I am afraid that there's no way for me to ask this question without offending anyone, but I'm going to try. I'd like to start by saying that I am asking this out of genuine curiosity, this isn't a smug way of saying, "Your way is silly, defend yourself for my amusement" kind of thing. Seriously.
In my experience, ( and I have known A LOT of agnostics and atheists, many of which have been good friends of mind, actually) the main difference between the two is the level of hostility. Agnostics say," Well, I don't believe in a god, but if someone shows me a real reason to, I'll look into it." Meanwhile, atheists say," The belief of any kind of deity is naive, and the very idea that someone believes it is offensive to me." Basically, what I'm saying (I'm sorry if I piss someone off) atheists seem to get angry if (specifically) christianity is brought up; like it is a personal attack. This is only based on the atheists I have known. Having said that mouthful, my question is quite simple: Why does christianity invoke such hostility in atheists?
atheism vs. agnosticism
Moderator: Moderators
-
boxofpaints
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Arizona
Post #2
Atheists do not believe that there is anything called a god. The word "agnostic" is more of a modifier than anything else, and can be applied to any other theist or atheist belief, or stand on its own.
For instance, an agnostic atheist would say, "I do not know for certain about God, but I believe it more likely that He does not exist."
An agnostic Christian would say, "I do not know for certain about God, but I prefer the idea that Christ died for my sins."
An agnostic without qualifiers would say, "I do not know about any god in any way, and I have no preference one way or the other."
For instance, an agnostic atheist would say, "I do not know for certain about God, but I believe it more likely that He does not exist."
An agnostic Christian would say, "I do not know for certain about God, but I prefer the idea that Christ died for my sins."
An agnostic without qualifiers would say, "I do not know about any god in any way, and I have no preference one way or the other."
My arguments are only as true as you will them to be.
Because of the limits of language, we are all wrong.
This signature is as much for my benefit as for yours.
Because of the limits of language, we are all wrong.
This signature is as much for my benefit as for yours.
Re: atheism vs. agnosticism
Post #3An atheist need merely hold a non-beleif in the existence of god(s).boxofpaints wrote:I am afraid that there's no way for me to ask this question without offending anyone, but I'm going to try. I'd like to start by saying that I am asking this out of genuine curiosity, this isn't a smug way of saying, "Your way is silly, defend yourself for my amusement" kind of thing. Seriously.
In my experience, ( and I have known A LOT of agnostics and atheists, many of which have been good friends of mind, actually) the main difference between the two is the level of hostility. Agnostics say," Well, I don't believe in a god, but if someone shows me a real reason to, I'll look into it." Meanwhile, atheists say," The belief of any kind of deity is naive, and the very idea that someone believes it is offensive to me." Basically, what I'm saying (I'm sorry if I piss someone off) atheists seem to get angry if (specifically) christianity is brought up; like it is a personal attack. This is only based on the atheists I have known. Having said that mouthful, my question is quite simple: Why does christianity invoke such hostility in atheists?
An agnostic is one who does not know whether or not god exists. If you believe in god and do not know, or you do not believe and do not knwo - both are agnostics.
Some atheists are hostile towards christianity, others not. Such actions cannot be generalized.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #4
I am "hostile" to Christianity if you mean that not only do I reject its basic tenets I reject the kind of thinking that leads to creationism, intelligent design and the acceptance that some ancient texts are divinely inspired. Not only do I just reject the methodology that would lead someone into these kinds of beliefs, I find the methodology utterly bogus.
So yes if you put me in a room with a certain flavour of Christian I want to chew them up. Only civility prevents me.
I think that this might explain why some atheists can get tetchy with certain kinds of Christians. However I suspect tetchiness is in direct proportion to the evangelical coefficient.
Atheist Tetchiness = Evangelism x Creationist Beliefs
So yes if you put me in a room with a certain flavour of Christian I want to chew them up. Only civility prevents me.
