Agnosticism vs Atheism

Jaywalker

To people who call themselves atheists how would you differentiate yourself from agnostics.

I wrote an article in blog about atheism and agnosticism. http://www.tabulas.com/~jaywalker_1982/ My blog is mostly about humor and not intended for a formal debate so I used a lot of generalizations and strong words.

Anyway I have a debate is going on in my comments box. If you want to join in just click on the comment that you want to reply to

Here's what the flamer said

Im sorry. I wasnt trying to pick a fight or be hostile in any manner.
It was just a strategy to get your attention and i think it works.
I didnt expect that you'll be countering me this fast (and this long).

What I gave you were just premises and until you've accepted my invitation,
only then that I'll start building-up my defense. Nonetheless, I feel
obligated to answer you back.

Atheist talaga ang attitude mo kasi assuming
ka na wala nga akong support sa mga arguments ko. Eh kaso in fact meron. Di ko lang
nilagay dahil mahaba. But if youre serious enough then I'll give it to you in details.

Its really disturbing how you avoided the question "How can you be an Atheist
if you cant prove that there is no God." Diba sabi mo Scientific ka eh bat
ganyan ba ang scientific attitude mo? Ano nalang kaya ang naging scientific
method mo for you to arrived to that conclusion? tsk tsk.

******** No.1 - "the primary reason for my being an atheist is my rejection of
supernaturalism, which is tangential to proper intellectual inquiry."

I'll give you an analogy for dummies. Dracula. He does many supernatural things.
And If I may say so, its all ********. But is it enough to deny his existence?
Of course not. So your so-called primary reason for being an Atheist is
unsubstantial and busted.

"-Human stupidity is not something that is fully understood in its
entirety but stupidity is not considered supernatural"

Where did you get this? This is really misleading. "Not Fully Understood"
and "Unexplained" is a whole different matter. This Jedi-Mind Trick dont work
on me. Thats why I am explaining to you how stupid you are because it is
really a non-supernatural thing.


"A supernatural phenomenon, in addition to being unexplained is
also is one that incongruent with naturalism or known scientific laws "

When viruses and bacteria still hasnt been discovered yet by Science
and most people think that diseases are due to bad spirits, many people
think that this is supernatural. But after Science explained it to us,
this supernatural phenomenon became scientific and logical.
Wow from supernatural to scientific. I hope you can agree with me that
there are supernatural phenomenon before that are not supernatural
anymore due to Science finally catching up.

Technically supernatural phenomenon are variable and are not constant.
So is this going to be your basis?



"There is no rule in reasoning and logic that says God is the default
explanation should science fail to provide an answer."

Yes. Though it is not the default answer, but could be the second
if not the best answer.



"I DON’T expect science to prove or disprove god ever. God by its very
nature is unfalsifiable. There is no naturalistic model to falsify or
test the validity of."

Whoa. Sounds very agnostic. I'm sorry. Correct me if Im wrong but
isnt it that Atheist=There is no God?

If youre not expecting Science to prove or disprove God ever and Naturalism is
also a Science and your basis of supernaturals is Science and Naturalism. How
the hell can you prove that there is no God when you have no other means.
Yeah Math is Science ang Logic is Science too.

You said that your primary reason for being an atheist is that you reject the
supernaturals. How can you know what are the supernaturals without Science and
Math and Logic? How? Just face it- Science is you basis. Dont contradict yourself.


"Haven’t you stopped to think that maybe the only thing that
makes you take your bible more seriously than the holy book of another
religion is the fact that you just happened to be born and raised
catholic. If you were born in muslim family do you think you’d be
worshiping the same god? Is that something that makes you feel comfortable?
Context based reality"


Im sorry Mr. Assuming Atheist. I am not a Catholic nor you can associate me
in any other religion made by man. People isnt born with religion.
Was i born as a catholic? Is it like your mother is Filipino and you father is
a Filipino that you will be born a Filipino? Its generally true that people born as
a catholic or in any other religion that they remain that way. But I am not like that.

I've studied Religion and Science because Im seeking for the truth. How about
you? Have you made any study for you to conclude that there is no God?


Lastly faith should be based on logic. That why you are wrong. Unless of course your
talking about blind faith. I'll give you another analogy for dummies.
I have faith that my gf will come to our date. Why? Because she never fails
to come. Because I am sure that she'll remembers it. See that faith.
Faith should have basis.

So lets substitute your logic to the analogy. shall we

I have faith that my gf will come to our date. But she never come. Why?
Because I dont have any GF or we never talked about any dates. Dont be stupid
to believe something that has no basis.

Lastly. I'll answer your question on why is it easier and more convenient for
you to accept that there is no God. Because believing in God is much harder
to do. It comes with responsibilies and obligations, like walking the right path.

