For my Christians Friends
- Thread starter nyxtrader
- Start date
There is no single accepted definition of atheism nor of agnoticism.
Now that we got that out of the way...
The differences between atheists and agnostics are largely epistemological (something apparently lost on evangelical "strong" atheists like Richard Dawkins)
Agnostics IN GENERAL accept that proving or disproving God's existence is impossible. An agnostic would have serious disagreements with the so-called "strong" atheist for the reason that God's existence is apparently not empirically verifiable. Since it is impossible to KNOW FOR SURE whether God (or whatever) exists or not, there is no reason to take a position other than "We don't know, because we CANNOT know."
If we cannot disprove or prove God's existence, the correct moral position, according to agnostics (IN GENERAL) is to suspend judgement indefinitely.
Neither atheists nor agnostics are theists, but it does not necessarily follow that agnostics are atheists.
Quote from Thunderdog:
Attempting to "validate" the existence of God on the basis of mere word play is laughable. That even the word play is flawed makes it sad.
And so, I pray that you will one day wake up and realize just how ignorant you really are, not even being able to keep your own brand of logic internally consistent. And should that blessed day miraculously come to pass, I will then pray that you will forgive yourself for having used your brainpan all these years to fry chicken. Go in peace, go with God. Whatever you do, just go.
Wow, I really thought you would post some scientific proof to prove your groundless premise that God does not exist. But to revert to ad hominem, makes my point even stronger. I'll go when you show me the proof that God does not exist. It's really a simple request since you say science can prove anything.
I still await your answer on how to prove your unrestricted negative of God does not exist using logic given that you previously said it is not possible.
Me?
No need to search everywhere. You're neighbor/brother will suit the purpose just fine. Let me repeat the basis of the "rock" of salvation: You and your brother are the Son of God. Proof is waiting for you to "see" this fact when you look. If you see a body, you see what does not exist. When you see Christ, standing there where you thought your brother was, then you will have proof. Your brother will then have proof that you too are the Son of God. And if you asked him like I asked Peter, you would get the same answer. Peter was able to see the Son of God because I saw first the Son of God in him. This is the "rock" of proof you need to really build conviction and consistency in the Way.
Jesus
Substitute "I" in the example for " my friend's account of his now deceased grandpa who lost his wallet in 1880 "
Quote from smilingsynic:
Oh, there is only "the atheistic position"? One, solitary position.
Really? Seems rather simplistic, doesn't it?
If there is only one atheistic position, then where can this creed be found?
For the record, you have NOT refuted agnosticism. Frankly, I have never seen it happen yet. Please, give it a try. Go use Dawkins, if you want (though he failed in his efforts, I am afraid). You may need some help with this one.
And you have yet failed to answer my questions, choosing instead to offer ad hom instead (typical for the evangelical theist AND atheist, btw) and argue, without evidence that my agnosticism is "preposterous".
Btw, one more immature outburst from you, and you'll be sent to the trolls, along with rcanfiel and the rest of the lot.
Go back, read what you wrote and think about it, honestly. Then come back and discuss it without obfuscation.
Quote yourself if you need to.
This is true of the grand majority of atheists and agnostics. It's plain and well known in both communities. But it's apparently a threat to theists to know that atheists and agnostics are actually very much open minded. They know the onus of proof rests with the theist and that both atheism and agnosticism is partly a product of their inability to prove their assertions.
The major difference between an atheist and agnostic is that the atheist has been a bit more vigorous in examining the claims (assertions) of religion and has concluded that the claims are unfounded due to their logical inconsistencies, lack of testability, confusion, hypocrisy, and above all, lack of proof or even a rational litmus test to determine what would constitute as testable proof.
You said it well when you added (with a real I don't give a sh** shrug). And that I find is the other difference between agnostics and atheists. Atheists, due to their generally inquisitive nature and rational midnset, actually do give a sh** considering the implications of one of the religions actually being true. Not only that, but most theists feel it their destiny to inject their worldview upon the world. Not that atheists don't. But if a worldview is based upon myth and fairy tale, it behoves humanity to combat it with reason and keep it a matter of personal conviction rather than allow it to rule over dissimilarly minded individuals.
Understand, that's not to say that religion is all bad as it's not. Personally, I find much of Jesus's teachings to be more excellent than the rest. But what Christians, or I should say of those who call themselves Christians, actually follow those teachings? I haven't met any. Though the odds have it that at least one has to exist. Religion becomes a bad thing when its precepts are applied universally without consideration of other ideals.
Honestly, where did you come up with this?
You keep referring to strong agnosticism as the general agnostic position. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a minority view much more uncommon than strong atheism.
What's more, strong agnosticism is no better than theism in that it makes an assertion it cannot possibly prove. That being that we cannot know if a god exists due to the subjective nature of our experiences (assertion).
Good luck sorting that out. It's assertions all the way down.
General (weak) agnosticism may "seem" to be the more moral position in terms of being politically correct (as in witholding judgement - aka conclusion until conclusive evidence), but it is certainly NOT the logical position to take.
It's simple. To thiests atheists say, "no God until proven." Agnostics say, "Got proof?"
Strong agnostics haven't anything to say at all.