Atheism & Agnosticism are not the same thing!

thechanger

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I fear the differences are a bit too subtle for the average schmuck to grasp.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Atheist%252520v%252520Theist.png

If people think atheists fall into the Gnostic Atheist field, then famous atheists are not atheists. I've never known anyone to be so arrogant to claim to know no god exists (Even Dawkins). Just how can they know... They are as deluded as creationists.

44leto

thechanger wrote: »

If people think atheists fall into the Gnostic Atheist field, then famous atheists are not atheists. I've never known anyone to be so arrogant to claim to know no god exists (Even Dawkins). Just how can they know... They are as deluded as creationists.

They can know, by understanding the intricacies of live and how it was formed, they can easily reason that it all came about on its own. So yes they can deny the existence of any deity. I can anyway and i am not a biologist or evolutionist, but I understand the science enough to reason, it didn't need a God to spark it all.

But there is a sting in the tale. Evolution has made us religious, there are biological advantages to a specie that can form a religion. It is useful for a social animal and the reduction of hopelessness when you understand death. There are regions in our brain that process religion, there are even genetic markers for it, people can be born with a stronger sense of it then others.

In truth we need religion, it is a natural part of us,,,,BUT that does not mean there is a God, it just means we are deluded into thinking there is one.

Do you ever wonder why someone could identify with something bigger then himself, something like Manchester united, Ireland, Dublin GAA, its the same mechanism.

As the saying goes "there are no atheists in a foxhole" I can safely say I would be one, I am very comfortable with my atheistic "faith".

I hate people who dont believe in something but will not shut up about it. So much so that they start a group !

44leto

Deleted User wrote: »

I hate people who dont believe in something but will not shut up about it. So much so that they start a group !

Yeah the band of celebrity atheistic evangelistic saints and martyrs who offer a better world, in the brotherhood of man, united by the true faith atheism.

There would be a world of no religious wars and one of pure reason based on science and the rational, and we would all come together in groups and celebrate our atheism on "Dawkin"s Day".

I never had an inclination to preach my atheism,,never,, I don't understand people who do. I suppose I am no zealot.

Calibos

44leto wrote: »

Yeah the band of celebrity atheistic evangelistic saints and martyrs who offer a better world, in the brotherhood of man, united by the true faith atheism.

There would be a world of no religious wars and one of pure reason based on science and the rational, and we would all come together in groups and celebrate our atheism on "Dawkin"s Day".

I never had an inclination to preach my atheism,,never,, I don't understand people who do. I suppose I am no zealot.

None of us have an inclination to preach our atheism even Dawkins...that was until we realised that we had arrived in the 21st century and Epicurus' message from 300bc still hadn't sunk in, the Scopes trial seems to have not settled the 'teaching wevolution/creationism in schools matter after nearly 100 years, the Catholic church still has a problem with gay people and condoms especially in the third world and 90% of schools are still Catholic run and finally that people still want to have some of the laws of the land based on the ramblings in a 2000 year old book written by bronze age goat herders from the Eastern Mediterrainian. I for one demand that equal weight in our legistlation should be given to the ramblings of 13th century Obsidian age, Llama herders from the Peruvian Andes. What our lord Qwatzelotec has to say about condom use is as relevent today as it was then......Oh wait....:D

Dave147

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Actually, they are. All agnostics are atheists but all atheists are not agnostics. A bit like squares and rectangles. Contemporary usage of the term atheist is usually incorrect, as one just has to lack belief in a deity to be an atheist, not believe for sure that none exist.

Well Atheism is the rejection of a deity, Agnosticism is doubt that their is a deity. I think there is a difference there, but I don't see any problem with the forum being grouped together as the overall theme is the same.

bnt

Dave147 wrote: »

Well Atheism is the rejection of a deity, Agnosticism is doubt that their is a deity.

I think you need to go back over the previous pages in this thread and clarify the terminology. Agnosticism is an invented word with a specific meaning, and it's not "doubt". It means "I don't believe the question can be answered".

Atheists have "doubt" too - we don't claim certainty about any of this - so that's not the differentiating factor. The question is "are there gods?", and not answering "yes" is not the same as answering "no". Agnostics don't answer "yes" either, which technically makes them atheists too: the problem there is one of image, not philosophy.

44leto

Calibos wrote: »

None of us have an inclination to preach our atheism even Dawkins...that was until we realised that we had arrived in the 21st century and Epicurus' message from 300bc still hadn't sunk in, the Scopes trial seems to have not settled the 'teaching wevolution/creationism in schools matter after nearly 100 years, the Catholic church still has a problem with gay people and condoms especially in the third world and 90% of schools are still Catholic run and finally that people still want to have some of the laws of the land based on the ramblings in a 2000 year old book written by bronze age goat herders from the Eastern Mediterrainian. I for one demand that equal weight in our legistlation should be given to the ramblings of 13th century Obsidian age, Llama herders from the Peruvian Andes. What our lord Qwatzelotec has to say about condom use is as relevent today as it was then......Oh wait....:D

Are you implying all atheists are liberal, pro choice, pro gay and pro contraceptive, I am sure some aren't. Hitler was an Atheist and he was responsible for putting some crap on the German educational curriculum with a **** lot worse problems then creationist "Ehh Theory" (LOL) ever would.

frozenfrozen

Half way through writing a the answer to life, I realised that this thread is in AH.


God isn't real

/thread

Knasher

44leto wrote: »

Are you implying all atheists are liberal, pro choice, pro gay and pro contraceptive, I am sure some aren't. Hitler was an Atheist and he was responsible for putting some crap on the German educational curriculum with a **** lot worse problems then creationist "Ehh Theory" (LOL) ever would.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. In fact atheists were banned from joining the nazi party for the exact same reason that "in god we trust" appears on American money, to rally against the soviets, who were forcibly atheist.

If you want to pick somebody who is equally reviled and was an atheist but wasn't liberal or secular, then there are actual examples like Stalin.

The King of Moo

Yeah, I hate ill-informed presumptions and assumptions (don't you hate when people lump those two together?)

I mean, just because a user is called Pompous, it doesn't mean that...

Oh...

For the record, I'm a Theo Huxtable.