Atheism vs. Agnosticism

TruthSeeker · 12th July 2006, 02:29 AM

Atheism is just as bad as theism. That's why I'm an Agnostic. And I think that's a pretty nice place to be. You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it. Why do we need answers anyways?

EDIT: Btw, I'm slightly inclined to the existence of "God". And, in my opinion, Taoism is the "religion" (philosophy, actually) that gets the closest to a possible God...

Thomas Knierim · 12th July 2006, 11:58 AM

TS: Atheism is just as bad as theism.

Why?

TS: And I think that's a pretty nice place to be.

Don't get too comfy.

TS: You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it.

Unfortunately it isn't that easy. You are probably an atheist regarding Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus? No you don't. You don't even believe in the possibility of Zeus existence. That makes you a Zeus atheist. The Christian god is one specific personal god of one specific group of people with specific attributes, and as such he isn't very different from Zeus. Is it rational to be a Zeus atheist while being a Christian god agnostic? I think it isn't.

TS: Why do we need answers anyways?

Human nature?

Cheers, Thomas

TruthSeeker · 12th July 2006, 01:14 PM

Huuumm... I don't remember having started this thread...

Oh well, if I did it, it was for some good reason...

Quote:

Why?

It's divisive.

Quote:

Don't get too comfy.

It's not. But it's better then the other two options...

Quote:

Unfortunately it isn't that easy. You are probably an atheist regarding Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus? No you don't. You don't even believe in the possibility of Zeus existence. That makes you a Zeus atheist. The Christian god is one specific personal god of one specific group of people with specific attributes, and as such he isn't very different from Zeus. Is it rational to be a Zeus atheist while being a Christian god agnostic? I think it isn't.

Well, I never though about it that way. When I think of those terms, I think about it in a non-specific way. Atheism is the abscence of any "god", from all religions. Theism is the presence of a "god" from a religion. And Agnosticism is the middle ground. You can be a theist and believe in a certain god, but that doesn't make you atheistic for all the others.

Quote:

Human nature?

I suppose. Is it healthy?

scameter · 12th July 2006, 02:33 PM

I agree with your original post truthseeker. And, Thomas, I am not an entire agnostic, nor am I an entire anything; I am essentially partially everything. I am atheistic about Zeus, but not about all gods, and even Zeus I see as a mythological character depicting human truth. I am agnostic about God, but I do still ask questions theologically; indeed, I love theology. Which means that I only say I don't know, but still try to know, or at least search.

Thomas Knierim · 12th July 2006, 05:08 PM

TS: Huuumm... I don't remember having started this thread...

You are right. I have taken the liberty to move your statement out if its original "Darwin's Rottweiler" context and make it appear as a new thread. I'm a tricky sod, you know.

TS: It's divisive.

...to which the atheist will probably respond that theism is divisive.

TS: But it's better then the other two options...

Sort of like in Pascal's wager? We don't really know whether there is big guy with a long white beard in the sky, so we lose nothing by allowing for its possibility?

TS: And Agnosticism is the middle ground.

And what would that be? Presence of some god of some religion? There's the tunnel light, you die, then comes a figure... it's Ra, cripes, the Egyptians were right!

TS: You can be a theist and believe in a certain god, but that doesn't make you atheistic for all the others.

Interesting statement, but it seems that most believers disagree. Most Muslims think that Allah is the only true god; likewise most Christians think that their god is the only true god.

TS: I suppose. Is it healthy?

It cannot be disowned.

Cheers, Thomas

TruthSeeker · 13th July 2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

You are right. I have taken the liberty to move your statement out if its original "Darwin's Rottweiler" context and make it appear as a new thread. I'm a tricky sod, you know.*

Damn you! Republican!

Oh well... I was thinking of starting this thread anyways...
Huumm... you read my mind...

Damn you! Psychic witch!

Quote:

...to which the atheist will probably respond that theism is divisive.

Yes! Theism is also very divisive.

Quote:

Sort of like in Pascal's wager? We don't really know whether there is big guy with a long white beard in the sky, so we lose nothing by allowing for its possibility?

