Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-03-16 at 01:15:58
Agnostic: The belief that some God like figure is out there; but you aren't for sure what.
Atheist: There is no God like figure.
Or so I thought. It was recently (like 30 sec. ago) brought up that there is a form of 'soft' atheisim that doesn't discount God's existence right off, just argues against it as the arguements rise.
So what is the real difference?
Atheist: There is no God like figure.
Or so I thought. It was recently (like 30 sec. ago) brought up that there is a form of 'soft' atheisim that doesn't discount God's existence right off, just argues against it as the arguements rise.
So what is the real difference?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-16 at 01:34:30
so whats the real difference between what? Sorry Im tired and no understand the question. I am a good Catholic/Christian so I believe there is some higher enity that created all of us and is watching down upon us.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Screwed on 2005-03-16 at 05:02:04
Perhaps I am the type of 'soft' atheist that Firekame is referring to. She meant that they are still atheists, but does not find meticulous flaws or reading a sacred text literally on the suface in religions and exploit or use them as a major basis of argument for God's imposibillity to exist to a certain extent. They are people who perhaps, somewhat question God's existence as arguments rise. I always thought many things in the bible were recorded based on the inference people made of the thing they saw at the time, but whatever happened in the bible may however be contradictary because of people's different inferences.
What Firekame is trying to say is, where is the borderline that is marked between an atheist and a 'soft' atheist? Or perhaps what judgements they are likely to make about different things?
What Firekame is trying to say is, where is the borderline that is marked between an atheist and a 'soft' atheist? Or perhaps what judgements they are likely to make about different things?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ScrollMaker on 2005-03-16 at 07:59:24
QUOTE(FireKame @ Mar 16 2005, 01:15 AM)
Agnostic: The belief that some God like figure is out there; but you aren't for sure what.
Atheist: There is no God like figure.
Or so I thought. It was recently (like 30 sec. ago) brought up that there is a form of 'soft' atheisim that doesn't discount God's existence right off, just argues against it as the arguements rise.
So what is the real difference?
Atheist: There is no God like figure.
Or so I thought. It was recently (like 30 sec. ago) brought up that there is a form of 'soft' atheisim that doesn't discount God's existence right off, just argues against it as the arguements rise.
So what is the real difference?
Agnostic: Does not know if God exists.
Atheist: Is not part of any religion or does not believe in God.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Materia_Master on 2005-03-16 at 10:06:38
My understanding:
Agnostic: Unsure of a higher power, but not against it.
Non-believer: Someone who doesn't believe in God or any higher power, but doesn't discourage religion.
Atheist: Doesn't believe in God or any higher power, tries to convert believers and Agnostics into losing faith and eventually rally against religion in it's entirety.
Agnostic: Unsure of a higher power, but not against it.
Non-believer: Someone who doesn't believe in God or any higher power, but doesn't discourage religion.
Atheist: Doesn't believe in God or any higher power, tries to convert believers and Agnostics into losing faith and eventually rally against religion in it's entirety.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-03-16 at 11:19:11
QUOTE
Atheist: Doesn't believe in God or any higher power, tries to convert believers and Agnostics into losing faith and eventually rally against religion in it's entirety.
Actually, no. No one tries to convert anyone, they simply fail to understand each other's logic.
Athiests simply don't believe in a creator nor a higher power that is described as all-powerful. If you're not really sure, wikipedia explains the definition of athiest really well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-03-16 at 11:35:03
Agnosticism all the way.
I view agnostics as people who are willing to compromise and listen to the arguments from both sides, but see the problems with each of them.
I view agnostics as people who are willing to compromise and listen to the arguments from both sides, but see the problems with each of them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-03-16 at 12:13:54
Or are agnostics just too lazy and unmotivated to make up their own mind?
Also...there is no way to be unaffliated with religon whatsoever? I know that atheism isn't a religon...but what about people who don't want to be part of any thing?
Also...there is no way to be unaffliated with religon whatsoever? I know that atheism isn't a religon...but what about people who don't want to be part of any thing?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Materia_Master on 2005-03-16 at 12:15:14
Oh, alright. I got my impression from when I went on an official athiest site, they just seemed very agressive, so I just assumed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-03-16 at 13:38:30
Some agnostics could be lazy, but most of them just think that the two extremes of organised theism and atheism are fallible.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-16 at 15:36:13
Atheists are aggressive because people keep trying to "save" them. Like they want or need that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-03-16 at 17:41:17
speaking of which...what is an atheist driven by? Logic? Doesn't that repress your spiritual side? Of course...if you believe that you don't have one, would you have a spirit and wouldn't that lead to no soul? Than what would drive emotions?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ScrollMaker on 2005-03-16 at 18:17:52
QUOTE(FireKame @ Mar 16 2005, 05:41 PM)
speaking of which...what is an atheist driven by? Logic?
People have different reasons for believing different things.QUOTE
Doesn't that repress your spiritual side? Of course...if you believe that you don't have one, would you have a spirit and wouldn't that lead to no soul? Than what would drive emotions?
