No, I have. An atheist, per definition, is somebody who disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. An agnostic, having taken the approriately cautious approach, does not actively believe in any god or gods. Hence, any agnostic is an atheist.
The continued ignorance of what agnosticism really means continues to astound me. "Agnostic" is not a third, separate position on the existence of god. Agnosticism is a huge, incredibly important intellectual principle, applied to anything and everything that requires critical thinking. It's a cornerstone of the scientific method. In its essence, it means "this might sound reasonable, but I could be wrong". That's all it is. It's in no way a separate camp from atheism, nor a softer version of atheism- it's a completely separate intellectual discipline, who area of application is enormously larger than just religion. If you were to draw a circle to represent agnosticism, religion would be a tiny dot inside a big circle, because agnosticism isn't a religious position.
And what else, it's not only compatible with atheism, but a natural ally to it. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god, and an agnostic because I know it's possible I could be wrong.
So to finish: an agnostic, with regard to god, is still an atheist, because he/she does not believe in a god or gods.
One of the best explanations to what the difference between atheists and agnostics are:
* Agnostics don't believe in god(s) but they will believe when there is proof that there is in fact one (or more). * Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing.
Agnostics are atheists only in the sense that they do not believe in god (yet).
I love being on the 'I don't care' side that sits eating popcorn while everyone in their labelled boxes are shooting at each other :')
Agnostics don't believe in god(s) but they will believe when there is proof that there is in fact one (or more). This applies to atheists as well, unless we're talking about gnostic atheists. This is, in fact, a key part of organized atheist rationale- the demand for evidence. Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing. See the above. No atheist I know, nor any prominent atheist in the new atheism movement, reject the possibility of god outright- not even Richard Dawkins himself.
The differences you posted are non-differences, and agnosticism is not, will never be, a separate and third position on the existence of god, because agnosticism itself is an intellectual principle with a much wider application. Claiming it in the name of wobbly non-belief is to be ignorant of what agnosticism means. As a principle, it is not only compatible with atheism, but very well suited to it.
As for the "I don't care" side- great, you've distanced yourself from the "monkeys flinging shit at each other" part of the internet. That really doesn't have much of anything to do with what atheism and agnosticism is, though.
Proud to be an intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent gay man then. I thought Atheists were suppose to be enlighten and above petty insults but I was wrong.
It's a protest against the god of the bible, who certainly is a reflection of the society wherein he was created- a society that kept slaves, regarded women as property, and killed homosexuals, adulterers, rebellious children and people who practiced crop rotation.
Atheists are not above petty insults, because atheists really aren't that different from people in general. That doesn't mean we're wrong about god being a monster, though- just look at the bible and see the work of a megalomaniacal, insane monster.
I don't think anyone is above insulting when you get down to it. We're all human and whole atheists and religious goers thing can be very "us vs them" sort of thing and such mentality doesn't bode well for anyone. It usually turns into people talking past each other because people have an opinion and need to win. It's how the internet seems to be these days. However, I think there are enough Christians imposing their views on others where it doesn't really count but it's apparently all in the name of God. Like why does someone else's sexuality and such affect their salvation in any way? They probably won't even remember the gay person five years from now because life will demand for their attention elsewhere.
There are rotten Christians and rotten Atheists. Every group has a vocal and jerkish minority that makes everyone else look bad. I don't find this particularly insulting though, just something to ponder on when it comes to traditional views in a changing society and different interpretations on the bible.
I guess talk of religion just make me emotional tired because I've had some bad experiences with someone before who was down right insulting because apparently if you don't worship God like you're having a party, you put God to sleep.
When we impose our flaws on God, he can certainly seem that way, but it is our own faults that make us intolerant, sexist, homophobic, sexist, and violent. Jesus ate with all people (therefore tolerant), preached peace (therefore not violent), never once mentioned homosexuality, but did mention love more than anything else (therefore not homophobic), and one if his closest supporters and disciples was Mary Magdalene (therefore not sexist).
What the deviation points out is: the god of the bible is intolerant, bigoted, sexist, and a number of other, nasty things. The deity himself, as described in the bible. It's as simple as that.
Also and one if his closest supporters and disciples was Mary Magdalene (therefore not sexist). Fallacy. Just because one of his supporters- and she was not a disciple- was a woman, it doesn't mean he couldn't have been sexist. How many bigots have invoked "some of my best friends are X" to avoid being called what they are- bigots?
Indeed but do not forget that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet attempting to prepare his followers for the imminent end of the world. There was violence in him too.
and we must put mankind's sins upon god because it is we who created god
Dis gon b gud...
I love me some good ol' fashioned battle of the words between Atheists and Christians
Meanwhile, the Agnostics are laughing at both groups
Nice Dalek, by the way ^^
And thanks.
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
The continued ignorance of what agnosticism really means continues to astound me. "Agnostic" is not a third, separate position on the existence of god. Agnosticism is a huge, incredibly important intellectual principle, applied to anything and everything that requires critical thinking. It's a cornerstone of the scientific method. In its essence, it means "this might sound reasonable, but I could be wrong". That's all it is. It's in no way a separate camp from atheism, nor a softer version of atheism- it's a completely separate intellectual discipline, who area of application is enormously larger than just religion. If you were to draw a circle to represent agnosticism, religion would be a tiny dot inside a big circle, because agnosticism isn't a religious position.
And what else, it's not only compatible with atheism, but a natural ally to it. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god, and an agnostic because I know it's possible I could be wrong.
So to finish: an agnostic, with regard to god, is still an atheist, because he/she does not believe in a god or gods.
* Agnostics don't believe in god(s) but they will believe when there is proof that there is in fact one (or more).
* Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing.
Agnostics are atheists only in the sense that they do not believe in god (yet).
I love being on the 'I don't care' side that sits eating popcorn while everyone in their labelled boxes are shooting at each other :')
This applies to atheists as well, unless we're talking about gnostic atheists. This is, in fact, a key part of organized atheist rationale- the demand for evidence.
Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing.
See the above. No atheist I know, nor any prominent atheist in the new atheism movement, reject the possibility of god outright- not even Richard Dawkins himself.
The differences you posted are non-differences, and agnosticism is not, will never be, a separate and third position on the existence of god, because agnosticism itself is an intellectual principle with a much wider application. Claiming it in the name of wobbly non-belief is to be ignorant of what agnosticism means. As a principle, it is not only compatible with atheism, but very well suited to it.
As for the "I don't care" side- great, you've distanced yourself from the "monkeys flinging shit at each other" part of the internet. That really doesn't have much of anything to do with what atheism and agnosticism is, though.
The truly enlightened are those who believe in what they want without judging anyone else their beliefs. Every "side' has their rotten apples, really.
Atheists are not above petty insults, because atheists really aren't that different from people in general. That doesn't mean we're wrong about god being a monster, though- just look at the bible and see the work of a megalomaniacal, insane monster.
There are rotten Christians and rotten Atheists. Every group has a vocal and jerkish minority that makes everyone else look bad. I don't find this particularly insulting though, just something to ponder on when it comes to traditional views in a changing society and different interpretations on the bible.
I guess talk of religion just make me emotional tired because I've had some bad experiences with someone before who was down right insulting because apparently if you don't worship God like you're having a party, you put God to sleep.
Also
and one if his closest supporters and disciples was Mary Magdalene (therefore not sexist).
Fallacy. Just because one of his supporters- and she was not a disciple- was a woman, it doesn't mean he couldn't have been sexist. How many bigots have invoked "some of my best friends are X" to avoid being called what they are- bigots?
and we must put mankind's sins upon god because it is we who created god