Yes, but "god" is not necessarily like that. There are many descriptions of "god". I guess what they have in common is that "it" controls the universe in some way and "it" is sentient.

Quote:

And what would that be? Presence of some god of some religion? There's the tunnel light, you die, then comes a figure... it's Ra, cripes, the Egyptians were right!

No. Agnosticism states that we don't know whether there is a "god" or not and that if we deny there is one, we are commiting a grave fallacy. I think the following quote sums it up pretty well

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence."
-- Carl Sagan

Quote:

Interesting statement, but it seems that most believers disagree. Most Muslims think that Allah is the only true god; likewise most Christians think that their god is the only true god.

Yes. But my point was that "theism" means the belief of a "god" and "atheism" is the belief of no gods. Which one or how many is all irrelevant here. If you believe in one god but not the other you are still a theist. To be a theist all you need is the belief in one "god" regardless which one it is.

Quote:

It cannot be disowned.

Huuuumm... maybe.
But we should always start from point 0. If you believe there is no god and there is actually one, you are starting from point -1. The only way to be impartial and logically correct is to be agnostic and say "we don't know everything". You can still think about it and investigate, even though you are agnostic. In my opinion, there is probably a "god" out there. But I won't just blindly believe. I still take a neutral stance.

EDIT: found origin of quotation...

Thomas Knierim · 13th July 2006, 10:08 AM

Sagan: Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Correct. This statement goes to the logical core of it. Evidence of absence and thus certainty of the non-existence of gods, or God, cannot be had. However, I contend that it is irrational to presume the opposite; that is, it is irrational to presume the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The same pattern of thought can be applied to other things for which there is no evidence, such as the teapot in space, the monster on the dark side of the moon, the pink unicorn, etc.

We are not agnostic about the pink unicorn. We are disbelievers.

Historically, the strongest "evidence" for God came from the argument of design, and various natural phenomena that were not properly understood in the past and thus ascribed to a supernatural power. Today we understand these natural phenomena and we have evolution theory, which makes God effectively a failed hypothesis. In other words, the rational underpinning for the God hypothesis is now gone. There's nothing left but an old book, an ancient tradition, and millions of believers. These are the only things that still support faith.

Cheers, Thomas

schrodinger · 13th July 2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Thomas: We are not agnostic about the pink unicorn. We are disbelievers.

Please speak for yourself. I am sure that, somewhere out there is a person who has an unshakeable belief in the Pink Unicorn.

And That is the core problem!

scameter · 13th July 2006, 04:47 PM

Thomas, however, I further propose that it is irrational to believe in anything undoubtingly, including evidence, and the reality we experience. Probability cannot be included here. And, about the unicorn, I was thinking about it earlier today and I am curious what exactly makes something real. Why is a car more real than a unicorn? Simply because we can see and touch a car, but not a unicorn? I cannot find a car naturally in nature; we make it. And, if it can be real even when we make it, why can a unicorn not be real when we imagine it? We are simply making it with our minds instead of our hands. Why is that which is palpable to the outer senses more real than that which is palpable to the mind?

13th July 2006, 07:08 PM

What you belive is real.

What your are tought by the society is what you learn to accept as real.

Just a a baby who is taught to call white as black since his birth would always call white as black.

We operate from the region of what is known. Or from the region of what is learned from the society.

We are afraid of the unknown.

There is no difference between a car an a unicorn.

12th July 2006, 02:29 AM	#1
TruthSeeker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 867	Atheism is just as bad as theism. That's why I'm an Agnostic. And I think that's a pretty nice place to be. You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it. Why do we need answers anyways? EDIT: Btw, I'm slightly inclined to the existence of "God". And, in my opinion, Taoism is the "religion" (philosophy, actually) that gets the closest to a possible God... __________________ God has created children so that we may smile in the midst of tears..... A whole lifetime is not enough to explore the immesurable beauty that this universe has to offer. There's nothing more amusing then the high improbability of my own existance. If something is true, then that something is something quite out of the ordinary. "We make a living by what we get We make a life by what we give" -- Winston Churchill

