Atheist vs. Agnostic

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:35 am

Welcome Zerilos! Smile

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

SvZurich wrote:

Welcome Zerilos! Smile

Thank you!

The Learned Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 125

zerilos wrote:

notsaved wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

Isn't that like asking, how do we know there is no Santa Claus for sure?

Same reason why many are both agnostic and atheist, including me. From an epistemological standpoint, we can't know anything. Agnostics are agnostics because it is possible, but unlikely, for Santa Clause or god to exist. However, since it is unlikely, and there is no reason to believe that Santa or god exist, these same agnostics also call themselves atheists.

I'm just an atheist. I don't bother with agnostic at all. Are you agnostic about the existence of an invisible unicorn. I think we have enough intelligence to know that there is no such things as those and that includes Gods. Therefore, there is no God period and zero possibility of one. Or two or three. To say there is a possibilty of a god is to argue from ignorance. IF there is a God, just how would it be rationally defined? How much of the universe must one search before concluding there is no such thing as a God?

Therefore, there is no God anywhere in the universe. No possibility for one either.

I think your opinions a based more upon a misunderstanding of what an agnostic is. Agnostics affirm nothing, they claim that knowledge as to whether or not a God exists is unavailable to us. If a God does exist, it's existence would not be dependent upon our ability to define it or prove it. Personally, as an agnostic, I don't know or care if there's a God. I think that it's a bit of a leap to say that the non-existence of invisible unicorns "proves" that a God does not exist. You really make some logical leaps in your argument...seriously.

I find it amazing when someone twists what I said in order to prove their illogical point like you are doing. I never said that the nonexistence of invisible unicorns proves the nonexistence of a God. I put gods and unicorns within the same category meaning either of these are impossible to logically and rationally define. Do you really think there is the possibility of invisible unicorns out there somewhere? C'mon you can't be serious!

Man has been searching for God since the beginning of time and about the only success they have had so far is inventing them. You want to remain agnostic, then that's your prerogative. Knock yourself out. I have no problem taking the positive, affirmative atheist postion, there is no God, no angels, no devils, no heaven, no hell, no supernatural realm that exists outside the mind and you can include those cute lil pink unicorns in on that too. They are all built around human imagination and superstitions and fears about life and the unknown aspects of what takes place after death.

The Learned Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 125

GodCalledInSickToday wrote:

At any rate. I do believe myself to be an Agnostic. I don't believe in religion, I believe religion is not the word of God, it is the word of man and it's laughable at what people will believe. However religion aside, how can you prove that God does not exist? How can you prove he does exist?

Without religion, is it possible to believe in God? I think so, but then again I could be wrong. That is the great debate that consumes me. I denounce religion and all that it stands for, but how do we know that there is no God for sure?

Well the Gods of every revealed religion is easy to disprove just by their self contradictory characteristics. They have all the attributes of the people or culture who invented them. How does one prove that God does exist? Good question. It's impossible because such a creature or thing or whatever it is cannot even be defined.

How do we know there is no God for sure? I think your question is kind of backwards. It should be how do we know for sure if God does exist? There is one way we can find out. Start searching the entire cosmos and the universe to find out "for sure" if God exists. Are you up to that task?

I sure as hell am not and why bother.

It's a waste of time in my not so humble opinion.

About the closest mankind has come to finding out if God is real is by inventing God and that's as far as the existence of God goes. Belief is the only thing that keeps the God idea alive and well. Stop believing in God and he will vanish immediately.

Therefore, there is no god, no angels, no devils, no spirits, no satan, no ghosts and no flying pasta monster. The term God, alone was invented out of pure ignorance, fear and superstition and the lack of knowledge of the world and the universe we live in. In our modern times today, God shouldn't even be in our working vocabulary. It shouldn't even be contained in any person with a working brain. However, since we have millions of deluded minds in this country who keep defending the God idea we as atheists will never be at a loss for continued discussions on the subject until the God idea is abolished once and for all. Then and only then, can we as rational and logical thinking human beings get on with the things that matter the most. Like science and finding ways to really improving humanity without even giving a second thought to a God or the supernatural. Then we'll all be able to look at it all as pure fiction, fantasy and fairy tales.

