Atheist vs. Agnostic

I am interested to know your own experiences and views on this.

I, who have never encountered hate when I tell people I am Atheist, suddenly am hated when I tell others I am mostly Agnostic.

At least twice I have been told to "grow a pair and choose a side", among other things. That is, if the person even knows what an Agnostic is. I cannot recount how many times I have to answer the question of "What is an Agnostic?".

I find this very insulting, and I am interested to hear your views on the differences between Atheists and Agnostics, and the public's view on them both.

I don't consider agnostic in itself to be a real position. If you are unable to assert that there is a god. Then you are an atheist.

Gnostic/agnostic is a seperate thing. I do understand people who label themselves agnostic because it carries less stigma than atheist.

I don't consider agnostic in itself to be a real position. If you are unable to assert that there is a god. Then you are an atheist.

_Tobli_

Your last sentence is correct to me, but as an agnostic I assert niether the existance of god, or his non-existance. I cannot prove either stance, so I choose not to join either side.

I agree with you, Bumfluff122.

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

I don't consider agnostic in itself to be a real position. If you are unable to assert that there is a god. Then you are an atheist.

itsTolkien_time

Your last sentence is correct to me, but as an agnostic I assert niether the existance of god, or his non-existance. I cannot prove either stance, so I choose not to join either side.

I agree with you, Bumfluff122.

I ought to listen to the Canadian, eh? :P

I prefer to just say agnostic, although in these forums I commonly refer to myself as Atheist. I can't stop considering them different things, however much I usually lean towards atheist standpoints. Maybe I can describe myself as a tolerant atheist? :)

I didn't mean any harm by the canadian statement. :P

I ought to listen to the Canadian, eh? :P

I prefer to just say agnostic, although in these forums I commonly refer to myself as Atheist. I can't stop considering them different things, however much I usually lean towards atheist standpoints. Maybe I can describe myself as a tolerant atheist? :)

I didn't mean any harm by the canadian statement. :P

itsTolkien_time

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive guys. One refers to what you do or do not know, the other refers to what you do or do not believe. Tolkein_time here's a flow chart of questions to help you figure out what you are.

1. Do you believe that a God/gods exist? If yes you're a theist of some variety, if no move to question two

2. Do you believe that God/gods do not exist? If yes move on to question three, if no you're an agnostic weak atheist

3. Do you know that no God/gods exist? If yes then you are a gnostic strong atheist, if no then you are an agnostic strong atheist

For myself I'm an agnostic strong atheist which means that I believe that no God(s) exist but that I do not know this.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive guys. One refers to what you do or do not know, the other refers to what you do or do not believe. Tolkein_time here's a flow chart of questions to help you figure out what you are.

1. Do you believe that a God/gods exist? If yes you're a theist of some variety, if no move to question two

2. Do you believe that God/gods do not exist? If yes move on to question three, if no you're an agnostic weak atheist

3. Do you know that no God/gods exist? If yes then you are a gnostic strong atheist, if no then you are an agnostic strong atheist

For myself I'm an agnostic strong atheist which means that I believe that no God(s) exist but that I do not know this.

domatron23

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

bean-with-bacon

...did the guy on the telephone started swearing at him at the end of the vid?

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

Teenaged

...did the guy on the telephone started swearing at him at the end of the vid?

Yeah, it's pretty damn funny:

"So your claiming there is a lack of evidence and therefore no reason to believe it?"

"Yep" Sips drink.

"Yeah well how about this, how about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus!"

Disconnected

:lol: Owned by reasoned arguments so he resorts to threats out of the blue :lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

bean-with-bacon

...did the guy on the telephone started swearing at him at the end of the vid?

Yeah, it's pretty damn funny:

"So your claiming there is a lack of evidence and therefore no reason to believe it?"

"Yep" Sips drink.

"Yeah well how about this, how about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus!"

Disconnected

:lol: Owned by reasoned arguments so he resorts to threats out of the blue :lol:

You know he was very non-aggressive at first to the point where he was not speaking at all and to me he seemed very cooperative, and then suddenly (when nothing had changed really) he swears at him.

Idk my impression.

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

bean-with-bacon

I love it how it just deteriorated in one second right at the very end.

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

Teenaged

...did the guy on the telephone started swearing at him at the end of the vid?

Yeah, it's pretty damn funny:

"So your claiming there is a lack of evidence and therefore no reason to believe it?"

"Yep" Sips drink.

"Yeah well how about this, how about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus!"

Disconnected

:lol: Owned by reasoned arguments so he resorts to threats out of the blue :lol:

You know he was very non-aggressive at first to the point where he was not speaking at all and to me he seemed very cooperative, and then suddenly (when nothing had changed really) he swears at him.

Idk my impression.

Well it is possible, they have had fake callers pretending to be crazy christians before but they always clarified later that they were faked for a laugh, I think he just run out of arguments and so resorted to insults, hilarious either way.