Actually it is the brain that controls your emotions. Spirits and souls have no factual basis.Report, edit, etc...Posted by D_Scypher on 2005-03-16 at 21:37:12
Unless I've missed something, nobody has mentioned the fact that some agnostics believe agnosticism runs on the following theory:
That the existence of God or higher beings is never meant to be proven, nor is it meant to be unproven. It's supposed to be up in the air, and therefore up to man's mind and morals to decide.
In a way, you can be agnostic and still follow a religion, albeit not devoutly. I was raised Catholic, just like my parents before me, and I go to church on Sundays all the same, but I by no means discount any other religion or any other ideal, and at the same time take ideals from many sources to suit my way of life instead of only subscribing to the purposes of Catholicism. To me, this seems to be the most comfortable position - one where I can consider everything while being as logical and as spiritual as I would like.
For sure, spirituality isn't for everyone, and neither is reasoning between the ton of religious concepts out there. Some people just want to live their lives without even thinking about the mystic strings attached, and they should be allowed to. So in the question of "agnostic vs. atheist", they shouldn't even be grouped into simply-phrased words because what they desire is going to be a lot more complex than that. But of course, for the sake of communication, these are the titles they're given.
That the existence of God or higher beings is never meant to be proven, nor is it meant to be unproven. It's supposed to be up in the air, and therefore up to man's mind and morals to decide.
In a way, you can be agnostic and still follow a religion, albeit not devoutly. I was raised Catholic, just like my parents before me, and I go to church on Sundays all the same, but I by no means discount any other religion or any other ideal, and at the same time take ideals from many sources to suit my way of life instead of only subscribing to the purposes of Catholicism. To me, this seems to be the most comfortable position - one where I can consider everything while being as logical and as spiritual as I would like.
For sure, spirituality isn't for everyone, and neither is reasoning between the ton of religious concepts out there. Some people just want to live their lives without even thinking about the mystic strings attached, and they should be allowed to. So in the question of "agnostic vs. atheist", they shouldn't even be grouped into simply-phrased words because what they desire is going to be a lot more complex than that. But of course, for the sake of communication, these are the titles they're given.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Materia_Master on 2005-03-17 at 12:37:48
I could never understand aetheists, what do they have to look forward to after they die?
This may sound retarted, but here me out:
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
This may sound retarted, but here me out:
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-03-17 at 13:41:24
Definition of atheism
(a-) Latin for no
(-theist) believer in god
Not believer in god.
This does not mean that they do not believe in relgion. Many atheists I know believe in reincarnation. Buddhists would be agnostic though, because it doesn't really matter if god exists or not for them.
(a-) Latin for no
(-theist) believer in god
Not believer in god.
This does not mean that they do not believe in relgion. Many atheists I know believe in reincarnation. Buddhists would be agnostic though, because it doesn't really matter if god exists or not for them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-03-17 at 13:59:25
QUOTE(D_Scypher @ Mar 17 2005, 02:37 AM)
Unless I've missed something, nobody has mentioned the fact that some agnostics believe agnosticism runs on the following theory:
That the existence of God or higher beings is never meant to be proven, nor is it meant to be unproven. It's supposed to be up in the air, and therefore up to man's mind and morals to decide.
In a way, you can be agnostic and still follow a religion, albeit not devoutly. I was raised Catholic, just like my parents before me, and I go to church on Sundays all the same, but I by no means discount any other religion or any other ideal, and at the same time take ideals from many sources to suit my way of life instead of only subscribing to the purposes of Catholicism. To me, this seems to be the most comfortable position - one where I can consider everything while being as logical and as spiritual as I would like.
For sure, spirituality isn't for everyone, and neither is reasoning between the ton of religious concepts out there. Some people just want to live their lives without even thinking about the mystic strings attached, and they should be allowed to. So in the question of "agnostic vs. atheist", they shouldn't even be grouped into simply-phrased words because what they desire is going to be a lot more complex than that. But of course, for the sake of communication, these are the titles they're given.
[right][snapback]166502[/snapback][/right]
That the existence of God or higher beings is never meant to be proven, nor is it meant to be unproven. It's supposed to be up in the air, and therefore up to man's mind and morals to decide.
In a way, you can be agnostic and still follow a religion, albeit not devoutly. I was raised Catholic, just like my parents before me, and I go to church on Sundays all the same, but I by no means discount any other religion or any other ideal, and at the same time take ideals from many sources to suit my way of life instead of only subscribing to the purposes of Catholicism. To me, this seems to be the most comfortable position - one where I can consider everything while being as logical and as spiritual as I would like.
For sure, spirituality isn't for everyone, and neither is reasoning between the ton of religious concepts out there. Some people just want to live their lives without even thinking about the mystic strings attached, and they should be allowed to. So in the question of "agnostic vs. atheist", they shouldn't even be grouped into simply-phrased words because what they desire is going to be a lot more complex than that. But of course, for the sake of communication, these are the titles they're given.
[right][snapback]166502[/snapback][/right]
That is an excellent position to take.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-17 at 15:57:25
QUOTE(Materia_Master @ Mar 17 2005, 01:37 PM)
I could never understand aetheists, what do they have to look forward to after they die?
