4 ms·

"For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out" I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief in no god w

"For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out" I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief in no god w/ the same confidence that a catholic would express a belief in theirs. I think it's an important distinction to make.

andywood 17y ago
Apples and oranges. Having spent considerable time on both sides of that fence, it seems to me that the way skeptics look at the world is qualitatively, fundamentally different from the way believers do. At the risk of oversimplifying: believers subscribe to going notions (shamanism, catholicism, astrology, etc.), which become like parts of their lifestyle and identity; skeptics try to determine how likely various propositions are based on knowledge, logic, and evidence. Now, there are a few religious people who try to apply the searching scrutiny of the skeptic to their faith, and there are those who identify with the atheist camp, but sort of after the style that believers identify with things. So the division will get muddled if you go actively looking for exceptions to it. But the point is that most non-believers simply do not hold their non-beliefs in the same way, or for the same reasons, that believers hold their beliefs.
kls 17y ago
yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why. There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer. An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: "see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible" they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject. Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: 'see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible' they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject." On what research do you base these broad, sweeping generalizations of large groups of people? I'm guessing you're just pigeon-holing people based on personal biases from purely anecdotal observations of a relatively small number of people (considering the number of atheists and agnostics in the world). Or you just invented definitions to suit your world view. Either way, it sounds like reasoning on misleading facts and faith. If you're going to disparage a seriously large number of people, please have at least few facts you can back up.
  - kls 17y ago
    To reason that there is no god is not based on factual observation. To reason that there is a god is not based on factual observation. I don't need to pigeon-holing anyone anywhere the nuances I highlighted are based on the real world definitions not ones I invented. The only conjecture that I added was my personal view that lumping agnostics (by definition) in with atheist is to deny an agnostic a more robust view on things, something that neither the religious nor atheist tend to appreciate. --please have at least few facts you can back up That's all I was talking about was true facts, it funny how emotions cripple people logically and blind them from the true quest for knowledge.

andywood 17y ago

Apples and oranges. Having spent considerable time on both sides of that fence, it seems to me that the way skeptics look at the world is qualitatively, fundamentally different from the way believers do. At the risk of oversimplifying: believers subscribe to going notions (shamanism, catholicism, astrology, etc.), which become like parts of their lifestyle and identity; skeptics try to determine how likely various propositions are based on knowledge, logic, and evidence. Now, there are a few religious people who try to apply the searching scrutiny of the skeptic to their faith, and there are those who identify with the atheist camp, but sort of after the style that believers identify with things. So the division will get muddled if you go actively looking for exceptions to it. But the point is that most non-believers simply do not hold their non-beliefs in the same way, or for the same reasons, that believers hold their beliefs.

kls 17y ago

yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the truth is we don't know the why. There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer. An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: "see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible" they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject. Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says: 'see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible' they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced. To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject." On what research do you base these broad, sweeping generalizations of large groups of people? I'm guessing you're just pigeon-holing people based on personal biases from purely anecdotal observations of a relatively small number of people (considering the number of atheists and agnostics in the world). Or you just invented definitions to suit your world view. Either way, it sounds like reasoning on misleading facts and faith. If you're going to disparage a seriously large number of people, please have at least few facts you can back up.
- kls 17y ago
  To reason that there is no god is not based on factual observation. To reason that there is a god is not based on factual observation. I don't need to pigeon-holing anyone anywhere the nuances I highlighted are based on the real world definitions not ones I invented. The only conjecture that I added was my personal view that lumping agnostics (by definition) in with atheist is to deny an agnostic a more robust view on things, something that neither the religious nor atheist tend to appreciate. --please have at least few facts you can back up That's all I was talking about was true facts, it funny how emotions cripple people logically and blind them from the true quest for knowledge.