Nuff said, for now anyway.

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

notsaved wrote:

I find it amazing when someone twists what I said in order to prove their illogical point like you are doing. I never said that the nonexistence of invisible unicorns proves the nonexistence of a God.
I put gods and unicorns within the same category meaning either of these are impossible to logically and rationally define. Do you really think there is the possibility of invisible unicorns out there somewhere? C'mon you can't be serious!

You certainly did assert that refusing to completely rule out the possibility that a God exists is no different than a refusing to rule out the possibility that invisible unicorns exists (or tea pots or whatever). I disagree. While I am willing to rule out the existence of the gods our fellow humans worship, as they assigned their gods with absurd and contradictory chracteristics; none-the-less, when asked to prove that our universe wasn’t created by some external entitity I cannot do it. I can argue that there is no reason to assume that a God was responsible for our existence, but I simply cannot present evidence proving that one does not exists. Consequently I will not assert that one does not. I can say this: if a god does exist we needn’t concern ourselves with its existence as it is inconsequential to ours. While technically speaking I am an agnostic, I am for all intents and purposes an atheist as I simply just do not care and will live my life no differently reguardless what god’s staus may actually be. I would point out that I have heard some rather convincing arguments that the universe as we know it could not have come to exist on it’s own; and while none have convinced me, they do prevent me from asserting that there is no god. To date, I have heard no evidence for the existence of an invisible unicorn.

notsaved wrote:

Man has been searching for God since the beginning of time and about the only success they have had so far is inventing them. You want to remain agnostic, then that's your prerogative. Knock yourself out. I have no problem taking the positive, affirmative atheist postion, there is no God, no angels, no devils, no heaven, no hell, no supernatural realm that exists outside the mind and you can include those cute lil pink unicorns in on that too. They are all built around human imagination and superstitions and fears about life and the unknown aspects of what takes place after death.

As they are invisible, we cannot know if the unicorns are cute or not. Razz

I do agree with your appraisal of human beliefs of the supernatural, they are each base upon our frailities as a species rather than upon reality and they do far more harm than good.

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:37 am

zerilos wrote:

I can argue that there is no reason to assume that a God was responsible for our existence, but I simply cannot present evidence proving that one does not exists.

That which doesn't exist can leave no evidence to the contrary; only that which exists leaves evidence. Asking for evidence to prove the non-existence of something is frankly absurd. At best, we can only address the contradictory natures of the various god concepts.

Quote:

when asked to prove that our universe wasn’t created by some external entitity I cannot do it.

The onus is upon the one making the positive claim. Again, evidence can not be provided for something that doesn't exist.

As a material naturalist I like to say the universe formed in much the same way as stars and planets form, through non-intelligent natural processes, instead of even hinting the universe might have been created.

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

MockingGods wrote:

That which doesn't exist can leave no evidence to the contrary; only that which exists leaves evidence. Asking for evidence to prove the non-existence of something is frankly absurd. At best, we can only address the contradictory natures of the various god concepts. It is absurd to possess a belief in something merely because it's existence cannot be disproved.

I agree with you 100% on that; however, that's not what I was arguing. When asserting that something is either true or false, one should be expected to prove their assertion. I assert nothing and make absolutely no claim as to the ultimate existence of a god or gods. However, I do with conviction deny the existence of every “god” that we humans worship or have worshiped. .

MockingGods wrote:

The onus is upon the one making the positive claim. Again, evidence can not be provided for something that doesn't exist.

I agree, and thus I make no such claims.

MockingGods wrote:

As a material naturalist I like to say the universe formed in much the same way as stars and planets form, through non-intelligent natural processes, instead of even hinting the universe might have been created.

