Agnostic vs Atheist

[Wrong-Direction]

A meaning of life thread at last

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[GT49er]

I'm an agnostic dyslexic. I'm not sure if there's a dog.

Don't you have trouble sleeping too? (see post #6)

 

[Fungus]

Stephen Fry also said something similar when asked.... if you turn up at the purly gates etc.... i dont want to bloody go in he said ....

Do you mean the Purley Gates? No, I wouldn't want to go in either.

 

[beorhthelm]

Err.....go on then?

God is expected to be supreme being, all knowing, all powerful and benevolent. bad things exist in the world, so is he unknowing, unable or unwilling to intervene? if any of these are the case, as they clearly are, his status as supreme being is refuted. if you want to try a different definition for God, we can see how well he does then.

 

[daveinprague]

Remarkable figure for CZ, when you consider the amount of churches here, just in Prague alone. Im guessing communism knocked it out of them, and unlike Russia, it stayed like that.

86.7% non-religious or undeclared
10.4% Roman Catholic
2.2% other Christians
0.7% other religions

 

[Buzzer]

More of an issue of definition then,. My atheism relates to a 'God' that can be defined and understood by humans, as that seems to be the focus of most theists
Why do you think people are annoyed? I'm really not annoyed by what others believe.

Really? You're opening gambit is that agnostics are lying to themselves and they should really fall under believer or atheist. You then go on to accuse agnostics of being moral cowards by not having the courage of their convictions. That doesn't strike me as someone happy with agnosticism.

 

[Buzzer]

I know you were not asking me but my take on this is that Atheists do not claim the big bang to be fact, the science suggests this is the very best theory we have at the moment, the empirical evidence is strong but what created/caused/came before it we cannot answer, as science and new developments progress then there is flexibility to change our minds and perhaps look back at previous 'knowledge' as incorrect. There is a flexibility and acceptance to say 'we do not know....yet'

Compare that to the inflexibility of religion, the belief that God created us and put your fingers in your ears if there is a suggestion as to where God came from or who created God. There is no flexibility to consider an alternative or change your mind as new evidence and findings develop. It is a conservative force.

I think you're reading more into that post than I intended. I'm not arguing that there is a God, I'm arguing that you can't really argue that it's 'logical' that God can't exist on the basis that he would have needed a creator ad infinitum when you simultaneously believe that the universe was created from nothing/something deep and mysterious and unknowable. Also, this answer is back at [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION].

To play devils advocate, if we saw complete agnosticism as being bang in the middle of the see-saw, surely you must have a learning one way towards a god existing or not existing. Where for example would you put yourself on Dawkins 7 point scale (this could be a poll in fact).

Definitely a 4. And genuinely, I'm fine with that.

 

[Buzzer]

It does? I hadn't realised I was annoyed

Not necessarily you but the one who said we lack the courage of our convictions and don't really believe what we claim to believe.

 

[Buzzer]

I am an atheist, I don’t care what others choose to believe as long as they don’t use it as an excuse to harm others.

Amen to that. Culturally, I'm what Douglas Murray calls 'culturally C of E'. I like the tradition, the ethos, the lack of fundamentalism and zealotry and it is comforting. As I've said, I don't believe in a man-like God though.

 

[highflyer]

Blimey.
Don't take it all so personally.

 

[Triggaaar]

Not necessarily you but the one who said we lack the courage of our convictions and don't really believe what we claim to believe.

I think it's confusing what an agnostic is:
a) Someone who feels unsure whether or not there is a god
b) Someone who claims that it's impossible to prove whether or not their is a god, so being agnostic is the default position.

As put better by Mr Russell:

“As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”
― Bertrand Russell

I'm not sure there's much difference between agnostics and atheists.

 

[highflyer]

I'm not annoyed

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think you're reading more into that post than I intended. I'm not arguing that there is a God, I'm arguing that you can't really argue that it's 'logical' that God can't exist on the basis that he would have needed a creator ad infinitum when you simultaneously believe that the universe was created from nothing/something deep and mysterious and unknowable. Also, this answer is back at [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION].

Definitely a 4. And genuinely, I'm fine with that.

I wasn't arguing about there being a God or not, I was merely picking up on the universe having a point of creation, which we can't know whether it didn't or didn't, or what was before, or that it came from nothing. As said the universe emerging from nothing wasn't nothing, it was a singularity of infinite time and space. That isn't nothing, its just something we don't have the tools to explain, or know what was before.

I always like Christopher Hitchens analogy with religion being a set of toys people play with to get through and make sense of their lives, or explain great unknowns. He was happy for people to play with their toys in their homes, have friends over with their toys and they all played, but he never wanted those toys being forced upon his life, upon government and law, and certainly didn't want his children being forced to play with them at school. He said 'as long as man fears death religion will exist', he didn't have a problem with religion per se, just the force it exerted on the world. (You're a Hitchen's fan aren't you? I'm sure I've seen you quote him before, unless that was his brother!?)

 

[Buzzer]

I don't think there is any reason to conclude some supernatural nudge occurred though just to fill the knowledge gap.

I'm with you on that but we do know that from inert mass can come life, we're proof of that. There's something in all of us whilst we're alive that's intangible but gives us power of thought and all that goes with it. It's incredible and we know it's true. I'm not ruling out that likewise, out of inert matter there might be a force within the universe that acts in a similar but unknowable way. We're not supernatural so the existence of another force or whatever may exist and wouldn't necessarily be supernatural either.

 

[Buzzer]

I think it's confusing what an agnostic is:.

Ignore - I misread your post.

 

[ozzygull]

Amen to that. Culturally, I'm what Douglas Murray calls 'culturally C of E'. I like the tradition, the ethos, the lack of fundamentalism and zealotry and it is comforting. As I've said, I don't believe in a man-like God though.

Yes agree, in this country we are bought up with the traditions of C of E, and I like them. I like the fact people get comfort, support and community from their religion of choice, I don’t believe, but would never try to change someone to my views. I just get annoyed when religion get used as an excuse to hurt, suppress or murder others.

 

[Buzzer]

Blimey.
Don't take it all so personally.

Eh? I think you're the one using the strongest language to describe agnosticism on here. I've already told you I'm fine with it all.

 

[pastafarian]

A meaning of life thread at last

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Worked that one out a while back, its a great Eureka moment.
No im not telling you.......work it out yourself.

clue: doesnt involve any Gods.

 

[kevo]

Don't you have trouble sleeping too? (see post #6)

Damn, forgot that bit! Haha.

 

[Buzzer]

(You're a Hitchen's fan aren't you? I'm sure I've seen you quote him before, unless that was his brother!?)

And yes. Big fan. Not so much his brother although he is extremely good value.