What is the practical difference in everyday life/decision making between an atheist and an agnostic? Is the only real difference in decision-making and motivation coming from culture and personal factors (parental rearing, etc)?
For that matter, is there any difference between an atheist, agnostic, or “carnal believer” of a faith? In other words, if a person says that they subscribe to a faith in word only, but acts how they wish (i.e., making decisions on what they perceive is the best option), what diffence is it between the atheist and agnostic?
I personally have never understood the mutual exclusivity. Surely every reasonable theist or atheist understands that you can never really know whether or not God exists? Those who won’t even hazard a guess are not so much “agnostics” as “shy”.
The “strong” atheists would disagree with you. They maintain that they can prove either that no god can possibly exist, or at least that one particular god (say, for example, the God of Christianity) can possibly exist. They maintain that they do, in fact, know this for a fact. I suspect that many theists would also disagree with you, maintaining that they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that god exists. Whether or not they’re all deluded is another question, of course.
I went to aBbible Baptist church and Sunday school when I was a girl and I was saved then. I got into the habit of believing in God and talking to God and never fell out of it. However, I cannot follow many of the rules set forth by that church, or even much of the Bible. Not because I am weak, I have already sought forgiveness for my weakness and my sins, but because the rules feel wrong.
I also believe that the existence of God is unprovable. This bothers me not at all, but to some it means that I am an agnostic, because I believe there cannot be knowlegde of God in the same way that I have knowledge of the everyday world, or even knowledge of mathematics. I do not think less of God because of this, but many seem to think it means that I do. I will abandon reason or change what I mean by provable just so that I can prove God to exist. I think any who feel the need to do so lack both faith and reason.
At one point I thought to be an atheist, but examination of my habits and thoughts, including cursing God over certain injustices, showed that I believed in God. I look to my heart and reason to tell right from wrong and do my best to do right, to be honest in my dealings and treat others fairly. I think that laws should come from reason and not from what people think God has said. I think that if God tells people to do something that is against the law and they do so, that they must face the consequences of their actions, and that no special treatment is warranted.
When faced with a moral dilemma, I decide what is right by a combination of introspection and extrapolation. How does it seem to me in my heart? What are the consequences of this action for others? for myself? If another were in this situation what would I like that person to do? What would I expect another to do? What if many people did this?* It is not easy because the answer for me to what is the right thing to do requires thought and consideration. There is no greather authority to pin blame on nor is there an easy reference guide.
*Notice I did not say all. What if all people decided it was best to walk as far west on ferries in the middle of their trip whenever they rode on one? Ferrys would capsize. I don’t think that walking to the west on ferries is wrong generally.
Well, I’m as strong an atheist as you get in the sense that even if God literally appeared before my very eyes and told me something only I could know, I would consider that I was being deceived by advanced technology, and I would not say any of that. Just because you could never prove God’s existence to me doesn’t mean that I’m wrong, nor does it mean that I’ve proved God’s nonexistence. And, given the possibility of such an advanced simulation, nobody can absolutely knowanything for a fact.
That’s why I said all reasonable theists and atheists would also be agnostics.
I think atheists will have a harder “edge” to them than some agnostics. Atheists believe there is no God – which is a claim.
Agnostics on the other hand, may have a range of opinions. Some may believe we can not know whether there is a God or not – a claim itself, but of somewhat different nature. Others may be uncertain whether or not if we can know if She exists.
I think I may fall into the later group both on questions of morals and religion and on everything else. This cloud of ambiguity seems to be part of my nature and so many ordinary things others take for granted I may not.
As a theist, I am often horrified that theists feel they have more connection to morality than non-theists.
Take these extreme examples.
Atheist: “What can I do to make this world a better place?”
Theist: “What can I do to get a better place in the next world?”
Atheist: “I will not murder, because I judge murder to be wrong in a society.”
Theist: “I will not murder, because a book I own says I must not murder, and I will be punnished if I do, I don’t want to be punnished.”
Atheist:“I find homosexuality Icky, but I recognise that consenting homosexuals cause no damage to myself or society, so I am happy to allow them all the benifits that membership of society has to offer.”
Theist:“I find homosexuality Icky. My book seems to say homosexuality is not allowed by God. Therefore I must do all I can to stop people being homosexual, for their own benifit.”
The theist view can be far more self centered and lacking in basic ‘goodness’ than the atheist view. Not that it in any way has to be like this.
I’d venture there is no “everday” difference to agnostics and atheists.
As for myself… intelectually I know its more honest to be agnostic… since I can’t prove such a mighty claim as the non-existance of god. Yet in my heart I really don’t beleive even a little that there is a god so I prefer to be honest to myself and call myself an atheist.
No, it isn’t. Don’t read judgement about atheist, agnostics OR religious folk into the questions. It is just a straight question about the REAL differences in decisions/motivation between the groups. They all seem to be represented here, so it seems to be a good place to ask the question.
Wrong. You’re thinking of what we call strong atheism. The prefix a- means “without”, and theism means “belief in God”. So atheism simply means “without belief in God”. It’s not a claim, it’s the lack of a claim. People who make a definitive claim that gods can’t exist are a SUBSET of all atheists.
No, ALL agnostics believe that. That’s the definition of an agnostic.
What is the practical everyday difference between a catholic and a born again protestant ? I can’t see any difference… so they are probably not going about their religion in an outstanding way are they ?
I submit that if there is no everyday difference in the way different groups lead their lives, then there is no difference in the thought pattern (at a basic everyday level) between those individuals. That is not to say that EVERYONE within those groups fall into this common group, however.
If a person subscribes to relgious tenets (and therfore follows that particular group) but does not follow them in their everyday (public and private) life, then they are more of an agnostic or a general theist. They are not what they claim to be. No?
No, they are hypocrites !
Don’t label religious slackers as agnostic or whatever. Simply most people don’t think about what their religion means and then most certainly don’t live their lives according to the religious beliefs they espouse. Naturally they love to boast about their “holier than thou”… but in practical terms… way too many are hypocrites. If 10% of these people were de facto followers of Christ teachings we’d live in a much better world.
I didn’t say they were not hypcrites. Not all followers are; quite a few DO spend their lives trying to live as they believe. What I am referring to are individuals who do claim to follow a religion, but have no intention of following its precepts. Two different folks. I do not see that this type of “follower” has any more belief (trust) in their chosen religion than an agnostic. Likewise, in practical terms, if an agnostic does not subscribe to any religious affiliation, then perhaps like an atheist, there is no religious motive. Circling back, this really means that a follower that does not try to hold to the precepts they subscribe to, then they are at least on common ground with agnostics and atheists in that they are not using their chosen religion to base their lives on (this is a neutral statement, dont run away with it as being a conclusion slanted one way or the other).
You do what you believe, although you may profess something altogether different. It is not an unimportant point, and separates those who try to follow and those who merely talk to it for whatever reason.
One possible difference IMO is that atheists are more willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, to wit:
Atheist: “Oh crap, 15,000 people have been killed because of something I did; this is all going to be on my head.”
Theist: “Oh, hey, 15,000 people have been killed because of something I did. That’s okay, God will forgive me.”
Now, this is certainly not the case for all theists, most of whom are perfectly willing to take responsibility for their actions. But for atheists, there is no escape clause.
I’ll agree with this if you extend this statement to any conceivable belief (that you’re actually a mere brain in a glass jar, that fairies are dancing in the woods at midnight, that the US government is infiltrated by aliens, and so on…). I’ve absolutely zero reason to view differently a belief in a creator.