This may sound retarted, but here me out:
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
[right][snapback]166850[/snapback][/right]
This may sound retarted, but here me out:
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
[right][snapback]166850[/snapback][/right]
What absolute ignorance. You guys want to know why theists make me mad? Prime example right here.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-03-17 at 18:18:44
Nozomu, can you answer my questions? I'd like your opinions mostest 
QUOTE
speaking of which...what is an atheist driven by? Logic? Doesn't that repress your spiritual side? Of course...if you believe that you don't have one, would you have a spirit and wouldn't that lead to no soul? Than what would drive emotions?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-03-17 at 18:29:52
What do you mean driven by? Why we beleive there is no god? That's simple, we fail to see the evidence supporting a higher power.
I beleive it's wrong to beleive in something until there is evidence. However, I will accept an explanation if it seems logical. (ie, evolution and big-bang theory)
I beleive it's wrong to beleive in something until there is evidence. However, I will accept an explanation if it seems logical. (ie, evolution and big-bang theory)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by D_Scypher on 2005-03-17 at 21:17:03
QUOTE(Materia_Master @ Mar 17 2005, 09:37 AM)
This may sound retarted, but here me out:
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
[right][snapback]166850[/snapback][/right]
I think aetheists are among the most dangerous people in the world, because they have nothing holding them back from killing somone, where as a religios person, even if they do kill, ussually thinks of the spiritual consiquences first. The only thing they have to fear is prison.
Im not saying religios people don't kill, quite the contrary actually, because on the other side of the spectrum are the religious fanatics, those who kill because they believe God told them to.
I guess I am trying to say that extremes on both sides are bad, in my opinion.
[right][snapback]166850[/snapback][/right]
That's not really true. Just because one doesn't believe in (a) god, one does not know what morals are. It's true that morals were mostly derived from religion, but it's been thousands of years -- we, as the human race, have a generally humane and ethical civilization. And if you can't follow the rules of society, then you're pushed out of it and not considered normal.
If I were an atheist parent, and I raised my child without any religious beliefs, that doesn't mean I'm not going to teach him/her that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. There are non-spiritual consequences too, you know. They're called federal laws.
If an atheist kills for no reason, it's more than likely atheism has nothing to do with that. Just like for an average, moderately-religious person, a murder is a murder and his religious views probably has nothing to do with it. You're right, there are religious and anti-religious extremists, but these are definitely much more rare.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Materia_Master on 2005-03-18 at 14:40:56
Told you that you would think it's retarded.
It's just my opinion.
It's just my opinion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-03-18 at 14:56:31
Basically you're saying it's your opinion that religion is the only way to teach morals.
I disagree. I think that humans are altruistic and that morals have sprung from our natural altruism.
I disagree. I think that humans are altruistic and that morals have sprung from our natural altruism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Materia_Master on 2005-03-18 at 15:00:23
Thats not true, it may be hard for me to explain, I know morals are taught by most families, regardless of religion, or lack of.
*sigh*
Forget it, I can't properly word it, if I keep going, I'll just sound like an ass.
Sorry for bringing it up.
Forget about it, alright?
*sigh*
Forget it, I can't properly word it, if I keep going, I'll just sound like an ass.
Sorry for bringing it up.
Forget about it, alright?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-18 at 23:15:02
Since FK asked me nicely and I like her, I'll have another go at participating.
I'm not really driven by anything. All I want to do is have as much fun as possible in the short time I'm here. That's why I play guitar - I have tons of fun playing shows in front of people, and I want to do it my whole life.
Now, a spiritual side, that's an enigma. I don't believe that anyone (or anything) has a soul, simple because there's no evidence for one. In fact, there's no mysery about emotions which must be explained by something extraordinary - when people feel different emotions, different chemicals and enzymes are secreted in their brains. I don't see why a soul has to come into the picture. I can be perfectly happy and express my emotions even without an explanation for them. To me, emotions, like everything we do as humans, are reactionary to the circumstances in which we are placed.
QUOTE(FireKame @ Mar 16 2005, 06:41 PM)
speaking of which...what is an atheist driven by? Logic? Doesn't that repress your spiritual side? Of course...if you believe that you don't have one, would you have a spirit and wouldn't that lead to no soul? Than what would drive emotions?
[right][snapback]166345[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]166345[/snapback][/right]
I'm not really driven by anything. All I want to do is have as much fun as possible in the short time I'm here. That's why I play guitar - I have tons of fun playing shows in front of people, and I want to do it my whole life.
Now, a spiritual side, that's an enigma. I don't believe that anyone (or anything) has a soul, simple because there's no evidence for one. In fact, there's no mysery about emotions which must be explained by something extraordinary - when people feel different emotions, different chemicals and enzymes are secreted in their brains. I don't see why a soul has to come into the picture. I can be perfectly happy and express my emotions even without an explanation for them. To me, emotions, like everything we do as humans, are reactionary to the circumstances in which we are placed.