| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dio" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2003 05:12:38 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
Atheism and agnosticism seem to be both against every kind of theism or
religions.
But, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Of course i know that difference(Huxley invented that agnosticism term). But
a lot of agnostics say different things. So, I'm seeing different theses
about agnosticism because of their different mind.
Every agnostic says his personal thesis, and his personal agnosticism.
1. Is still there one agnosticism or a lot of kind ?
2. What is the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
I think that there is a big difference, but I'd like to know your mind.
So, what do you think about?
Bye bye
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
05 Oct 2003 04:29:04 PM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> thought hard and said:
But, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism states
that god (or gods) can and will never be known.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 07:33:38 AM |
|
|
1. Is still there one agnosticism or a lot of kind ?
Credo che siano molti i modi di essere agnostici come sono molti i modi di
essere atei.
2. What is the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
In condizioni normali nessuna, visto che sia l'agnostico che l'ateo vivono
la loro vita terrena in maniera coscientemente libera da dogmi religiosi
(alcuni però si legano a dogmi politici o filosofici e quindi rimangono
sempre e comunque sottomessi.
In condizioni patologiche, dove la negazione di una divinità acquista
un'importanza per il soggetto rilevantissima, a volte più importante di una
ricerca della felicità le differenze sono tantissime.
Io, ad esempio, sto "in grazia di un dio" non interessandomi della sua
esistenza o meno, tu, invece, stai penando a cercare di dimostrare (e ancora
sei in scacco con la mia domanda di un paio di giorni fa...) la
non-esistenza di qualcosa che non puoi definire.
I think that there is a big difference, but I'd like to know your mind.
So, what do you think about?
Si... però quando uno ti dice cosa ne pensa e rilancia con una domanda non
puoi fare orecchie da mercante... com'è che dice quel tonto di Rossi... ah!
sei intellettualmente disonesto! :o)
Bye bye
Ciao
Mirko e i furetti
P.S. for the english spoken people.
Sorry for my answer in italian, but i made a little work to translate the
Dio question in italian, i hope you will enjoy the same trick. :o)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 11:17:54 AM |
|
|
Dio wrote:
Atheism and agnosticism seem to be both against every kind of theism or
religions.
But, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Of course i know that difference(Huxley invented that agnosticism term). But
a lot of agnostics say different things. So, I'm seeing different theses
about agnosticism because of their different mind.
Every agnostic says his personal thesis, and his personal agnosticism.
1. Is still there one agnosticism or a lot of kind ?
If you are asking if people mean lots of things when they use the
word, then yes it means lots of things. The common thread in all of
them seems to be a rejection of blind faith.
2. What is the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
Practically speaking, just the spelling. People who are self
described by those two words generally live their lives without much
of a religious aspect.
I think that there is a big difference, but I'd like to know your mind.
So, what do you think about?
These words are good for endless but trivial arguments. But neither
self described agnostics nor atheists try to coerce anyone else to
believe that a magical invisible being is in charge of everything and
requires some particular sort of worship, so they tend to get along
just fine with each other, as long as detailed definitions of these
words are not being discussed.
Bye bye
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 01:06:43 PM |
|
|
These words are good for endless but trivial arguments. But neither
self described agnostics nor atheists try to coerce anyone else to
believe that a magical invisible being is in charge of everything and
requires some particular sort of worship, so they tend to get along
just fine with each other, as long as detailed definitions of these
words are not being discussed.
oh... in pratica ha detto che sei matto a farla tanto lunga e che hai rotto
anche a loro... :o)
Bye bye
Bye and thanks john :o)
John Popelish
Mirko e i furetti
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 06:52:22 PM |
|
|
"mirko" <mirko@virgilio.it> wrote in message news:<T_Dfb.225090$R32.7239150@news2.tin.it>...
John Popelish wrote:
These words are good for endless but trivial arguments. But neither
self described agnostics nor atheists try to coerce anyone else to
believe that a magical invisible being is in charge of everything and
requires some particular sort of worship, so they tend to get along
just fine with each other, as long as detailed definitions of these
words are not being discussed.
oh... in pratica ha detto che sei matto a farla tanto lunga e che hai rotto
anche a loro... :o)
Sorry to say, my Italian is very poor, and Babel Fish translates this
to, "in practical it has said that six matto to make it much long one
and that you have broken also they". So I still don't know if we are
agreeing or fighting. ;-)
Bye bye
Bye and thanks john :o)
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
06 Oct 2003 07:15:15 AM |
|
|
oh... in pratica ha detto che sei matto a farla tanto lunga e che hai
rotto
anche a loro... :o)
Sorry to say, my Italian is very poor, and Babel Fish translates this
to, "in practical it has said that six matto to make it much long one
and that you have broken also they". So I still don't know if we are
agreeing or fighting. ;-)
ok! :o)
I'll try to translate...