Obeying hundreds of commandments. Worrying where will you go when you die, adding
fear to death. Why would I accept that there is God when it is more convenient to
believe that there is no God? It is because Im after for the truth and not the easy

way out.


Analogy for dummies:

Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Agnostic) : Hmmmm. I dont know. I'll go check.


Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Theist) : Hmmmm. Yes we have. I saw a delivery truck...blah ...blah
I'll get it.


Customer: Miss do you have a Chuck Taylor.
Saleslady (Atheist) : We dont have that.
Customer: **** you! Please check it. Are you lazy to do your job?

Well i am the customer.


Analogy for dummies 2


Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Agnostic): I have no idea. Maybe.

Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Theist): Yes.I'll do my best to have it done.

Supervisor: Is this project feasible?
Programmer (Atheist):No. Its is impossible and even if it is. I wont do it.
I'll just sit here and do nothing.
Supervisor: Youre Fired!

Exaggerated. I know. Its too long already. Next time I'll give my evidences that
there is really a God. Sensya na di ako sanay talaga sa Conio mode ng pagsasalita

e. Wag ka sana magalit. Nang-aasar lang talaga ako. Peace Meyn! Apir.

and here was my reply

”ITS REALLY DISTURBING HOW YOU AVOIDED THE QUESTION "HOW CAN YOU BE AN ATHEIST
IF YOU CANT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD." DIBA SABI MO SCIENTIFIC KA EH BAT
GANYAN BA ANG SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE MO? ANO NALANG KAYA ANG NAGING SCIENTIFIC
METHOD MO FOR YOU TO ARRIVED TO THAT CONCLUSION? TSK TSK. “

I’ve already answered this not only in my reply to your comment but also in my other articles. I know ADHD can be a ***** but please try to exert some effort.

Let me pick up on what benj said, Given that there is neither proof nor disproof for god, there should be no impetus for belief. The neutral position then would be, not to believe and not to completely deny. This position is squarely in the atheist’s camp since atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief for a supreme being. Whether the atheist holds open a slim possibility for the existence of god or completely closes himself off to that possibility is an entirely different matter.
Complete rejection of any possibility of the existence of god is an extreme position and is one that I do not hold. I’ve said it in the article “If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed” Even Richard dawkins who considers himself a strong atheist doesn’t completely close himself off to that possibility

Though no one can be completely certain of anything, one can be more certain on some things than others. For one it is MORE certain that god is an unnecessary variable, it is more certain that god as he is described by his believers is incompatible with science and It is more certain that god is a logically fallacious answer to anything.

The point of the article itself is to define the vague line between atheism and agnosticism because in both groups, belief is non-existent, or at the very least weak. Both groups wouldn’t say that there is a god but only one group would say that the probability of the existence of god is low enough to warrant disbelief. It is mostly in their underlying motivations where they differ. Agnostics choose not to believe on the basis of ignorance, Atheists choose not to believe because there is no compelling reason for them to do so

WHEN VIRUSES AND BACTERIA STILL HASNT BEEN DISCOVERED YET BY SCIENCE
AND MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT DISEASES ARE DUE TO BAD SPIRITS, MANY PEOPLE
THINK THAT THIS IS SUPERNATURAL. BUT AFTER SCIENCE EXPLAINED IT TO US,
THIS SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON BECAME SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL.
WOW FROM SUPERNATURAL TO SCIENTIFIC. I HOPE YOU CAN AGREE WITH ME THAT
THERE ARE SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON BEFORE THAT ARE NOT SUPERNATURAL
ANYMORE DUE TO SCIENCE FINALLY CATCHING UP.

TECHNICALLY SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON ARE VARIABLE AND ARE NOT CONSTANT.
SO IS THIS GOING TO BE YOUR BASIS?

That is indeed a fact. What is supernatural changes with the available scientific evidence.

As I said in the article if god were scientifically proven or at least a feasible scientific hypothesis for him were given, then I may be swayed. To be completely closed to the possibility of anything is, as you said, unscientific. Of course once a NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION for god is found, he would CEASE to be a supernatural entity. The problem now is that not only is there no empirical evidence or at least a feasible hypothesis for god, there is also virtually no compelling or even mildly persuasive, non circular logical argument for him to exist. –Please give me a few. What is your primary reason for belief?

Yes I am strongly intolerant of supernatural explanations. By its very definition, a supernatural explanation is one that is entirely speculative, not based on credible facts, not testable through scientific means and incongruous to known science. If I were to say that invisible pink fluffy butterflies were responsible for the existence of the universe would you believe me? What would be the nature of the evidence that makes your chosen god a more compelling choice?