That's my suspicion as well. BTW, I don't hint to anything; I just fail to declaratively assert that the ultimate existence of a God can be disproved. In all reality, it's just a matter of semantics as I suspect that you and I probably agree on most things of substance.

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:21 pm

zerilos wrote:

When asserting that something is either true or false, one should be expected to prove their assertion.

If by assertion you mean absolute assertion, I agree. I generally couch my comments in terms of probability. Like, "All anthropogenic god concepts are most likely false (non-existent).", you can read "most likely" as greater then 99 percent.

Quote:

I assert nothing and make absolutely no claim as to the ultimate existence of a god or gods.

Isn't the following statement an absolute assertion concerning the existence of certain gods? If so, are not the only god concepts we know of anthropogenic and thus subject to the same denial? You must admit god is, as far as we know, a uniquely human concept.

Quote:

However, I do with conviction deny the existence of every “god” that we humans worship or have worshiped.

Quote:

BTW, I don't hint to anything; I just fail to declaratively assert that the ultimate existence of a God can be disproved.

The word create or creation hints or points towards a creator(s). I cringe every time I hear science related presentations using the word. But just as with these shows, I didn't think the hint was intentional.

Quote:

In all reality, it's just a matter of semantics as I suspect that you and I probably agree on most things of substance.

I agree. Our point of contention, if such exists, is you seem to imagine atheism as a positive claim against the existence of any god. I see it as a person who hasn't been given sufficient evidence to profess a positive god belief.

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

MockingGods wrote:

Isn't the following statement an absolute assertion concerning the existence of certain gods? If so, are not the only god concepts we know of anthropogenic and thus subject to the same denial? You must admit god is, as far as we know, a uniquely human concept.

Quote:

However, I do with conviction deny the existence of every “god” that we humans worship or have worshiped.

It is but it isn’t. I could explain in detail just why I deny the validity of our manmade Gods; I have actual reasons, I just don’t want to take the time to do it. I’ll summarize my denials: they (the god's in question) are absurd, contradictory and their existence would bring about more questions than answers.

Now if the question is merely "Is the universe created or uncreated"?; then my answer is: I don't know. The more deails and dimentions you add to the question the easier it becomes to deny. SO if the question becomes "was the universe created by the all-loving, hate-filled monster described in the bible"?; then I feel comfortable declaring that it was not.

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:33 am

zerilos wrote:

It is but it isn’t. I could explain in detail just why I deny the validity of our manmade Gods; I have actual reasons, I just don’t want to take the time to do it. I’ll summarize my denials: they (the god's in question) are absurd, contradictory and their existence would bring about more questions than answers.

Can you give any examples of god concepts that aren't anthropogenic, even generic varieties? This seems like an absurd question, but I think it makes my point. If you deny all anthropogenic god concepts then there's nothing left to consider (as far as we know).

Quote:

Now if the question is merely "Is the universe created or uncreated"?; then my answer is: I don't know.

How about, "did the universe form through natural processes or was it created by an undetectable, intelligent supernatural force (the typical ill-conceived generic god concept)"? Now while I also don't know for certain, natural processes seems a far more reasonable and perhaps even someday provable supposition.

The Learned Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 125

zerilos wrote:

notsaved wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

Isn't that like asking, how do we know there is no Santa Claus for sure?

Same reason why many are both agnostic and atheist, including me. From an epistemological standpoint, we can't know anything. Agnostics are agnostics because it is possible, but unlikely, for Santa Clause or god to exist. However, since it is unlikely, and there is no reason to believe that Santa or god exist, these same agnostics also call themselves atheists.

I'm just an atheist. I don't bother with agnostic at all. Are you agnostic about the existence of an invisible unicorn. I think we have enough intelligence to know that there is no such things as those and that includes Gods. Therefore, there is no God period and zero possibility of one. Or two or three. To say there is a possibilty of a god is to argue from ignorance. IF there is a God, just how would it be rationally defined? How much of the universe must one search before concluding there is no such thing as a God?