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

domatron23

I love it how it just deteriorated in one second right at the very end.

Man, what time is it over there? Not that I can talk :P

EDIT:

Oh wait, nvm, you're a few more hours ahead of me then I thought :P

Damn early birds :x

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

bean-with-bacon

I love it how it just deteriorated in one second right at the very end.

Man, what time is it over there? Not that I can talk :P

EDIT:

Oh wait, nvm, you're a few more hours ahead of me then I thought :P

Damn early birds :x

I think that post was made at about 6:30 AM in my time. I had been up all night playing fight night.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Here's a pretty good vid by Atheist Experience that goes into the various positions on god, worth a watch imo, and it gets hilarious right at the end :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVc8YGZlE

bean-with-bacon

...did the guy on the telephone started swearing at him at the end of the vid?

Yeah, it's pretty damn funny:

"So your claiming there is a lack of evidence and therefore no reason to believe it?"

"Yep" Sips drink.

"Yeah well how about this, how about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus!"

Disconnected

:lol: Owned by reasoned arguments so he resorts to threats out of the blue :lol:

The way I see it, a theist believes that there is a deity. An atheist disbelieves in the same. And agnostic sees enough circumstantial evidence either for both sides or for none of them, that he/she genuinely believes it's impossible to know for sure either way. As a theist, I find it odd that a person in that situation will automatically be labeled and treated as an atheist. If I was an agnostic, I would probably be a bit insulted that my position was not considered valid.ChiliDragon

That is my dilemma. Everyone I know thinks agnostic=atheist, or worshipping Satan. :(

Most people I know have never even HEARD the word agnostic.

I just noticed the quote by Aristotle in your sig, ChiliDragon, it's a good one.itsTolkien_time

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]

I ought to listen to the Canadian, eh? :P

I prefer to just say agnostic, although in these forums I commonly refer to myself as Atheist. I can't stop considering them different things, however much I usually lean towards atheist standpoints. Maybe I can describe myself as a tolerant atheist? :)

I didn't mean any harm by the canadian statement. :P

BumFluff122

I thought Canadians were the Yanks poor cousin!!:PTHUMPTABLE

That's what we want the Yanks to think.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"][QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]

I ought to listen to the Canadian, eh? :P

I prefer to just say agnostic, although in these forums I commonly refer to myself as Atheist. I can't stop considering them different things, however much I usually lean towards atheist standpoints. Maybe I can describe myself as a tolerant atheist? :)

I didn't mean any harm by the canadian statement. :P

THUMPTABLE

I actually like Canada, the scenery and nature is very nice, and there aren't as many people to ruin it. :P

Everything is super expensive in the tourist areas though.

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

dracula_16

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

ChiliDragon

Would you please be more specific?

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

dracula_16

Why is it that inconceivable that someone could honestly just feel that he or she does not know? 

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

GabuEx

Why is it that inconceivable that someone could honestly just feel that he or she does not know?

That's not what the agnostic label is-- that's what the definition of the word is. It's like when a kid says that something is gay

He doesn't mean that in a literal way.

The agnostic label is what people give to themself when they are asked where their faith lies. What they're trying to say is that they are in a transition. They are using a different definition of what "agnostic" is.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="dracula_16"]

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe. Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.

dracula_16

Why is it that inconceivable that someone could honestly just feel that he or she does not know?

That's not what the agnostic label is-- that's what the definition of the word is. It's like when a kid says that something is gay

He doesn't mean that in a literal way.

The agnostic label is what people give to themself when they are asked where their faith lies. What they're trying to say is that they are in a transition. They are using a different definition of what "agnostic" is.

Well one person needs not choose a side. I dont see why.

On the other hand many people must believe that agnosticism is the easy solution to avoid confrontation from both sides and appear neutral. This is just not the case .The only easiness in agnosticism is that it doesnt pertain to any absolute stance (there is a god / there is no god) and thus an agnostic needs not to support each site strongly.

The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe.dracula_16

Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.dracula_16

I'll try to be more specific... What does this: [QUOTE="dracula_16"]The agnostic label is simply a cop out. It says nothing about what you believe-- all it says is that you're unwilling to admit what you believe.ChiliDragon

Someone who's going to hurl insults as soon as they find out you're an atheist is not friend material.dracula_16

Ah, now I see. The two quotes of mine weren't related to each other; that's my fault for the confusion. My first sentance was what I think of the agnostic label, and the second one was in reply to the topic creator's struggle with mistreatment.

I've already posted in this thread, but I want to add a few more thoughts.

First of all, I don't understand what's so special about God that he deserves an exemption clause of disbelief compared to other absurdities such as the invisible pink unicorn. No one would consider themselves the slightest bit agnosticin terms of disbelieving in an invisible pink unicorn. So why should I give God the benefit of the doubt just because people consider him holy and the invisible pink unicorn is not? His holiness depends on his existence, which is nil. I can't even stand the idea of ignosticism either, because there have been several definitions of God, all of which have no counterpart in reality (that is, if you're not redefining a material object like a chair or something like the universe as "God", which is a matter of redefining). Agnosticism and ignosticism panders to theists to make it appear as though their beliefs have validity, which is simply not true.