Are you familiar with Occam’s razor? It’s a logical concept that is also used in mathematics and science Basically it says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words you should not introduce unknown variables that complicate the explanation and don’t make any difference to the explanatory hypothesis. If the only impulse for belief in god is that he can answer everything that science can’t, then explain how this answer your proposing EXPLAINS everything that science can’t. A hypothesis is different from a conclusion. God s a conclusion without a hypothesis. You’re basically answering a question with an answer that infinitely eclipses the question its trying to answer in scope. If you don’t know how the complex universe came into existence, why answer that question with an even more complex answer like god, when you don’t even know how it came into existence. >C>D>E>F is an incomplete chain therefore I will add B so it will be >B>C>D>E>F –how does that change anything?

I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER ANALOGY FOR DUMMIES.
I HAVE FAITH THAT MY GF WILL COME TO OUR DATE. WHY? BECAUSE SHE NEVER FAILS
TO COME. BECAUSE I AM SURE THAT SHE'LL REMEMBERS IT. SEE THAT FAITH.
FAITH SHOULD HAVE BASIS.

That is not merely faith. That is extrapolation from observed data. You assume that she’s going to come because she always comes. If you’ve never met her before and you have no idea what she’s like then that would be closer to faith than intelligent projection from known data. How is this analogous to faith in god? Please explain

LASTLY. I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON WHY IS IT EASIER AND MORE CONVENIENT FOR
YOU TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO GOD. BECAUSE BELIEVING IN GOD IS MUCH HARDER
TO DO. IT COMES WITH RESPONSIBILIES AND OBLIGATIONS, LIKE WALKING THE RIGHT PATH.

OBEYING HUNDREDS OF COMMANDMENTS. WORRYING WHERE WILL YOU GO WHEN YOU DIE, ADDING
FEAR TO DEATH. WHY WOULD I ACCEPT THAT THERE IS GOD WHEN IT IS MORE CONVENIENT TO
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD? IT IS BECAUSE IM AFTER FOR THE TRUTH AND NOT THE EASY

Contrary to that, Atheists don’t expect any form of reward after life, they expect to completely disappear after death and they do not expect to see their loved ones after death -Don’t you think these are much harder to bear? This argument is merely a matter of taste and has no bearing on anything at all. Argue from facts and logic and not from your personal fears and preferences.

blue[]ce

I could not find the links for commenting on your blog :( for that specific article

Jaywalker

[QUOTE=blue[]ice]I could not find the links for commenting on your blog for that specific article[/QUOTE]
click on comments. It's underneath the article

Jaywalker

anyway here it is http://www.tabulas.com/~jaywalker_1982/1329605.html#comment

The name of the flamer is kryos

freakster2k1

agnostics seat at shot gun; atheists are drivers. both can be caught for seatbelt violation, but only one is required to carry a license.

Jonga

freakster2k1 wrote: »

agnostics seat at shot gun; atheists are drivers. both can be caught for seatbelt violation, but only one is required to carry a license.

im so stupid i didn't get this LOL



i like analogies

Customer: do you have a chuck taylor
Salesperson: (agnostic) doesn't really matter if its a chuck taylor or a nike, what you need are shoes....nyway, it doesn't really matter at all
Customer: just do it ok

Customer: do you have a chuck taylor
Salesperson: (theist) yes! and you should also try chuck taylor t-shirt cause it also looks good, we have the japanese version, filipino version, US version...
Customer: no i just like the shoes

Customer: do you have a chuck taylor
Salesperson: (atheist) no! can you see it displayed on the store? are you blind? so dont buy chuck taylor. ok?
salesperson: fine....sheesh

albert_sy2

agnostic, atheist, freethinker, humanist.... pare-parehong di naniniwala sa diyos. tapos ang usapan.

no need to differentiate one from the other unless you are just looking for a pointless argument. are you trying to say one is the "correct" type of non-believer, much as christians like to argue as to which sect is the "chosen" one?

Jonga

ako agnostic pero naniniwala sa god

loc0

So in other words, you're not agnostic.

gadƒly

agnostic = there is no way of proving if god exists or not. (well not in this lifetime at least). so its up to the agnostic if s/he wants to believe in a god or what given that postulate-- the only difference between the agnostic and the a/theists, mas open kami towards possibilities and changes in belief. hindi sa balimbing kami open-minded lang. minsan nire-refer din ang mga agnostics as "soft atheists"

atheist- walang diyos. tapos ang usapan.

Ischaramoochie

^ that would be a deist, i think.