I think that this might explain why some atheists can get tetchy with certain kinds of Christians. However I suspect tetchiness is in direct proportion to the evangelical coefficient.
Atheist Tetchiness = Evangelism x Creationist Beliefs
-
Jayhawker Soule
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Post #5
One is fundamentally an ontological perspective while the other is fundamentally an epistemological one.
The much discussed 'distinction' between so-called strong and weak atheism is more sophistry than substance.
The much discussed 'distinction' between so-called strong and weak atheism is more sophistry than substance.
Post #6
it is not upsetting to me 
i am a atheist and i find it personally attacking somewhat.
This is somewhat odd for me to be looking into,
atheist think it is personaly attacking because..well, me personally i don't like hearing about religon because, i don't know what to belive and understand.
When people mentchin this to me i get frusterated because it is confusing to me...
so we automaticlly just get defensive.
but i came here
i am a atheist and i find it personally attacking somewhat.
This is somewhat odd for me to be looking into,atheist think it is personaly attacking because..well, me personally i don't like hearing about religon because, i don't know what to belive and understand.
When people mentchin this to me i get frusterated because it is confusing to me...so we automaticlly just get defensive.
but i came here
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #7
If you don't know what to believe an understand you are not an athiest. Athiests don't beleive and have some understanderstanding why they don't believe.
I don't think atheism is defensive in the sense they have a positioned to defend. If they are defending anything it is where the bar should be set for what counts as evidence, rigour and coherent argument.
The advantage of a fourm like this is you get time to compose your thoughts when writing a post. In free flowing conversation it is difficult to pick out the non sequiturs and slippery semantics that often get thrown around. Personalites often come out on top rather than the argument.
I don't think atheism is defensive in the sense they have a positioned to defend. If they are defending anything it is where the bar should be set for what counts as evidence, rigour and coherent argument.
The advantage of a fourm like this is you get time to compose your thoughts when writing a post. In free flowing conversation it is difficult to pick out the non sequiturs and slippery semantics that often get thrown around. Personalites often come out on top rather than the argument.
Post #8
it's the closetest thing to what i amFurrowed Brow wrote:If you don't know what to believe an understand you are not an athiest. Athiests don't beleive and have some understanderstanding why they don't believe.
I don't think atheism is defensive in the sense they have a positioned to defend. If they are defending anything it is where the bar should be set for what counts as evidence, rigour and coherent argument.
The advantage of a fourm like this is you get time to compose your thoughts when writing a post. In free flowing conversation it is difficult to pick out the non sequiturs and slippery semantics that often get thrown around. Personalites often come out on top rather than the argument.
i don't bealive in anything and i don't know what to think
so i came here for some answers
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #9
I think you will find that for every answer you get, you will get a half a dozen questions..TheHate wrote:it's the closetest thing to what i amFurrowed Brow wrote:If you don't know what to believe an understand you are not an athiest. Athiests don't beleive and have some understanderstanding why they don't believe.
I don't think atheism is defensive in the sense they have a positioned to defend. If they are defending anything it is where the bar should be set for what counts as evidence, rigour and coherent argument.
The advantage of a fourm like this is you get time to compose your thoughts when writing a post. In free flowing conversation it is difficult to pick out the non sequiturs and slippery semantics that often get thrown around. Personalites often come out on top rather than the argument.
i don't bealive in anything and i don't know what to think
so i came here for some answers
But that is what makes things fun.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
Catharsis
Post #10
The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism:
Most of these people characterize themselves as “godless”. But, only few of them have comprehended the significance of this expression, or the logical contradictions that are prerequisites of its acceptance.
Who exactly should be called “godless”? The person who BELIEVES THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. But, this phrasing alone makes it obvious that atheism presupposes a faith in the non-existence of God. This is not a play on words here. When we analyze the subject further down, it will become obvious that it is exactly as we said above.
