Are you an Atheist or Agnostic?

[Toxick]

(wouldn't that make)...them agnostics?

No, it wouldn't.


I am a Christian. My faith is based around the evidence that I have observed through various things. To this day I question what I believe, and I will continue to do so until my death or the Apocolypse. Whichever comes first.

I lack the strong unwavering faith that most Christians exhibit. I have never had a religous experience. I've never 'felt' the presence of God, I'm simply basing my belief on what I've seen that leads me to the conclusion that He's there.

And yet, I would never think to consider myself agnostic. In fact, I'd be offended if someone referred to me as such.

I spent the first half of my life as a devout atheist. If I were to renounce my belief in God and Jesus, I would simply do so and become an atheist again.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Sounds like touch-feely pedandic gobbledygook to me. I'm not an agnostic, however, as a scientist, I am also forced to cede that it is not possible to have absolute and certain knowledge about the existence of God until I look upon His face.

I also cannot be sure that China exists until I visit it.

I also cannot be sure that Man has actually landed on the moon until I sink my foot into its regolith.

However, I feel pretty confident that God, China and the Moon Landing are not elaborate hoaxes.

 

[Toxick]

Athiests don't have a faith, we have a trust in the most likely possibility based on the evidence and logic at hand.

I didn't say faith. I said belief.


An active belief in the lack of a diety.

You can call it what you want, but I think my point stands.

 

[Toxick]

My point is an agnostic acknowledges that fact while the other two sides ...

My point is that I also acknowledge that fact - and yet I don't think that makes me any less of a Christian, or more of an agnostic.

 

[Novus Collectus]

....


Sounds like touch-feely pedandic gobbledygook to me. I'm not an agnostic, however, as a scientist, I am also forced to cede that it is not possible to have absolute and certain knowledge about the existence of God until I look upon His face.

I also cannot be sure that China exists until I visit it.

I also cannot be sure that Man has actually landed on the moon until I sink my foot into its regolith.

However, I feel pretty confident that God, China and the Moon Landing are not elaborate hoaxes.

And I as an atheist think the likelyhood there are gods responsible for life is just as likely that I am the god responsible for life and the universe. Both to me are just as unproven and just as unlikely.
While it is possible China and the moon do not exist, based on the evidence I have seen and the logic, I trust they most likely do and I will practice my life with the assertion they almost definitely do with the ultra remote possibility they do not always in consideration no matter how unlilely.

I am an atheist, I assert there is most likely no gods. An agnostic will often say it is fifty fifty there are gods, or the possibility there is is just as likely there is a possibility there isn't.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is it safe...

the possibility that there is the one in a trillion trillion chance they are wrong in their assertation there is most likely no god, the agnostic will say there is a possibility greater than that

...to say we understand each other? You're presenting, as I understand it, a matter of faith, as an atheist, as a mathematical equation, yes? And that is my argument as to how theists and atheists view their, as Tox put it, beliefs.

And it can't be math, fact based, as it is faith. Faith addresses an issue that is not 1:10 or 1:1,000,000 or 1 in a trillion trillion. It is 50/50. There either is a God or there is not.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I didn't say faith. I said belief.


An active belief in the lack of a diety.

You can call it what you want, but I think my point stands.

Belief in your context connotates it means faith or religious thought even. It would be more accurate to say it is trust of the most likely possibility based on the evidence and logic at hand.
When you say "belief", it is an ambiguous wording that can lead to an improper understanding if misapplied by the reader.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

And yet, I would never think to consider myself agnostic. In fact, I'd be offended if someone referred to me as such.

...allow me to apologize as my intentions are no more or less than to discuss faith and lack thereof. If you believe in Christ, are a Christian, then you know it, as far as beliefs can be known, in your heart and mind. I'm not trying to talk you in or out. I just enjoy the discussion.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I didn't say faith. I said belief.


An active belief in the lack of a diety.

You can call it what you want, but I think my point stands.

But you are asserting a god exists, whereas an atheist usually asserts gods most likely do not exist and an agnostic usually asserts neither.

 

[Toxick]

But you are asserting a god exists, whereas an atheist usually asserts gods most likely do not exist and an agnostic usually asserts neither.

When I was an atheist, I never used the term "most likely".

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

However, I feel pretty confident that God, China and the Moon Landing are not elaborate hoaxes.

...but as a scientist, do you see the evidence of China and a moon landing in the same way and context that you see evidence of Christs birth and his Resurrection?