Jonga

sorry, let me rephrase elaborately

ako agnostic pero naniniwala sa god, pero di ko maeexplain sayo na meron ngang god, so pedeng di sya tunay o pedeng tunay sya (soft agnostic i think), pero naniniwala ako na kelangan ang god ng tao

otherwise, it doesn't really matter at all, cause for me, they are all just the same freakoes(atheist, agnostic, theist etc.), so i guess im more freako than anybody here LOL

gadƒly

Ischaramoochie wrote: »

^ that would be a deist, i think.

kapatid, basa!

the omniscient one

Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know God(s) exists -- only to believe it. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as trifling. By contrast, compare:

"I believe God(s) exist(s)" means that "I know God(s) exist(s)".
"I believe God(s) exist(s)" can still mean "I don't know if God(s) exist(s)".
If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly described by the term will again find themselves without a label, because the qualifiers provided would be inappropriate for their philosophy.

Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) are unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism —the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of god(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
Non-practicing agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either existence or nonexistence of god(s), and that it's meaningless to care.
Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. (See scientific method)
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic spiritualism —the view that there may or may not be a God(s), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
Relative Agnosticism—This is similar to Agnostic spiritualism, but with the added view that if it was empirically proven that God(s) do or do not exist, it would not affect the beliefs of the Relative Agnostic.
Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[3]

at in support po kay ka Jonga, tingin ko siya ay isang Agnostic Theist

at since ang background ko e psychology tingin ko ay kailangan din ng ordinaryong tao ng diyos para sa kanyang sariling katinuan. GOD=coping mechanism.

personally, naging atheist ako for about three days lang siguro.. naisip ko kasi since theres no way of proving god's existence e maniwala na lang ako sa ngayon para kung sakaling meron ngang diyos at mamatay ako kinabukasan ndi naman ako derecho sa impyerno.. sa limbo lang siguro pero keri na un oportunista ba? hehehe sigurista lang.

visionarylink

I'd rather prefer my rocketism.

Ischaramoochie

oh well, icecreamism na lang tayong lahat...

hotchillipepper

hahahaha!!!

it's summer here and while the rest of world is in winter, we should all have icecream!!

Jonga

personally, naging atheist ako for about three days lang siguro.. naisip ko kasi since theres no way of proving god's existence e maniwala na lang ako sa ngayon para kung sakaling meron ngang diyos at mamatay ako kinabukasan ndi naman ako derecho sa impyerno.. sa limbo lang siguro pero keri na un oportunista ba? hehehe sigurista lang.

hehe...ganun na nga LOL

but its really exciting to escape from laws/religions hehe...making faith more interesting

hotchillipepper

naisip ko kasi since theres no way of proving god's existence e maniwala na lang ako sa ngayon para kung sakaling meron ngang diyos at mamatay ako kinabukasan ndi naman ako derecho sa impyerno

Good on you! there's nothing wrong with subscribing an afterlife insurance!

basta ba wala lang takutan eh!!

blue[]ce

naisip ko kasi since theres no way of proving god's existence e maniwala na lang ako sa ngayon para kung sakaling meron ngang diyos at mamatay ako kinabukasan ndi naman ako derecho sa impyerno

The question would be, maging acceptable ba iyan kay God? kasi i'm thinking na half-hearted effort lang yan. Unless talagang christian ka sa lifestyle mo and such. So I'm thinking na hindi yan lulusot kay God because he has set standards for us to follow. So kung hindi rin lulusot, why bother?

Jonga

blue[]ce wrote: »

The question would be, maging acceptable ba iyan kay God? kasi i'm thinking na half-hearted effort lang yan. Unless talagang christian ka sa lifestyle mo and such. So I'm thinking na hindi yan lulusot kay God because he has set standards for us to follow. So kung hindi rin lulusot, why bother?

yan nga maganda sa christainity e, compassion is upheld LOL
kumbaga, magpakasasa ka na muna bago ka tumino LOL

kiddin aside...

this 'christian lifestyle' imho is not really a burden or a job or a even choice, a heart and spirit that is fully constituted with God is in fact enough to have a 'christian lifestyle'...this so called lifestyle becomes spontaneous and becomes a sort of breathing for a christian...if one christian realizes that he is having a hard time being a good christian, then that's the worse part of it becoming one...like you said, its the best choice to escape, and not to bother at all

it's not the responsibility, its the enjoyment really

hotchillipepper

naisip ko kasi since theres no way of proving god's existence e maniwala na lang ako sa ngayon para kung sakaling meron ngang diyos at mamatay ako kinabukasan ndi naman ako derecho sa impyerno

Quote:
The question would be, maging acceptable ba iyan kay God? kasi i'm thinking na half-hearted effort lang yan. Unless talagang christian ka sa lifestyle mo and such. So I'm thinking na hindi yan lulusot kay God because he has set standards for us to follow. So kung hindi rin lulusot, why bother? [/QUOTE]

eh pang fundamentalist naman yan, e malay natin kung si aphrodite ang god nya!!!