"pratically he said you're mad, 'cause you spend too much time thinking
about this silly question... and they are bored of you as we are..."
I hope i translated it well :o)
Bye bye
Bye and thanks john :o)
bye!
John Popelish
Mirko e i furetti
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
06 Oct 2003 06:30:57 PM |
|
|
mirko wrote:
oh... in pratica ha detto che sei matto a farla tanto lunga e che hai
rotto
anche a loro... :o)
Sorry to say, my Italian is very poor, and Babel Fish translates this
to, "in practical it has said that six matto to make it much long one
and that you have broken also they". So I still don't know if we are
agreeing or fighting. ;-)
ok! :o)
I'll try to translate...
"pratically he said you're mad, 'cause you spend too much time thinking
about this silly question... and they are bored of you as we are..."
I hope i translated it well :o)
Thanks. Now I think I have been insulted.
Is this a quote from literature?
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 06:48:25 AM |
|
|
"pratically he said you're mad, 'cause you spend too much time thinking
about this silly question... and they are bored of you as we are..."
I hope i translated it well :o)
Thanks. Now I think I have been insulted.
No no! :o)
I didn't insulted you!
It was for Dio...
Is this a quote from literature?
Uh... nope... it's mine.
John Popelish
Mirko e i furetti
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 08:21:33 AM |
|
|
mirko wrote:
"pratically he said you're mad, 'cause you spend too much time thinking
about this silly question... and they are bored of you as we are..."
I hope i translated it well :o)
Thanks. Now I think I have been insulted.
No no! :o)
I didn't insulted you!
It was for Dio...
Thanks for the further explanation. I think I finally am following
your thought.
Is this a quote from literature?
Uh... nope... it's mine.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 05:55:52 AM |
|
|
John Popelish ha scritto nel messaggio <3F81FCC0.49532A69@rica.net>...
CUT
Thanks. Now I think I have been insulted.
Who insulted you dear John?
Let me know
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 09:28:08 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message news:<YYwgb.239361$R32.7761233@news2.tin.it>...
John Popelish ha scritto nel messaggio <3F81FCC0.49532A69@rica.net>...
CUT
Thanks. Now I think I have been insulted.
Who insulted you dear John?
Let me know
Bye bye
It was a misunderstanding. Apparently, the insult was aimed at you.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 01:04:12 PM |
|
|
John Popelish ha scritto nel messaggio <3F7EF439.CFB9C0B6@rica.net>...
CUT
These words are good for endless but trivial arguments. But neither
self described agnostics nor atheists try to coerce anyone else to
believe that a magical invisible being is in charge of everything and
requires some particular sort of worship, so they tend to get along
just fine with each other, as long as detailed definitions of these
words are not being discussed.
Atheists say that there isn't god or creator or something like that.
Agnostics say that there could be and we can't say if there is or isn't a
creator a god or something like that.
The big difference is that an atheist says: a creator doesn't exists.
An agnostic says: a creator or a god could exists, we are neither sure
about existence nor about the contrary.
This is a big difference, and most of agnostics think that their thesis ,
their mind is better than atheist mind.
I'm an atheist, and i think that there is no evidence for a god or a creator
or something like that.
Most agnostics say: there could be, and we can't understand, we are not able
to understand.
Conclusion.
Atheists say that there isn't a creator or god or something like that.
Agnostics say that maybe a creator could be there, could exists, a god could
exists.
I'm an atheist because, i think that there is no evidence about a god or a
creator.
And agnostic thinkers are wrong because they say that maybe a creator could
exists and we can't know it.
I think that this is a big problem, because even good thinkers think about a
god and his existence.
Even good thinkers think that a creator could exists.
We can say that uneducated people(about science) believe in god(creator et
cetera) because of their lack of knowledge(science). But a lot of scientists
and good thinkers are agnostics and not atheists.
The problem is not a believer that doesn't know a lot about science.
The problem are scientists and good thinkers that can't exclude that a
creator could exists.
This is a philosophical debate of course, and I think it concern even
cosmology (cosmology as a scientific discipline).
If there are people(agnostics) that can't exclude god existence or creator
exiscence, maybe there's a big problem. And we need to talk with these
people because they could be converted to theism.
Agnostics as usual say that atheism is a kind of "faith" in god not
existence.
Huxley used to say that(he invented the word agnosticism).
I'm still waiting what mean "creator of this universe", and agnostics can't
tell me what they mean.
I'm still waiting what means "god", and agnostics can't tell me what "god"
means.
Believers have a lot of deity, and I don't believe in any of these deity.