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12th July 2006, 11:58 AM	#2
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	TS: Atheism is just as bad as theism. Why? TS: And I think that's a pretty nice place to be. Don't get too comfy. TS: You simply say "I don't know, I don't have all the answers" and that's it. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. You are probably an atheist regarding Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus? No you don't. You don't even believe in the possibility of Zeus existence. That makes you a Zeus atheist. The Christian god is one specific personal god of one specific group of people with specific attributes, and as such he isn't very different from Zeus. Is it rational to be a Zeus atheist while being a Christian god agnostic? I think it isn't. TS: Why do we need answers anyways? Human nature? Cheers, Thomas

12th July 2006, 02:33 PM	#4
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	I agree with your original post truthseeker. And, Thomas, I am not an entire agnostic, nor am I an entire anything; I am essentially partially everything. I am atheistic about Zeus, but not about all gods, and even Zeus I see as a mythological character depicting human truth. I am agnostic about God, but I do still ask questions theologically; indeed, I love theology. Which means that I only say I don't know, but still try to know, or at least search.

12th July 2006, 05:08 PM	#5
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	TS: Huuumm... I don't remember having started this thread... You are right. I have taken the liberty to move your statement out if its original "Darwin's Rottweiler" context and make it appear as a new thread. I'm a tricky sod, you know. TS: It's divisive. ...to which the atheist will probably respond that theism is divisive. TS: But it's better then the other two options... Sort of like in Pascal's wager? We don't really know whether there is big guy with a long white beard in the sky, so we lose nothing by allowing for its possibility? TS: And Agnosticism is the middle ground. And what would that be? Presence of some god of some religion? There's the tunnel light, you die, then comes a figure... it's Ra, cripes, the Egyptians were right! TS: You can be a theist and believe in a certain god, but that doesn't make you atheistic for all the others. Interesting statement, but it seems that most believers disagree. Most Muslims think that Allah is the only true god; likewise most Christians think that their god is the only true god. TS: I suppose. Is it healthy? It cannot be disowned. Cheers, Thomas

13th July 2006, 10:08 AM	#7
Thomas Knierim Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 2,031	Sagan: Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Correct. This statement goes to the logical core of it. Evidence of absence and thus certainty of the non-existence of gods, or God, cannot be had. However, I contend that it is irrational to presume the opposite; that is, it is irrational to presume the existence of something for which there is no evidence. The same pattern of thought can be applied to other things for which there is no evidence, such as the teapot in space, the monster on the dark side of the moon, the pink unicorn, etc. We are not agnostic about the pink unicorn. We are disbelievers. Historically, the strongest "evidence" for God came from the argument of design, and various natural phenomena that were not properly understood in the past and thus ascribed to a supernatural power. Today we understand these natural phenomena and we have evolution theory, which makes God effectively a failed hypothesis. In other words, the rational underpinning for the God hypothesis is now gone. There's nothing left but an old book, an ancient tradition, and millions of believers. These are the only things that still support faith. Cheers, Thomas

13th July 2006, 04:47 PM	#9
scameter Tankare Join Date: May 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,224	Thomas, however, I further propose that it is irrational to believe in anything undoubtingly, including evidence, and the reality we experience. Probability cannot be included here. And, about the unicorn, I was thinking about it earlier today and I am curious what exactly makes something real. Why is a car more real than a unicorn? Simply because we can see and touch a car, but not a unicorn? I cannot find a car naturally in nature; we make it. And, if it can be real even when we make it, why can a unicorn not be real when we imagine it? We are simply making it with our minds instead of our hands. Why is that which is palpable to the outer senses more real than that which is palpable to the mind?

13th July 2006, 07:08 PM	#10
greatballsoffire Posts: n/a	What you belive is real. What your are tought by the society is what you learn to accept as real. Just a a baby who is taught to call white as black since his birth would always call white as black. We operate from the region of what is known. Or from the region of what is learned from the society. We are afraid of the unknown. There is no difference between a car an a unicorn.