Therefore, there is no God anywhere in the universe. No possibility for one either.

I think your opinions a based more upon a misunderstanding of what an agnostic is. Agnostics affirm nothing, they claim that knowledge as to whether or not a God exists is unavailable to us. If a God does exist, it's existence would not be dependent upon our ability to define it or prove it. Personally, as an agnostic, I don't know or care if there's a God. I think that it's a bit of a leap to say that the non-existence of invisible unicorns "proves" that a God does not exist. You really make some logical leaps in your argument...seriously.

You make it sound like there is something wrong with being logical or as you say, making logical leaps in my argument. The thing is, I view disbelief as the most logical position ever. That's why I don't bother with agnostic. It's just another way of not giving the impression one is arrogant, dogmatic and maybe even too logical. After all, it's better to play it safe and not take that leap of logic to it's extremes. I know. There is no God is a little on the extreme side.

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

MockingGods wrote:

Can you give any examples of god concepts that aren't anthropogenic, even generic varieties? This seems like an absurd question, but I think it makes my point. If you deny all anthropogenic god concepts then there's nothing left to consider (as far as we know).

I agree that of the god’s worshiped by humans, none are real.

MockingGods wrote:

How about, "did the universe form through natural processes or was it created by an undetectable, intelligent supernatural force (the typical ill-conceived generic god concept)"? Now while I also don't know for certain, natural processes seems a far more reasonable and perhaps even someday provable supposition.

With our current knowledge of the physical properties of matter; not only can we not explain how a universe could just come into existence, it’s actually impossible for it to have occured. I’m not saying that we won’t someday be able to explain how an entire universe worth of matter could just appear out of nowhere, but just that with the knowledge we have today what happened is utterly impossible. Again, this does not prove that the universe has an external source or creator, but it does mean that it is a possibility that we should give consideration to or at least not discount simply as a matter of principle.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:52 pm

zerilos wrote:

With our current knowledge of the physical properties of matter; not only can we not explain how a universe could just come into existence, it’s actually impossible for it to have occured.

I'm sitting here trying to wrap my mind around this statement. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re saying our current understanding of the mechanisms that formed the observable universe is an indicator that it is impossible for it to exist? I might agree with you that is seems counterintuitive that it would form itself. However, I’ve heard theories, such as the Ekpyrotic Universe where two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time. All theories and speculation aside, this observable universe does exist and our understanding of the mechanisms which formed it aren’t in my opinion a valid reason to consider an external “intelligence” as a cause.

Quote:

I’m not saying that we won’t someday be able to explain how an entire universe worth of matter could just appear out of nowhere, but just that with the knowledge we have today what happened is utterly impossible.

I rather doubt most cosmologists that study the origins of the universe believe all the matter came into existence “out of nowhere”. The standard thought is that all the matter was condensed into a point about the size of a proton without space or time/change.

Quote:

Again, this does not prove that the universe has an external source or creator, but it does mean that it is a possibility that we should give consideration to or at least not discount simply as a matter of principle.

Why would you want to call this possible external formative mechanism a “god”?

The Learned Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 125

zerilos wrote:

notsaved wrote:

[b]I find it amazing when someone twists what I said in order to prove their illogical point like you are doing. I never said that the nonexistence of invisible unicorns proves the nonexistence of a God.
I put gods and unicorns within the same category meaning either of these are impossible to logically and rationally define. Do you really think there is the possibility of invisible unicorns out there somewhere? C'mon you can't be serious!

To date, I have heard no evidence for the existence of an invisible unicorn.

To date, I have heard of no evidence for the existence of a God either. Also, no evidence for elves, wizards, ghosts, spirits, devils, demons, angels, mermaids and a host of other things based on superstition. God falls within the same categories as these. It is superstition that goes no further then the brains of humans. We have invented them all. They do not literally exist past the mind. Therefore, I am no more open to the existence of a God anymore then I am of these things too.