As for the matter on bisexuality, I do believe that everyone besides asexuals would be somewhat bisexual if they weren't so selective on sexual matters. Of course sexuality and sex itself is selective, thankfully. But still, bisexuals do exist, as do agnostics.

EDIT: Atheism is a sad story too, because there isn't a name for disbelieving in seemingly countless fairy tales. By that same token, the term "atheism" shouldn't exist, in addition to "agnostic" and "theist" and the rest.

I've already posted in this thread, but I want to add a few more thoughts.

First of all, I don't understand what's so special about God that he deserves an exemption clause of disbelief compared to other absurdities such as the invisible pink unicorn. No one would consider themselves the slightest bit agnosticin terms of disbelieving in an invisible pink unicorn. So why should I give God the benefit of the doubt just because people consider him holy and the invisible pink unicorn is not? His holiness depends on his existence, which is nil. I can't even stand the idea of ignosticism either, because there have been several definitions of God, all of which have no counterpart in reality (that is, if you're not redefining a material object like a chair or something like the universe as "God", which is a matter of redefining). Agnosticism and ignosticism panders to theists to make it appear as though their beliefs have validity, which is simply not true.

As for the matter on bisexuality, I do believe that everyone besides asexuals would be somewhat bisexual if they weren't so selective on sexual matters. Of course sexuality and sex itself is selective, thankfully. But still, bisexuals do exist, as do agnostics.

EDIT: Atheism is a sad story too, because there isn't a name for disbelieving in seemingly countless fairy tales. By that same token, the term "atheism" shouldn't exist, in addition to "agnostic" and "theist" and the rest.

Genetic_Code

First of all, I don't understand what's so special about God that he deserves an exemption clause of disbelief compared to other absurdities such as the invisible pink unicorn. No one would consider themselves the slightest bit agnosticin terms of disbelieving in an invisible pink unicorn. So why should I give God the benefit of the doubt just because people consider him holy and the invisible pink unicorn is not?Genetic_Code

In a utopian society where man is infallible, no one would believe in God and therefore the term "atheism" would be obsolete.

Genetic_Code

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If God doesn't exist, he cannot be holy, nor does he have a nature to begin with. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you seemed to throw that out there to debate that with me.

Genetic_Code

Well, that's not really true - the nonexistence of unicorns doesn't stop the blueprints of the being from containing a singular horn.

And as for what's the difference between God and everything else, that answer is actually, I think, pretty simple: the notion of a creator of everything is a fundamental concept at which many humans have arrived spontaneously merely by contemplating existence itself.  The question of whether our form of existence was created and whether that creation involved an intelligent force behind it is a pivotal question regarding our very being.  On the other hand, the question of whether an equine-like animal exists with a singular horn poses no real philosophical relevance whatsoever; it is merely a matter of curiosity.

....Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]First of all, I don't understand what's so special about God that he deserves an exemption clause of disbelief compared to other absurdities such as the invisible pink unicorn. No one would consider themselves the slightest bit agnosticin terms of disbelieving in an invisible pink unicorn. So why should I give God the benefit of the doubt just because people consider him holy and the invisible pink unicorn is not?ChiliDragon

None of us have any actual knowledge of anything beyond what our senses tell us. To immediately dismiss everything that does not fit into this very limited amount of knowledge as a "fairytale" seems to me to be a very convenient excuse for never questioning or examining one's own beliefs. After all, why take fairytales seriously? They're just fables. But if they're not, or if the limited amount of knowledge given by the five senses isn't all there is, then I think a person would do themselves a disservice by intentionally limiting their world in such a fashion.

I wouldn't say a strict reliance on the five sense is limiting, rather it allows us to dismiss all that is untestable, and a result of conjecture or pure faith

There may be a world of the intangible and intelligible, but if it does not present itself to my body nor my mind, then for what reason should I ever care for it?

Obscureness is a convenient excuse for being lazy and denying the obvious.Genetic_Code

I wouldn't say a strict reliance on the five sense is limiting, rather it allows us to dismiss all that is untestable, and a result of conjecture or pure faithMetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I wouldn't say a strict reliance on the five sense is limiting, rather it allows us to dismiss all that is untestable, and a result of conjecture or pure faithChiliDragon

I didn't say that it being untestable necessarily made it non-existent. However, just because I cannot disprove the existence of an entity does not mean I can't dismiss it. I dismiss the flying spaghetti monster also for the exact same reasons; that such a being is completely intangible, and unintelligible.

However, just because I cannot disprove the existence of an entity does not mean I can't dismiss it.MetalGear_Ninty