Believers can tell what mean their deity, and of course we can say that
there is no evidence of that kind of deity.
Agnostics, can't say even what a deity is, and what a creator is, and they
say: we cannot say if a creator exists or not exists.
The big trouble is an agnostic that says: I can't tell you anything about
"god" or "creator", but I can't exclude its existence.
At least a believer says a lot about his deity and we can prove that his
deity can't exists.
But an agnostic that can't tell anything about a deity or a creator, is very
difficult to convince that there is no deity or creator.
And we can't convince them because they can't say anything about a deity or
a creator that could exists(as they use to say).
We can convince a lot of believers(using science and reason) that a creator
or a deity doesn't exist because he/she says something about his/her deity.
But, how can we convince agnostics that can't say anything about a deity or
a creator whose they say that could exists?
I can convince a believer that a creator or a deity can't exists because of
our proof, demonstrations.
But how can I convince an agnostic if he/she can't tell me what is his/her
deity?
Believer are uneducated people that one can convince with reason and
demonstrations(lack of scientific education).
Agnostics(well educated people about science too) are difficult to convince
because they can't say what is a deity or a creator whose they say could
exists.
This kind of people who have even scientific knowledge are very dangerous,
because they had to leave their faith because of science evidence!
But they can't leave their faith completely and their faith is become a
strange kind of creationism.
The problem is that their creationism is not clear, and them are in trouble
to explain that theory because of science!
Bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 01:45:23 PM |
|
|
This is a big difference, and most of agnostics think that their thesis ,
their mind is better than atheist mind.
Uh... so bad! agnostics think to be on the right way... so you want do
defeat them right? Awful people those who don't believe what you believe
Trad.
Uh... che orrore! Gli agnostici pensano di essere sulla strada giusta...
così li vuoi combattere giusto? Persone terribili quelle che non credono in
quello che credi tu.
I'm an atheist, and i think that there is no evidence for a god or a
creator
or something like that.
well... not even any evidence for the inexistence for a god or a creator or
something like that. or not?
Trad.
Bene... nemmeno nessuna evidenza della non-esistenza di un dio, creatore o
similia. o no?
Most agnostics say: there could be, and we can't understand, we are not
able
to understand.
your problems... not mine!
Trad.
Questi sono tuoi problemi... non miei!
I'm an atheist because, i think that there is no evidence about a god or a
creator.
And agnostic thinkers are wrong because they say that maybe a creator
could
exists and we can't know it.
mmmmm no! you THINK, you BELIEVE, you WANT TO BELIEVE that agnostic thinkers
are wrong.
Trad.
mmmmm no! tu PENSI, tu CREDI, tu VUOI CREDERE che gli agnostici si
abagliano.
I think that this is a big problem, because even good thinkers think about
a
god and his existence.
Even good thinkers think that a creator could exists.
That's a big problem for you nah?
Trad.
Questo è un grosso problema per te eh?
We can say that uneducated people(about science) believe in god(creator et
cetera) because of their lack of knowledge(science). But a lot of
scientists
and good thinkers are agnostics and not atheists.
Can't you say that maybe tou're wrong? that's so difficult for you? let's
try together... "Maybe I'm Wrong... Maybe I'm Wrong... Maybe I'm Wrong..."
Trad.
Non puoi pensare che sbagli? è così difficoltoso per te? proviamoci insieme
dai... "Forse sto sbagliando... Forse sto sbagliando... Forse sto
sbagliando..."
The problem is not a believer that doesn't know a lot about science.
The problem are scientists and good thinkers that can't exclude that a
creator could exists.
maybe because science doesn't say that a creator don't exist...
Trad.
forse perchè la scenza non dice che un creatore non esiste...
This is a philosophical debate of course, and I think it concern even
cosmology (cosmology as a scientific discipline).
Uh! Thanks for explanation.
Trad.
Uh! grazie per la spiegazione.
If there are people(agnostics) that can't exclude god existence or creator
exiscence, maybe there's a big problem. And we need to talk with these
people because they could be converted to theism.
????
I think you need a good phsicologist.
Trad.
????
Credo che hai bisogno di un buon psicologo.
I'm still waiting what mean "creator of this universe", and agnostics
can't
tell me what they mean.
Uh... I will explain to people here how the mind of Dio works.
He said that if you can't define what this creator is you can't tell that he
can exist...
So... in the same way... all the insect, the animal not even discovered in
Amazzonia don't exist because whe don't know how they are and we can't
define them... pretty nah? :o)
Trad.
Uh... vi spiegherò come funziona la mente di Dio.
Lui dice che siccome non puoi definire cosa è il creatore non puoi nemmeno
dire che può esistere... allora... per lo stesso ragionamento... tutti gli
insetti e gli animali non ancora scoperti in Amazzonia non esistono perchè
non sappiamo come sono e non siamo in grado di definirli... carino no? :o)
I'm still waiting what means "god", and agnostics can't tell me what "god"
means.
Don't wait it from me...
Trad.
Non aspettarlo da me...
Believers have a lot of deity, and I don't believe in any of these deity.
Believers can tell what mean their deity, and of course we can say that
there is no evidence of that kind of deity.
Agnostics, can't say even what a deity is, and what a creator is, and they
say: we cannot say if a creator exists or not exists.
yep... that's agnosticism
Trad.
Già... questo è agnosticismo.
The big trouble is an agnostic that says: I can't tell you anything about
"god" or "creator", but I can't exclude its existence.
why?
Trad.
Perchè?
At least a believer says a lot about his deity and we can prove that his
deity can't exists.
But an agnostic that can't tell anything about a deity or a creator, is
very
difficult to convince that there is no deity or creator.
It's difficult because you don't have evidence.
Trad.
E' difficoltoso perchè non hai evidenze.
And we can't convince them because they can't say anything about a deity
or
a creator that could exists(as they use to say).
Oh! I found your problem!!!!
We don't care about existence of a god!
Don't care for us! We are good!
Trad.
Oh! Ho trovato il tuo problema!
A noi non ce ne frega una sega dell'esistenza di un dio!
Non ti preoccupare per noi! Noi stiamo bene!
But, how can we convince agnostics that can't say anything about a deity
or
a creator whose they say that could exists?
Sorry... you can't.
Trad.
Mi dispiace... non puoi.
But how can I convince an agnostic if he/she can't tell me what is his/her
deity?
Sorry... you can't.
Trad.
Mi dispiace... non puoi.
Agnostics(well educated people about science too) are difficult to
convince
because they can't say what is a deity or a creator whose they say could
exists.
yep! Agnostics are smart! :o)
trad.
Già! gli agnostici sono intelligenti! :o)
This kind of people who have even scientific knowledge are very dangerous,
because they had to leave their faith because of science evidence!
What kind of faith you think i don't want to leave????? You are crazy Dio!
Find a good psicologist.
Trad.
Che fede pensi che non voglio abbandonare???? Te sei matto Dio! trova un
buon psicologo.
But they can't leave their faith completely and their faith is become a
strange kind of creationism.
ROTFL! But a big pair of balls! :o)
Trad.
ROTFL! MA UN PAR DE COJONI! :o)
The problem is that their creationism is not clear, and them are in
trouble
to explain that theory because of science!
Not even your ideas are much clear but we love as you are...
Trad.
Nemmeno le tue idee sono molto chiare ma ti amiamo lo stesso per come sei...
Bye
Ciao
Mirko e i furetti
Trad.
Mirko and ferrets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VR" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 02:16:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:45:23 GMT, "mirko" <mirko@virgilio.it> wrote:
Trad.
Uh... vi spiegherò come funziona la mente di Dio.
Lui dice che siccome non puoi definire cosa è il creatore non puoi nemmeno
dire che può esistere... allora... per lo stesso ragionamento... tutti gli
insetti e gli animali non ancora scoperti in Amazzonia non esistono perchè
non sappiamo come sono e non siamo in grado di definirli... carino no? :o)
Cazzo... sei un dio!!!!!!!!! Madonna!!!!
ZItto lo so': You are like a God...
Ma non lo dicevano a Clapton? ;-)
But they can't leave their faith completely and their faith is become a
strange kind of creationism.
ROTFL! But a big pair of balls! :o)
Trad.
ROTFL! MA UN PAR DE COJONI! :o)
Ma e' letterale?
Urca..
Ciao
Mirko e i furetti
Trad.
Mirko and ferrets.
Madonna... come parli bene in inglese...
Pero' dici le stesse cose che dici in italiano eh!!! ;o)
Ergo se uno (non sei tu... ) diceva cazzate in italiano... ora le dice
anche in inglese?
Bisogna che mi ci provi anch'io... mannaggia alle altre cose che devo
fare... sai che libidine capirle in diretta... :-)
VR
"La fonte principale degli attuali contrasti fra le sfere della
religione e della scienza si trova nella concezione di un Dio
personale."
Albert Einstein. Pensieri di un uomo curioso,
Oscar Mondadori Ed. 1997, Milano; p. 115.
***************
La rivincita darwiniana
sul reverendo Paley:
www.diolaico.it
***************
.
|
|
|
| User: "mirko" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 02:34:53 PM |
|
|
Trad.
Uh... vi spiegherò come funziona la mente di Dio.