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 17, 2012 Posts: 2

First off, I just wanna say "Hello!", I just join this Forum for this single Topic and until now I'm loving it.
Hope we read each others a lot in the future. I also wanna apologize in advance if I have some issues with the use of my verb tenses, the English it's my first language.

notsaved wrote:

To date, I have heard of no evidence for the existence of a God either. Also, no evidence for elves, wizards, ghosts, spirits, devils, demons, angels, mermaids and a host of other things based on superstition. God falls within the same categories as these. It is superstition that goes no further then the brains of humans. We have invented them all. They do not literally exist past the mind. Therefore, I am no more open to the existence of a God anymore then I am of these things too.

If I'm allow, I especially I wanna answer NotSaved. Not just this concrete quote but in general and maybe explain a lil why I'm a Agnostic. I wanna clarify that this is purely my own point of view and I'm not claiming that I have the hard true or evidence beyond my own logic and the machine of my mind.

I will like to list some "trues":
- Disclaiming all the mythical sacred written texts or ancient oral traditions, beyond the pure and blind faith, there is no hardcore evidence of the existent of any human deity, fairy tale creature or lil kids wish dream (Santa Claus, the Sandman or the Tooth Fairy) or nightmare (the Monster in the Closet or the Evil Ice-cream Truck who sell hidden razor knifes).
- The Universe is infinite.
- In a infinite Universe, at least mathematically, every and I really meant EVERY thing its possible.
- We live in a very tiny planet, in a very tiny galaxy, in a very peripheric side of the Knowledge Universe with a very narrow and limited view of our surroundings.
- We don't know everything that there is out there to be know.

Now I wanna start explained myself a bit. You have say several times that you have not encounter any evidence, or any sort, of the existence of any type of deity. And I believe you. I truly believe, that you have take the time to make a extensive travel around the globe, searching for the evidence for the answers to some of the most annoying repeat it question (and I'm talking in here about the theological ones). I myself have read the catholic and christian Bible several times, I have read the Torah and the Qur'an, I have practice Reiki and Hatha Yoga, I actually have found that one of the believes more annoying for me it's the Mahayana Buddhism.

But and I wanna capitalize that one as a really big BUT, we don't know everything. With enough time, patient and life, we can achieve to know a great many things, but we would never be able to know everything that there is to know, we are just physically incapable to do it. But we live in a infinite Universe, maybe in somewhere, out the in the immensity of the forever, there is actually a type of being or even a specie who really know its all, but by far we are not those. Maybe those we can call them god to our limited standards. In a infinite Universe, everything that you are capable to think about it is mathematically possible, and therefor you can not claim that such thing it doesn't exist.

Maybe we can narrow our sentences, to "I don't believe there is or there has being a pinkish winged uniform EVER, in the Planet we know as Earth." or maybe we can say "I'm positive sure that all the religions ever worship by the homo sapiens sapiens, in the Planet we know as Earth are anthropomorphic creations". But that sound rather large don't you think? Why not simply recognize the concept that we do not know everything, and everything is at least mathematically possible, and then give it a name? Well, for me that's being a Agnostic. I'm actually a Atheist also, because I don't need anybody to dictate the my path of my life, and that because I'm the one riding this bike (this is a rustic type of metaphor, in which the bike its actually my life/destiny), I don't need a big metahuman being to search/pray/seek to comforting me when I'm dislike with my own chooses, and because as a Environmental Engineer I understand at least the most common accepted principles by the Science Community of how the Universe works, and with that I don't need a deity at all.

In a conclusion, I don´t believe in any type of deity, but I can't assure myself that it is even possible that one actually exists.

NotSaved at least for me you sound so sure that there is no god, that you are maybe a Gnostic Atheist, if such thing it's even possible.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile