you choose is, is there an afterlife or there is not an afterlife. Atheism or atheist is someone who says there is no deity, therefore there is no afterlife. And in society today doesn't wasn't anyone or any religion saying so in public in anyway. Whereas Agnosticism says there isn't any proof because I can't see the deity, and there is no history to back it up but is willing to accept a deity if proof is found and therefore accept there is an afterlife.

I would think every Atheist, eats right, takes their vitamins, wears their seatbelt and does everything humanly possible to extend the one and only life they get.

This is where I think the idea of agnostics is lazy. Because they are willing to accept a deity and an afterlife with proof. Why wouldn't you be working to establish proof one way or the other? Waiting for proof to land in your lap of an afterlife is like waiting for proof you can see Lincoln. The history is there but a visual just isn't going to happen. So as a logical thought process shouldn't you be concerned with the research of proof one way or the other? After all eating cheeseburgers, drinking beer, not wearing your seatbelt, and in my case riding motorcycles is a lot more fun.

2 cents, sorry no change.

originally posted by: Moresby
I think you're the one with the misconception. You're confusing etymology with definitions.

The OED defines an atheist as:

"A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods."

It defines an agnostic as:

"A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

These are very different things. And the OED is a credible source. So if people choose to use those definitions, they are on firm footing.

If a person 'holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena' then they do not have belief in god/s, this is the exact same position an atheist holds.

Also as the OED notes agnostic has come to mean "being noncommittal", i.e. "I am agnostic on the subject of UFOs". This further bolsters its use in reference to religious belief.

Nobody has to commit on the subject, nobody has to claim to know one way or another in order to form or have an opinion on the existence of UFOs. You either accept the claims made of UFOs, or you do not.

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: Prezbo369
People seem to think that to be an atheist is to claim to know that there is no god, and this is simply not true at all. An atheist is merely someone that isn't a theist, someone that doesn't have a belief in a god.

They probably have this frame of mind because every reputable source defines Atheist this way.

Merriam-Webster - Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

An Atheist believes God does not exist. An Agnostic believes we do not or cannot know whether God exists. They are similar concepts, but definitively different.

Yes an atheist lacks the belief in a god, just as you do as an 'agnostic'.

originally posted by: brandiwine14
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable". Not the same as an Atheist at all. An Atheist view on a deity...is flat out rejection, period. Not knowing, is not the same as rejecting

I am an Agnostic and I have no problem admitting it. I believe that anything might be possible but until I see or know it I don't put my faith into it.

So you don't accept the claims made by theists? you lack a belief in a god? you're an atheist.

Who are you to tell us who we are and what we should claim?

To claim yourself to be an agnostic but not an atheist is nonsensical (as well as a bit wishy-washy).

a reply to: Prezbo369


Nothing nonsensical or wishy washy about it.

Unlike an Atheist I can have hypothetical conversation with someone that "if god appeared to me and performed miracles, yada yada" I could possibly be swayed to believe....possibly. An Atheist would not even acknowledge the conversation because to them it will never, could never, ever, under no circumstance, happen. Huge difference. I am not nor have I ever been an Atheist.

I accept no claims made by anyone, not those who claim to know a God, nor those who do not. I accept what I see, I accept that there might possibly be more but I need more proof. An Atheist will acknowledge that there is no proof, and never could be.

Clearly you are here simply to argue your misguided views on some perceived knowledge of who everyone else is. It appears you think so little of others and so much of yourself that you can just simply state they are not who they claim to be and then they will just say "oh, okay". I get that Christians want to make more Christians and that Atheists want to make more Atheists, but try as you might, you aren't making an Atheist out of me today.

a reply to: Prezbo369

There has to a be a more indeterminate area... a grey area for the non yes or no.

When it comes to God, there is a huge gradation of opinions (and fervent beliefs).

I see quality points on both sides of the question. I don't think organized religion is "correct" but for all I know, one of them might be... or none... thus I'm truly agnostic.

It might be "wimpy" but it's an honest stance ... I really do not know... and I have a strong opinion that nobody has the entire answer... but if someone does, then maybe they're God... heh.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Moresby
I think you're the one with the misconception. You're confusing etymology with definitions.

The OED defines an atheist as:

"A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods."

It defines an agnostic as:

"A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."

These are very different things. And the OED is a credible source. So if people choose to use those definitions, they are on firm footing.

If a person 'holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena' then they do not have belief in god/s, this is the exact same position an atheist holds.

No, an agnostic holds that the existence of god is inherently unknowable. So they can neither believe, nor disbelieve. An atheist disbelieves. Two different concepts.

originally posted by: brandiwine14
a reply to: Prezbo369
Unlike an Atheist I can have hypothetical conversation with someone that "if god appeared to me and performed miracles, yada yada" I could possibly be swayed to believe....possibly. An Atheist would not even acknowledge the conversation because to them it will never, could never, ever, under no circumstance, happen. Huge difference. I am not nor have I ever been an Atheist.

You're making up your own definition for atheist i'm afraid, what you said above is utterly incorrect. All an atheist is, is a person with a lack of belief, someone that's not a theist, anything else you prescribe for that label is of your own making...

I accept no claims made by anyone, not those who claim to know a God, nor those who do not. I accept what I see, I accept that there might possibly be more but I need more proof.

Good for you, you just spoil all such thought when y0ou begin to make things up.

An Atheist will acknowledge that there is no proof, and never could be.

More fiction.

Clearly you are here simply to argue your misguided views on some perceived knowledge of who everyone else is. It appears you think so little of others and so much of yourself that you can just simply state they are not who they claim to be and then they will just say "oh, okay". I get that Christians want to make more Christians and that Atheists want to make more Atheists, but try as you might, you aren't making an Atheist out of me today.

No it certainly looks asthough you have your own version of reality to cling to.

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Prezbo369

There has to a be a more indeterminate area... a grey area for the non yes or no.

When it comes to God, there is a huge gradation of opinions (and fervent beliefs).

I see quality points on both sides of the question. I don't think organized religion is "correct" but for all I know, one of them might be... or none... thus I'm truly agnostic.

It might be "wimpy" but it's an honest stance ... I really do not know... and I have a strong opinion that nobody has the entire answer... but if someone does, then maybe they're God... heh.

You don't have to know one way or another to reject a claim. If you don't claim to know a god exists then you lack the belief in a god, this is the definition of an atheist. This doesn't mean you utterly stuck with that view, evidence could be produced and it could change your mind, as it could mine or anyone elses.