Lui dice che siccome non puoi definire cosa è il creatore non puoi
nemmeno
dire che può esistere... allora... per lo stesso ragionamento... tutti
gli
insetti e gli animali non ancora scoperti in Amazzonia non esistono
perchè
non sappiamo come sono e non siamo in grado di definirli... carino no?
:o)
Cazzo... sei un dio!!!!!!!!! Madonna!!!!
ZItto lo so': You are like a God...
Ma non lo dicevano a Clapton? ;-)
gh! essere equiparato a colui che è (lui si cazzo)!
che onore...
But they can't leave their faith completely and their faith is become a
strange kind of creationism.
ROTFL! But a big pair of balls! :o)
Trad.
ROTFL! MA UN PAR DE COJONI! :o)
Ma e' letterale?
Urca..
boh che ne so... spero che capiscano...
Ciao
Mirko e i furetti
Trad.
Mirko and ferrets.
Madonna... come parli bene in inglese...
si me la cavicchio...
Pero' dici le stesse cose che dici in italiano eh!!! ;o)
già.
Ergo se uno (non sei tu... ) diceva cazzate in italiano... ora le dice
anche in inglese?
esatto! :o)
Bisogna che mi ci provi anch'io... mannaggia alle altre cose che devo
fare... sai che libidine capirle in diretta... :-)
è divertente davvero...
VR
Mirko e i furetti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 08:42:31 PM |
|
|
Dio wrote:
Atheists say that there isn't god or creator or something like that.
Agnostics say that there could be and we can't say if there is or isn't a
creator a god or something like that.
The big difference is that an atheist says: a creator doesn't exists.
An agnostic says: a creator or a god could exists, we are neither sure
about existence nor about the contrary.
This is a big difference, and most of agnostics think that their thesis ,
their mind is better than atheist mind.
I'm an atheist, and i think that there is no evidence for a god or a creator
or something like that.
Most agnostics say: there could be, and we can't understand, we are not able
to understand.
Conclusion.
Atheists say that there isn't a creator or god or something like that.
Agnostics say that maybe a creator could be there, could exists, a god could
exists.
I'm an atheist because, i think that there is no evidence about a god or a
creator.
And agnostic thinkers are wrong because they say that maybe a creator could
exists and we can't know it.
I think that this is a big problem, because even good thinkers think about a
god and his existence.
Even good thinkers think that a creator could exists.
We can say that uneducated people(about science) believe in god(creator et
cetera) because of their lack of knowledge(science). But a lot of scientists
and good thinkers are agnostics and not atheists.
The problem is not a believer that doesn't know a lot about science.
The problem are scientists and good thinkers that can't exclude that a
creator could exists.
This is a philosophical debate of course, and I think it concern even
cosmology (cosmology as a scientific discipline).
If there are people(agnostics) that can't exclude god existence or creator
exiscence, maybe there's a big problem. And we need to talk with these
people because they could be converted to theism.
Agnostics as usual say that atheism is a kind of "faith" in god not
existence.
Huxley used to say that(he invented the word agnosticism).
I'm still waiting what mean "creator of this universe", and agnostics can't
tell me what they mean.
I'm still waiting what means "god", and agnostics can't tell me what "god"
means.
Believers have a lot of deity, and I don't believe in any of these deity.
Believers can tell what mean their deity, and of course we can say that
there is no evidence of that kind of deity.
Agnostics, can't say even what a deity is, and what a creator is, and they
say: we cannot say if a creator exists or not exists.
The big trouble is an agnostic that says: I can't tell you anything about
"god" or "creator", but I can't exclude its existence.
At least a believer says a lot about his deity and we can prove that his
deity can't exists.
But an agnostic that can't tell anything about a deity or a creator, is very
difficult to convince that there is no deity or creator.
And we can't convince them because they can't say anything about a deity or
a creator that could exists(as they use to say).
We can convince a lot of believers(using science and reason) that a creator
or a deity doesn't exist because he/she says something about his/her deity.
But, how can we convince agnostics that can't say anything about a deity or
a creator whose they say that could exists?
I can convince a believer that a creator or a deity can't exists because of
our proof, demonstrations.
But how can I convince an agnostic if he/she can't tell me what is his/her
deity?
Believer are uneducated people that one can convince with reason and
demonstrations(lack of scientific education).
Agnostics(well educated people about science too) are difficult to convince
because they can't say what is a deity or a creator whose they say could
exists.
This kind of people who have even scientific knowledge are very dangerous,
because they had to leave their faith because of science evidence!
But they can't leave their faith completely and their faith is become a
strange kind of creationism.
The problem is that their creationism is not clear, and them are in trouble
to explain that theory because of science!