Many atheists claim: “I don’t believe in God, because I have no evidence of this.” But when you ask them: “What evidence do you have of the opposite?” they can only present their hypotheses, without a shred of actual evidence. Thus, their atheist position is not the result of any evidence, but simply their CHOICE between two, improvable aspects: the existence and the non-existence of God.
On realizing this impasse, and in their attempt to avoid this logical contradiction, some of them say: “I am not rejecting the existence of God; I simply don’t have a piece of evidence that will make me believe in God”.
These people are consistent in what thy say. The only thing is, THEY ARE NOT CALLED ATHEISTS; THEY ARE CALLED AGNOSTICS. An Atheist is the one who rejects the existence of God. An Agnostic is the one who is open to the possibility of God existing, but has not yet been convinced of it. So, in this series of topics, we shall be dealing with the Atheists, and not the Agnostics, who are more logical.
And I am referring to the true Agnostics; the ones who can recognize the above difference. Because there are also those who claim to be open to the possibility of God’s existence, but declare themselves to be “atheists”, thus indicating that they have basically taken a stance, hence their claim of being open to the possibility of God’s existence is only a cover-up, to conceal their contradiction. But they are easily detected, by their open hatred towards anything that has to do with God. The fact alone that they claim to be open to the possibility of God’s existence, shows that: either they are not true atheists, but are suffering from a total confusion of meanings, or, they are actually atheists, who are trying to conceal their fanaticism behind the cover of agnosticism.
It is therefore important –in any conversation with atheists- to clarify exactly what they mean, and what their affiliation is to Agnosticism.
So, from the moment someone says: “I am an atheist”, he is actually declaring his faith in an unproven statement that: “God doesn’t exist”.
And it is so improvable, as is the acknowledgement that “God exists”. Hence, atheism is not aligned with rationalism and logic. It is simply one more religion.
Most of these people characterize themselves as “godless”. But, only few of them have comprehended the significance of this expression, or the logical contradictions that are prerequisites of its acceptance.
Who exactly should be called “godless”? The person who BELIEVES THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. But, this phrasing alone makes it obvious that atheism presupposes a faith in the non-existence of God. This is not a play on words here. When we analyze the subject further down, it will become obvious that it is exactly as we said above.
Many atheists claim: “I don’t believe in God, because I have no evidence of this.” But when you ask them: “What evidence do you have of the opposite?” they can only present their hypotheses, without a shred of actual evidence. Thus, their atheist position is not the result of any evidence, but simply their CHOICE between two, improvable aspects: the existence and the non-existence of God.
On realizing this impasse, and in their attempt to avoid this logical contradiction, some of them say: “I am not rejecting the existence of God; I simply don’t have a piece of evidence that will make me believe in God”.
These people are consistent in what thy say. The only thing is, THEY ARE NOT CALLED ATHEISTS; THEY ARE CALLED AGNOSTICS. An Atheist is the one who rejects the existence of God. An Agnostic is the one who is open to the possibility of God existing, but has not yet been convinced of it. So, in this series of topics, we shall be dealing with the Atheists, and not the Agnostics, who are more logical.
And I am referring to the true Agnostics; the ones who can recognize the above difference. Because there are also those who claim to be open to the possibility of God’s existence, but declare themselves to be “atheists”, thus indicating that they have basically taken a stance, hence their claim of being open to the possibility of God’s existence is only a cover-up, to conceal their contradiction. But they are easily detected, by their open hatred towards anything that has to do with God. The fact alone that they claim to be open to the possibility of God’s existence, shows that: either they are not true atheists, but are suffering from a total confusion of meanings, or, they are actually atheists, who are trying to conceal their fanaticism behind the cover of agnosticism.
It is therefore important –in any conversation with atheists- to clarify exactly what they mean, and what their affiliation is to Agnosticism.
So, from the moment someone says: “I am an atheist”, he is actually declaring his faith in an unproven statement that: “God doesn’t exist”.
And it is so improvable, as is the acknowledgement that “God exists”. Hence, atheism is not aligned with rationalism and logic. It is simply one more religion.
