Agnostic vs Atheist

[Wrong-Direction]

.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Hungry Joe]

I used to spend a lot of time trying to decide if I were Agnostic or Atheist. Since getting more and more into quantum physics et al though it's become, to me, an increasingly pointless exercise when you are faced with so many fundamental questions on the nature of reality in the first place.

 

[GreersElbow]

It don't matter anyway, if you die and there turns out to be a heaven - repent your sins and accept Jesus is your mate and job's a good'un.

Keep sinning until the day you die boys.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Nope. We can actually see and have photographed the big bang. In fact it's one of very few scientific facts I believe. You probably have a point on what happened before the big bang though.

There is no 'before the big bang' though. Time didn't exist until the Big Bang happened

 

[Mellotron]

It don't matter anyway, if you die and there turns out to be a heaven - repent your sins and accept Jesus is your mate and job's a good'un.

Keep sinning until the day you die boys.

You ARE Super Hans

 

[highflyer]

There is a difference between 'knowing' something and 'believing' something.
So.
I do not know if God exists.
I do know that I don't believe God exists

I don't believe in agnostics. I believe that everyone really does know (deep down) what they believe or do not believe. Just that many do not want to admit it, even to themselves.
So the answer to the OP question.: Atheists exist. Agnostics do not.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Well I wouldn't dream of arguing with anyone about this but my own non-evangelical view is that until someone can explain to me what existed before the beginning of everything I'll just have to allow the possibility that there exists something that is beyond everyone's ability to come to terms with. Call it Fred, PPF or GOD; doesn't really matter.

As a theoretical astro-physicist once said to me, if you ask what existed before the big bang then you don't understand your own question. You get the same answer if you ask what is outside the universe, or what is the universe expanding into.

God is just a more complicated way of answering 'I don't know'

So much out there in space is absolutely impossible to even consider within the narrow field of our own understanding and experiences. There's a planet out there where it rains rubies, there's a moon of Saturn where the land and mountains is ice and the snow and rivers are carbon dioxide, how do you start to comprehend what is going on. I love reading about space and relativity and life and evolution and all the weird and wonderful stuff that goes on, and know I can never really get my head round it all - but that is so much more fun and interesting and exciting than just saying 'Oh God did it' and going back to my soap operas.

 

[pastafarian]

Well I wouldn't dream of arguing with anyone about this but my own non-evangelical view is that until someone can explain to me what existed before the beginning of everything I'll just have to allow the possibility that there exists something that is beyond everyone's ability to come to terms with. Call it Fred, PPF or GOD; doesn't really matter.

Ill take scientific theories about the state of play before the beginning of everything and proven scientific facts of how so many things are as they are today every day over The Abrahamic invented man made narrative of how things came into existence and evolved, which has zero scientific credibility.

 

[Buzzer]

Agnostic is better. It's worth 11 pts in Scrabble compared with 10 for atheist.

 

[beorhthelm]

Nope - you can't prove a negative existential. That is a fundamental law of logic. The best you can do is achieve a level of probablility.

see problem of evil. while one cant prove that gods do not exist, one can logically prove the one defined by the Abrahamic religions does not. Epicurus does this over 300 years before they nailed a guy to cross for arguing over how to praise that god.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Err.....go on then?

The logic is that a Creator, if he exists in a logical world, requires his own Creator to have been created in the first place, that Creator requires his own creator, and so on and so forth back through infinite levels. Therefore a Creator is infinitely improbable, which, as far as logic is concerned, = 0% probable, ergo doesn't exist.

That's how I understand it, but happy to be corrected

 

[5ways]

Tbh honest, "God" creating everything is just as unbelievable as a "big bang" doing so.
Maybe, just maybe they're both wrong...?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

We have evidence of the big bang though, and that the universe is expanding.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I have always thought that atheists saw no reason to believe in an interventionist deity whilst believers had faith that their specific version of one, probably not Thor or Zeus, does exist. Both are agnostics as none have actual knowledge of whether they are right; one has faith and the other applies a rational view based on an incomplete amount of information.

Another distinction could that an agnostic is an atheist who just wants to change the subject.

I always call myself an atheist if asked but as Dawkins says there is no real need for the word; there is no term for someone that doesn't believe in astrology.

 

[Wilko]

If you can't be certain of disbelief in a story as ridiculous as God, with absolutely no evidence to support the completely wild religious claims, what can you be certain about?

If i told you i could fly for instance. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it. So can you not say, for certain, that i can't?

Absolutely, this is spot on in my opinion, I have heard people say that you should not be an atheist as you cannot prove there 100% is not a God. Of course you can't but if you are pretty sure as there is **** all empirical evidence whatsoever then that is good enough to be honest. I consider Agnosticism to be fence sitting somewhat as surely you can come to a conclusion as to whether there is or is not evidence.

 

[Buzzer]

The logic is that a Creator, if he exists in a logical world, requires his own Creator to have been created in the first place, that Creator requires his own creator, and so on and so forth back through infinite levels. Therefore a Creator is infinitely improbable, which, as far as logic is concerned, = 0% probable, ergo doesn't exist.

That's how I understand it, but happy to be corrected

You say it's impossible for a creator to create itself but you're happy to accept a universe creating itself. Genuine question - what's the difference?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Must admit I thought Agnostic V Atheist was a fight between two unknowns being bigged up as another unmissable title decider on Sky Sports during the current International Break. Either way Ricky Gervais is insufferable every time he opens his mouth!

 

[highflyer]

Another distinction could that an agnostic is an atheist who just wants to change the subject.

Or, as Carl Sagan puts it 'an agnostic is just an atheist that lacks the courage of their convictions'

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well I wouldn't dream of arguing with anyone about this but my own non-evangelical view is that until someone can explain to me what existed before the beginning of everything I'll just have to allow the possibility that there exists something that is beyond everyone's ability to come to terms with. Call it Fred, PPF or GOD; doesn't really matter.

Here's a thought, what about just accepting we don't know, just like we don't know what 95% of the universe is, we don't know what dark energy is increasing the speed of the universe's expansion, we don't know what 95% of the mass of the universe is, even though we know its there, we don't know. Why does not knowing have to have some irrational answer to fill the gap?

 

[Buzzer]

Or, as Carl Sagan puts it 'an agnostic is just an atheist that lacks the courage of their convictions'

I have the courage of my convictions. I must confess, I hadn't realised until now how much agnosticism annoys atheists but this thread is an eye-opener. I'm an agnostic and happy to admit it. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic deity but I don't rule out a force in the universe (cue Star Wars jokes) completely beyond our understanding that some interpret as God. And I'm perfectly happy and reconciled with that.

 

[Mellotron]

The logic is that a Creator, if he exists in a logical world, requires his own Creator to have been created in the first place, that Creator requires his own creator, and so on and so forth back through infinite levels. Therefore a Creator is infinitely improbable, which, as far as logic is concerned, = 0% probable, ergo doesn't exist.

That's how I understand it, but happy to be corrected

But that's completely straw man, as a load of things are assumed there, that may not be correct.