Bye
I think that agnostics are more willing than atheists to accept the
possibility that some god thingie might be invisible and
undetectable. But they remind believers that even if one accepts this
possibility, it leads to the conclusion that one cannot know (by
evidence) anything about such a god. So, without necessarily denying
the existence of invisible, undetectable gods, they cannot be made to
believe, with any confidence, in the reality of such gods. I (an
atheist) have no problem with this argument. Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
06 Oct 2003 04:38:09 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. (See
below.)
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
06 Oct 2003 07:52:44 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. (See
below.)
That sounds like a position on the subject of knowledge, to me.
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 12:01:14 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F820FE7.8ADC1B9F@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics deny
and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. (See
below.)
That sounds like a position on the subject of knowledge, to me.
Maybe you overlooked the term, 'believe' in the quote from Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity," below?
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 05:41:27 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F820FE7.8ADC1B9F@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics deny
and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence. (See
below.)
That sounds like a position on the subject of knowledge, to me.
Maybe you overlooked the term, 'believe' in the quote from Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity," below?
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley
(snip)
I think this means that one should not claim to believe what one does
not know (by logically satisfactory evidence) if one is going to call
one's self an agnostic.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 06:34:11 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F8342A2.14D0AF06@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F820FE7.8ADC1B9F@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics
deny
and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
(See
below.)
That sounds like a position on the subject of knowledge, to me.
Maybe you overlooked the term, 'believe' in the quote from Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity,"
below?
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief
in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley
(snip)
I think this means that one should not claim to believe what one does
not know (by logically satisfactory evidence) if one is going to call
one's self an agnostic.
Then I take it that you want to retract what you said, above, 'Agnosticism
is a position on knowledge, not belief'?
But what would 'claim to believe' mean? I like the way Huxley says it
better. What Huxley points out (see below) is that is wrong for a person to
say that he believes (is convinced) that a proposition is true when he
cannot produce evidence which logically justifies that conviction. Agnostics
rightfully deny and repudiate any religious doctrine, like Christianity for
example, that there are propositions, like the tenets of Christianity for
example, which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley is talking about the principle of valid argument that governs this
situation:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth
of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and
that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
So it's all about religious belief on the one hand, and on the other hand
the absence of it, or to go a step further as agnostics do, denial and
repudiation of it, don't you agree?
Cheers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
07 Oct 2003 07:38:47 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F8342A2.14D0AF06@rica.net...
I think this means that one should not claim to believe what one does
not know (by logically satisfactory evidence) if one is going to call
one's self an agnostic.
Then I take it that you want to retract what you said, above, 'Agnosticism
is a position on knowledge, not belief'?
I'll admit that my summary was a bit over simplified.
But what would 'claim to believe' mean? I like the way Huxley says it
better. What Huxley points out (see below) is that is wrong for a person to
say that he believes (is convinced) that a proposition is true when he
cannot produce evidence which logically justifies that conviction. Agnostics
rightfully deny and repudiate any religious doctrine, like Christianity for
example, that there are propositions, like the tenets of Christianity for
example, which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley is talking about the principle of valid argument that governs this
situation:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth
of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and
that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
So it's all about religious belief on the one hand, and on the other hand
the absence of it, or to go a step further as agnostics do, denial and
repudiation of it, don't you agree?
Sounds fine to me. But it is a pity that so many people who, today,
call themselves agnostics have no Idea what Huxley said on the
definition of the word. Most equate agnosticism with essentially a
shrug of the shoulders on the god existence question. But at least we
have you to remind them with no sign of tiring with the repetition.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
08 Oct 2003 01:42:44 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F835E24.39B0C84A@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F8342A2.14D0AF06@rica.net...
I think this means that one should not claim to believe what one does
not know (by logically satisfactory evidence) if one is going to call
one's self an agnostic.
Then I take it that you want to retract what you said, above,
'Agnosticism
is a position on knowledge, not belief'?
I'll admit that my summary was a bit over simplified.
That's putting it mildly. 8^) As Mark Twain put it, "Religion is believing
what you know ain't so." Agnosticism is just as much about religious belief
as theism and atheism, since agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate any
religious doctrine like Christianity for example, that there are
propositions like the tenets of Christianity for example, which people ought
to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
But what would 'claim to believe' mean? I like the way Huxley says it
better. What Huxley points out (see below) is that is wrong for a person
to
say that he believes (is convinced) that a proposition is true when he
cannot produce evidence which logically justifies that conviction.
Agnostics
rightfully deny and repudiate any religious doctrine, like Christianity
for
example, that there are propositions, like the tenets of Christianity
for
example, which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory
evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the
absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley is talking about the principle of valid argument that governs
this
situation:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to
this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective
truth
of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically
justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it
is
all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and
that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
So it's all about religious belief on the one hand, and on the other
hand
the absence of it, or to go a step further as agnostics do, denial and
repudiation of it, don't you agree?
