17th Mar 2010
What the difference between an atheist person and agnostic?
Atheists understand the burden of evidence: they understand that the lack of evidence for a god's existence means that we should believe that there is no god. They recognize that the fact that billions of people believe in gods is not evidence for the existence of any gods, and therefore they treat the question of god's existence the same way that they treat other questions of existence. It's a more fair and open-minded position than agnosticism.
The claim that atheism is a religion is simply desperately confused. I think that people only say it because they can't come up with any real argument against atheism.
Agnostic : One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
An agnostic is one who needs to have it proven to them that both exist. Such a person won't confirm or deny said existence until their epiphany comes.
They don't sound very appealing to me in anycase.
An agnostic believes that there may be a god, but is not willing to say absolutely that there is.
a person who believes that God does not exist
compare
Agnostic:
a person who is not sure whether or not God exists or who believes that we cannot know whether God exists or not
compare
A Hindu says - There are 10,000 gods
A Christian says - 9,999 of the gods are bogus
The atheist says rhey are all bogus
The agnostic says - You can never know
The indifferentist says - Who cares?
"Innocent until proven guilty" assumes the argument is _false_ until proven true. In religion, that means there is no "god" until one is proven.
"Guilty until proven innocent" assumes the argument is _true_ until proven false. In religion, the godbots assume their "god" exists. (How interesting their hypocrisy: True until proven false is good enough for their "god", but not them? Whatever happened to "walking with jeebus"?)
"Maybe he's guilty, maybe he isn't" is the same wishy-washy indecisiveness as agnosticism: "maybe there's a 'god', maybe there isn't". Because there's no pressure (yet) to force agnostics to make a decision, agnostics can get away with such ambiguity.
If the agnostics want to talk about _facts_, though, they will have to drop the fence sitting and pick a side. Just as medicine either works or it doesn't (which is how science works), so it is with religion. Either there is a "god" or there isn't; there is no "maybe".
.
Agnostic says, "I don't know"
agnostic- prove that God is
Agnostics do not believe in a deity but accept that final proof is not forthcoming.
That's all you can say for sure about somebody who identifies as an "athiest": that they do not have a belief in the existence of (for lack of a better term) "God". Some people try stretching this definition to mean "one who has no religion" or "one who rejects all notions of the supernatural", but again this isn't the correct meaning of the word.
"Agnostic" was was originally coined by Professor T.H. Huxley in 1876, and he defined it as somebody who firmly believes that the existience or non-existence of a higher power CAN'T BE PROVEN one way or another. So that's the original definition. Though these days people tend to use "agnostic" to describe somebody who simply doesn't know or hasn't made up their mind one way or another on the issue. And the unsureness doesn't necessarily mean "50/50"; there are plenty of people who identify as agnostics but lean a little more towards one direction.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Posted by mike under toyotataa.com |