 

[aps45819]

...If you can't see or talk to or touch God, which you can't, he does not exist.

A guy once asked me if I had ever seen or touched a million dollars.
Then asked if I believed it existed.

 

[Larry Gude]

But that is the whole...

Athiests don't have a faith, we have a trust in the most likely possibility based on the evidence and logic at hand. To have faith or a "belief", one does not need material evidence or even logic.

...argument in a nutshell; Faith can never have 'most likely' possibilities as it simply is not a matter of the odds of winning the lottery and the evidence and logic are all expressly based on faith, not hard evidence or sound logic. Therefore, the rational you use, as an atheist, to support your beliefs is like using a US ruler to measure metrically; it's not the right tool.

 

[Larry Gude]

And...

A guy once asked me if I had ever seen or touched a million dollars.
Then asked if I believed it existed.

...I'm dying here, the answer?????

 

[Novus Collectus]

...to say we understand each other? You're presenting, as I understand it, a matter of faith, as an atheist, as a mathematical equation, yes? And that is my argument as to how theists and atheists view their, as Tox put it, beliefs.

Faith requires the belief in something's existence despite lack of evidence and does not need logic to support the "belief".
What I am expressing is the trust in the most likely possibility based on the logic that if there is no evidence of something's existence and no reason to think it exists whatsoever besides someone elses "faith" that it does.

And it can't be math, fact based, as it is faith. Faith addresses an issue that is not 1:10 or 1:1,000,000 or 1 in a trillion trillion. It is 50/50. There either is a God or there is not.

Yes, for the theist it is faith, but for me it is math and probablilty alone because I have no faith. That is what makes me different than the theist...see?
I do agree that there is the possibility I am the one true god, so does that make me an agnostic? Is it really so easy to define as that?

 

[Larry Gude]

Which is why...

My point is that I also acknowledge that fact - and yet I don't think that makes me any less of a Christian, or more of an agnostic.

...I listed the definition of agnostic; it's not knowable.

I do see your point in terms of commitment one way or another.

 

[Novus Collectus]

A guy once asked me if I had ever seen or touched a million dollars.
Then asked if I believed it existed.

I touched a dollar before, so by using math I can assume a million dollars exists.

 

[Larry Gude]

You're not a Redskin...

Faith requires the belief in something's existence despite lack of evidence and does not need logic to support the "belief".

...fan, are you? There is evidence to suggest a belief, faith in them based on the goal of reaching Heaven, the Superbowl, as they have good players and coaches and they might pull it all together, yet there is also reason to question. Some people are totally of faith, theists, in them despite some of the evidence. Some people are atheistical on them based on some of the very same evidence and more and others, like me, have reached an agnostic, show me, kind of existence. I wanna believe but my mind keeps getting in the way along with the absurd things they want me to believe.

 

[Toxick]

...but as a scientist, do you see the evidence of China and a moon landing in the same way and context that you see evidence of Christs birth and his Resurrection?

Yes and no.

On the one hand, I want to say evidence is evidence.

On the other hand, the evidence supporting the existence of China is physically more real.



I've gone over the evidence which has led me to my belief in God many times over in the forums. Some people will not accept the evidence I've presented, saying that it is flawed and doesn't prove anything. I disagree, but, whatever.

However, with China and the Moon, they are things that are there now. I can physically get on a plane and go to China right this very second. I've seen China on Google Earth and although that doesn't PROVE anything, it's certainly more concrete than correlations between, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the prophecies they contain, and biblical historical data.

I can go to the Smithsonian and SEE a moon rock.




So, no, I don't look at the evidence the same way.

I can't.




At least until they get that time machine up and running.

 

[Novus Collectus]

...argument in a nutshell; Faith can never have 'most likely' possibilities as it simply is not a matter of the odds of winning the lottery and the evidence and logic are all expressly based on faith, not hard evidence or sound logic. Therefore, the rational you use, as an atheist, to support your beliefs is like using a US ruler to measure metrically; it's not the right tool.

YOu see, if I had faith, I would probably be a theist. I do not have faith and I use math and probablities. I have a "trust" in the most likely and I use this most likelyhood for the practical while still leaving room for the possibility that none of this universe actually exists, or that I am the one true god. If I had faith or a "belief", then I would have faith in myself being the one true god and I would be a theist. That makes no practical sense to me and that is how I feel about a belief in other gods or faith/belief in general for me.

 

[Larry Gude]

How did...

I touched a dollar before, so by using math I can assume a million dollars exists.

...you know it wasn't counterfeit?