Sounds fine to me. But it is a pity that so many people who, today,
call themselves agnostics have no Idea what Huxley said on the
definition of the word. Most equate agnosticism with essentially a
shrug of the shoulders on the god existence question. But at least we
have you to remind them with no sign of tiring with the repetition.
Should one limit one's behavior to merely "shrug one's shoulders" on the
Santa existence question, or the Tooth Fairy existence question, or the Zeus
existence question? If not, then why should one make an exception for this
one particular letter string, g - o - d? Why lend that particular one any
credence at all? Have the true-believers ever come up with any kind of
meaningful, testable explanation of the term so that it even qualifies as a
legitimate question? No, so far there is nothing meaningful specified to
look for, and nothing presented to even consider, just as with Santa, the
Tooth Fairy, or Zeus.
I'll stick with Thomas Huxley's explanation of agnosticism, thank you sir,
that agnostics rightfully deny and repudiate any religious doctrine like
Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets of
Christianity for example, which people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
08 Oct 2003 01:21:27 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F8342A2.14D0AF06@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F820FE7.8ADC1B9F@rica.net...
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case. Agnostics
deny
and
repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are
propositions
which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
(See
below.)
That sounds like a position on the subject of knowledge, to me.
Maybe you overlooked the term, 'believe' in the quote from Huxley's
excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity,"
below?
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief
in
the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley
(snip)
I think this means that one should not claim to believe what one does
not know (by logically satisfactory evidence) if one is going to call
one's self an agnostic.
Then I take it that you want to retract what you said, above, 'Agnosticism
is a position on knowledge, not belief'?
But what would 'claim to believe' mean? I like the way Huxley says it
better. What Huxley points out (see below) is that is wrong for a person to
say that he believes (is convinced) that a proposition is true when he
cannot produce evidence which logically justifies that conviction. Agnostics
rightfully deny and repudiate any religious doctrine, like Christianity for
example, that there are propositions, like the tenets of Christianity for
example, which men ought to believe without logically satisfactory evidence.
This is all about religious belief in the existence of gods and the absence
of it.
Here is the situation:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley is talking about the principle of valid argument that governs this
situation:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth
of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and
repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions
which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and
that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such
inadequately supported propositions."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
So it's all about religious belief on the one hand, and on the other hand
the absence of it, or to go a step further as agnostics do, denial and
repudiation of it, don't you agree?
Cheers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
13 Oct 2003 10:44:23 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net...
... Agnosticism is a
position on knowledge, not belief.
Yep.
That is a popular misconception, but it is not the case.
Nope. It is the case.
Agnostics
deny and repudiate, as immoral, any religious doctrine that there are
propositions which men ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence. (See below.)
You clearly don't understand what this means, though you seem to quote
it often.
Cambridge Dictionary
Definition
agnostic [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know,
whether a god exists:
or
ag·nos·tic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess
true atheism.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
****
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief
in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who
coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian
belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Your logic is faulty and does not support your preceding claim of what
an agnostic is.
This paragraph does not say that agnostics repudiate belief in the
existence of gods, only those gods without satisfactory evidence for
them. If you want to argue that "religious belief" is only referring to
"blind faith belief", not "justifiable belief" I would agree with you,
however, this is a bit misleading in that it doesn't clearly show that
it is only *unfounded* belief that, Huxley is objecting to. In addition,
contrary to what you claim, as the poster correctly states, Huxley's
view is clearly about a statement on knowledge, not a statement in god
in particular. There is no mention of god in the passage.
In general, you just don't seem to get it. The authority for word
*definitions* are academic dictionaries. You might not like it, but it
is the way the system works. Usually, dictionaries are correct, people
who dispute them are usually wrong, as is the case here.
The quote from the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition is:
ag·nosti·cal·ly adv.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven
but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.
The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British
scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena
were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-,
meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is
related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early
Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual
things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In
coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group
of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly
embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their
satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover
himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first
published use being in 1870.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
13 Oct 2003 11:51:59 AM |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rLzib.119$X_2.5@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Bob White wrote:
Theism is characterized by a belief in the existence of gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief
in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who
coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian
belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Your logic is faulty and does not support your preceding claim of what
an agnostic is.
This paragraph does not say that agnostics repudiate belief in the
existence of gods, only those gods without satisfactory evidence for
them.
Oh? Is there some logically satisfactory evidence for the existence of a god
that I have not heard about? Please explain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
05 Oct 2003 07:27:10 AM |
|
|
John Popelish <3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net>...
