What do atheists think of agnostics, and vice versa? (contradiction, myths, believe)

[catman]

I'm an atheist, but I don't define myself by what I don't believe in. I define myself by what I DO believe in: a regard for verifiable evidence and factual knowledge, rather than ancient mythology which has been worked over by many hands over the past millenia.

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by manygeese

And agnostic are a pain in the ass. Intellectuals. Believe they have the perfect answer.

Really? If agnostics had the perfect answer, they wouldn't be agnostics would they? They would know.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

Really? If agnostics had the perfect answer, they wouldn't be agnostics would they? They would know.

Yes. Really. Their perfect answer is there is no perfect answer. That was the point I was making.

I have never encountered a genuine agnostic, one switching from side to side searching for the right answer.

The ones I encounter place arguing that there can be no answer above searching for an answer. They devote equal energy to discrediting those supporting the supreme idea as they do those supporting the natural idea.

They are usually intelligent people who argue the supreme point of view when confronted by the natural point of view and, conversely, argue the natural point of view when confronted by the supreme point of view. The whole time the goal being to demonstrate that the human can't know the answer to existence and that those that say this have superior human intellect.

They like finding holes in arguments without advancing anything of substance themselves.

Fullback, if you consider your self an agnostic I apologize if I have offended you. But to me agnostics have egos that simply are not helping the planet.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Ah. Ok. I stand corrected. I misunderstood you. You are right here.

"An atheist defines him or her self by what they don't believe in."

An atheist is such because they do not believe in any god. It is true, but a bit misleading as it implies that is all and everything an atheist is. In fact the average atheist is everthing else and the non -belief bit is really unimportant - or would be if the theists didn't keep trying to tell them they should be religious.

You are dead wrong here, though. "But does not feel a responsibility to say what is true."

Atheists - what I call thinking atheists - feel a great responsibility morally and factually because they are the only ones responsible for their morals and finding out how to discover and arrive at the truth about anything becomes of paramount importance. That's why logic is so important in apologetics.

That of course is not the same as 'Truth', which is how I think you are using the term. That means 'Faith'. Agnostics (and atheists too, since they are very much akin in not finding the Bible a suitable source of knowledge) are very concerned with finding the truth (in the sense of 'what is'.) but are not much concerned with Faith as that is a very poor reason to believe anything - because you want to believe it or have been brainwashed into believing it. Such 'truth' is no better than the absurdities of scientology.

You need not stand corrected arequipa. I am an Australian.

But why would you put the term atheist after the term thinking.

Would not thinking human being have carried the day. I always find it hard to comprehend why a so called 'atheist' would call themself a so called 'atheist'. Why would they define themself in terms of what they don't believe in.

I consider my self a human being. Perhaps a thinking one, I don't know. But I am happy to be considered a human being in any quest there is to know the answer to existence. I believe very strongly in human beings. I like human beings. I like the world. And, of course, I love its evolution.

Anyway, I have had my say.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by manygeese

You need not stand corrected arequipa. I am an Australian.

Ah. Upside down rather than wrong way round.

But why would you put the term atheist after the term thinking.

To distinguish the atheist that thinks about it and decides to not believe from the kind of atheist who doesn't or can't.

Would not thinking human being have carried the day. I always find it hard to comprehend why a so called 'atheist' would call themself a so called 'atheist'. Why would they define themself in terms of what they don't believe in.

You are right. If it were not for the claims of theism, atheism wouldn't need to be a term. In the same way, the term 'teetotaller' would never have been needed if it was not for the existence of booze

I consider my self a human being. Perhaps a thinking one, I don't know. But I am happy to be considered a human being in any quest there is to know the answer to existence. I believe very strongly in human beings. I like human beings. I like the world. And, of course, I love its evolution.

Anyway, I have had my say.

Well, can't say fairer than that. I must say a recent thread has pointed up that atheism is really related to non - belief in personal god and (by extension) the religions that come with them as somewhat optional extras. Belief or not in a 'Deist' god seems so irrelevant as to hardly merit a place in the discussion.

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by manygeese

Yes. Really. Their perfect answer is there is no perfect answer. That was the point I was making.

I have never encountered a genuine agnostic, one switching from side to side searching for the right answer.

The ones I encounter place arguing that there can be no answer above searching for an answer. They devote equal energy to discrediting those supporting the supreme idea as they do those supporting the natural idea.

They are usually intelligent people who argue the supreme point of view when confronted by the natural point of view and, conversely, argue the natural point of view when confronted by the supreme point of view. The whole time the goal being to demonstrate that the human can't know the answer to existence and that those that say this have superior human intellect.

They like finding holes in arguments without advancing anything of substance themselves.

Fullback, if you consider your self an agnostic I apologize if I have offended you. But to me agnostics have egos that simply are not helping the planet.

No, you haven't offended me at all. I just was trying to understand what you meant, I see your point. Yes, many agnostics do as you, but there are those of us who are still trying to figure it all all out. On another post, Arequipa made a good point, I am more of the "agnostic theist" variety. I think there probably is something out there beyond what we can understand. I am sure a lot of my position comes from my Comanche culture. Being a person who grew up in that culture and it being a part of my life, I simply can't discount the possibility of that puha or power. I just don't know what it is.

[Paradox22]

My wife is agnostic. I dare not complain.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

No, you haven't offended me at all. I just was trying to understand what you meant, I see your point. Yes, many agnostics do as you, but there are those of us who are still trying to figure it all all out. On another post, Arequipa made a good point, I am more of the "agnostic theist" variety. I think there probably is something out there beyond what we can understand. I am sure a lot of my position comes from my Comanche culture. Being a person who grew up in that culture and it being a part of my life, I simply can't discount the possibility of that puha or power. I just don't know what it is.

Glad I didn't offend you and I love what you posted. The word Comanche sets a rhythm off in another soul.

I believe the circle is the 'supreme' answer. One that encompasses all space.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by catman

I'm an atheist, but I don't define myself by what I don't believe in. I define myself by what I DO believe in: a regard for verifiable evidence and factual knowledge, rather than ancient mythology which has been worked over by many hands over the past millenia.

You have two definitions of self I would say catman.


An atheist and what you say you do believe in.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You are right. If it were not for the claims of theism, atheism wouldn't need to be a term. In the same way, the term 'teetotaller' would never have been needed if it was not for the existence of booze

I acknowledge that you say I am right but you illustrate the point none the less.

Booze exists beyond claim. I have seen drunks.