CUT
I think that agnostics are more willing than atheists to accept the
possibility that some god thingie might be invisible and
undetectable.
What is the difference between universe and "invisible and undetectable?
Thank you John
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
05 Oct 2003 11:07:42 AM |
|
|
Dio wrote:
John Popelish <3F7F788F.36063B77@rica.net>...
CUT
I think that agnostics are more willing than atheists to accept the
possibility that some god thingie might be invisible and
undetectable.
What is the difference between universe and "invisible and undetectable?
Some of the universe is either visible to us or detectable by
instruments. We measure the infrared radiation that we think
originated shortly after the Big Bang. We build great telescopes to
study distant (in space and time past) galaxies. We measure the
gravitation of masses (from single electrons to galaxies) by many
means. But believers announce that it is impossible, in principle to
measure anything of their god unless it decides to reveal itself to
us, miraculously.
Agnostics appear able to respond to such god descriptions by saying
that, in that case, we can have no testable knowledge of this
hypothetical god to decide the question of the truth of its existence,
while many atheists just dismiss the whole subject.
Remember that many atheists and agnostics have the same opinion as to
the existence of gods. They just describe themselves by emphasizing a
different aspect of this opinion. The self described atheists
emphasize their lack of belief in the existence of gods, while the
self described agnostics emphasize their total lack of knowledge of
any hypothetical gods.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
05 Oct 2003 07:08:28 PM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3F804357.88AE4835@rica.net>...
Some of the universe is either visible to us or detectable by
instruments. We measure the infrared radiation that we think
originated shortly after the Big Bang. We build great telescopes to
study distant (in space and time past) galaxies. We measure the
gravitation of masses (from single electrons to galaxies) by many
means. But believers announce that it is impossible, in principle to
measure anything of their god unless it decides to reveal itself to
us, miraculously.
Agnostics appear able to respond to such god descriptions by saying
that, in that case, we can have no testable knowledge of this
hypothetical god to decide the question of the truth of its existence,
while many atheists just dismiss the whole subject.
Remember that many atheists and agnostics have the same opinion as to
the existence of gods. They just describe themselves by emphasizing a
different aspect of this opinion. The self described atheists
emphasize their lack of belief in the existence of gods, while the
self described agnostics emphasize their total lack of knowledge of
any hypothetical gods.
That is a very good way of putting it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 07:05:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:04:12 GMT, "Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> posted in
alt.atheism:
Atheists say that there isn't god or creator
Some do, some don't, but that has nothing to do with atheism. The
ONLY thing all atheists have in common - the only thing that makes
them all atheists - is that none of them believe in any god. Some say
that there is no god, some say that we can't know if there's a god.
Agnostics say that there could be and we can't say if there is or isn't a
creator a god
Or anything else for which we have no evidence. (If there is - only a
god can say that there is no god, and that would be a lie.)
The big difference is that an atheist says: a creator doesn't exists.
Nope.
An agnostic says: a creator or a god could exists, we are neither sure
about existence nor about the contrary.
An agnostic atheist says that he doesn't believe in any god, but that
some god could exist. A gnostic atheist says that he doesn't believe
in any god and that no god exists or could exist.
This is a big difference, and most of agnostics think that their thesis ,
their mind is better than atheist mind.
Since most atheists are agnostic, this is impossible.
I'm an atheist, and i think that there is no evidence for a god or a creator
or something like that.
Then you're an agnostic atheist.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
04 Oct 2003 09:20:26 AM |
|
|
In article <q2xfb.223042$R32.7160801@news2.tin.it>,
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote:
Atheism and agnosticism seem to be both against every kind of theism or
religions.
But, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Of course i know that difference(Huxley invented that agnosticism term). But
a lot of agnostics say different things. So, I'm seeing different theses
about agnosticism because of their different mind.
Every agnostic says his personal thesis, and his personal agnosticism.
1. Is still there one agnosticism or a lot of kind ?
2. What is the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
I think that there is a big difference, but I'd like to know your mind.
So, what do you think about?
Bye bye
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and agnosticism: which is the difference? |
05 Oct 2003 03:42:26 AM |
|
|
In article <q2xfb.223042$R32.7160801@news2.tin.it>,
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote:
Atheism and agnosticism seem to be both against every kind of theism or
religions.
But, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Of course i know that difference(Huxley invented that agnosticism term). But
a lot of agnostics say different things. So, I'm seeing different theses
about agnosticism because of their different mind.
Every agnostic says his personal thesis, and his personal agnosticism.
1. Is still there one agnosticism or a lot of kind ?
2. What is the main difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
I think that there is a big difference, but I'd like to know your mind.
So, what do you think about?
Atheism: I do not believe.
Agnosticism: I don't know.
I think about a lot of things.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
