I personnally don’t believe there would be much of a difference. rearing, brain hardwiring, society’s moral standards, etc…most certainly play a way more important part in people’s decisions and motivations. Stating that the existence of god is improvable or that he doesn’t exist is mostly an intellectual issue that has few bearings on one’s actions in one’s everyday’s life.
I already did.
Actually, I can give you one practical difference. My father is an agnostic. While he does not consider himself Christian, the default religion, if you will, for an Englishman, in part because he was never baptized, he believes there is something out there greater than us, even if he can’t defined what it is. My uncle, his brother-in-law is apparently an atheist. Last night I visited my parents for the first time since my grandmother, my mother’s mother, died. Mum told me that Grandmama’s death was harder on my uncle because, unlike the rest of his siblings, he doesn’t believe in an afterlife. Even a casual Anglican or agnostic can comfort herself by saying someone she loves who’s died is in a better place, freed from the troubles and sorrows of this world. My grandmother was 90 years old, and her body was sharing its age. She’d also been a widow for 35 years. My mother, an ordinary Anglican, unlike her rogue daughter, can tell herself that Grandmama is finally with her beloved husband, freed from pain and the fear of slowly wasting away in an old age home and that wherever Grandmama is, she is loved and happy. My uncle doesn’t have that comfort. For those agnostics who hope for something better in the next world, I’d hazard that the same applies. As far as I know, and I’m far from an atheist, they don’t have that particular comfort. Yes, I do expect someone to tell me they have no need of it and they don’t really understand why I would. What can I say? I don’t appreciate the joys of mushrooms, either. :shrug:
Respectfully,
CJ
Hhhmmm as a hardcore atheist I agree that not beleiving in a afterlife certainly doesn’t help “alleviate” the death of loved ones. Still in my case its so much easier when its someone of advanced age… naturally I mourned… but I knew that the person had lived a full life. What really gets to me is young people dying. Especially in a silly and needless accident for example. To beleive that serves any possible purpose makes any christian a masochist in my mind (sorry to be blunt). I just plain hate that silly “he is in a better place” BS.
I disagree. I’m a strong atheist in that I don’t think it’s possible that God could exist. The reason I say this is because I don’t think the term ‘God’ is a meaningful term that refers to anything that exists in reality. By assuming that it’s possible that ‘God’ exists (whatever “God” is) is actually skipping a step in the argument-IMO.
First we have to determine what God is, what God’s primary characteristics/attributes are. Then we can say whether such an entity is capable of existing. Otherwise the term is meaningless. Here’s a good rundown.
Might you be wrong?
And even then, we might be wrong, no?
I too have had this kind of situation, and it generates a question: are those “hangers-on” to a faith only using the religion to receive the comforts they want when they percieve they need them? If that is the case (and I suspect that it indeed is) - then what good is it? Isn’t it kind of like only taking from an aquaintance (that you never really want to know about) when you need something, but otherwise ingoring them and everything about them for all practical purposes until you percieve that you need something that they have - and dong it repeatedly- except that one is doing it to God? Whether it is with another man or God, that kind of relationship is rather doomed or at least fraught with holes, dont you think?
Seige, I will absolutely agree with your point. No one really likes to think that some of their loved ones are in hell - even agnostics or atheists. And most want to have assurance of beyond-the-grave answers. I won’t fault anyone for that; in fact, I think it is that continuing love that makes us all very much human.
But it does back up my main point: if one claims to follow God, but only gives lip service to the action, what is the real difference from agnostics or atheists in the way their lives are lead - which means, ultimately, the perspectives/beliefs that they have in life? I am NOT saying that choosing to follow a religion/denomination is easy (thus the reason we have the word “pious”); it is difficult. But it is also a different mindset/perspective that is actively sought and adhered to.
TLK1
Bang on!
If you can admit the potentiality of being wrong, as in, " I don’t believe that God (pick one) exists. However, I may be wrong and if the evidence presents itself I will reevaluate my position" that means you are a weak (soft) atheist. To make a strong atheist’s claim can be as irrational as a theist’s claim. Especially since most theists will make strong atheistic claims against Gods not represented by their own faith system.
I could be wrong of course. In order to be wrong though, I’d need primary characteristics at the very least. So yes, I believe that I’m a fallible human being, but as far as I’m concerned their is no possibility that ‘God’ exists, as the word refers to a meaningless term.
Now, someone could, of course, come along and provide me with logical/rational primary characteristics or a whole host of evidence or what have you-but as it is currently, to even speculate on whether God exists or not I’d need to know what it is that is supposed to exist.
Since I don’t know and I think the term is meaningless, I don’t think it’s possible that God exists.
Even if we’re living in the Matrix we can still prove logical truths. I do not believe that the typical modern conception of God exists, and part of why I do not believe it is because (if my math is correct) such a being could not logically exist. Even if we’re in the Matrix that is true.
–Cliffy
Hmm. That wasn’t very clear. Let me rephrase. S’Meat, you said:
This is correct of many conceptions of the supernatural. (Zeus, for instance.) However, I feel confident in stating positively that the typical modern christian conception of God does not exist. I am not agnostic about this. I could be wrong, but if so, that’s because my logic is flawed, not because I take anything on faith. Because my rejection of the possibility of this idea of God comes from my understanding of logical truths and not observation of the outside world, it is just as valid whether I’m a brain in a vat or not.
–Cliffy
Probably not much – neither of us is constrained in our decisionmaking by notions of the supernatural.
Who doesn’t make decisions on what they perceive to be the best option? The faithful do that too; they just use a different rubric than I do. They ask what will best please God, while I ask what will best help the most people in the greatest way? We’re still both striving for “best.” Hopefully, their idea of God is of someone best pleased when his adherents help others – in such a situation his actions will be similar to mine. If his God likes other stuff, though, then they won’t be.
–Cliffy
I’m not trying to confuse the issue, but I think if you look at the actual meaning of the words, agnostics are atheists. Atheists (and I bet I’m contradicting some earlier posters here) are people who do not believe in god. Some atheists believe there is no god - those are strong atheists, and the philosophical difference between one of those and an agnostic would be pretty clear-cut - but that’s not the same thing. Agnostics don’t believe in god either. They’re not sure if god exists or doesn’t, but they don’t have faith that he does, ergo, they’re atheists as well. What I’m getting at here is that the “practical difference” is really pretty small.
Furthermore, atheist is such a broad category that it’s a mistake to assume that we all have the same “everyday life/decision making” processes, philosophies, etc. Recall that atheism is not a religion, it’s a class. I think most of the differences you’re looking for, tlk1, would just be variations from person to person, not from atheist to agnostic.
Practical difference? Zero, as far as I can tell. I consider myself a pretty middle-of-the-road agnostic, in that I really, truly, honestly have no idea and don’t think anybody else does either, given what their faiths are based on.
So, day to day, religiosity is absent from my life, excepting family gatherings around holidays. I imagine nearly all atheists behave the same way. Outwardly, you couldn’t tell us apart.
Atheism is a statement of belief. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to say that they believe that no god exists without claiming to know it. (I’m responding to Meatros because responding to SM loses the context. Strong atheism does not mean denying you might be wrong. There are so many definitions of gods, that it is impossible to know that all don’t exist, even if a subset can be logically proven not to exist, and another subset proven not to exist by evidence.
As for agnostics: while I certainly agree that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of all gods, claiming that an omnipotent god cannot manage to prove his own existence to us seems self-contradictory. Proof here being used loosely, like we can prove the Earth goes around the Sun. That would be enough for most people, I would think. You might give reasons why God wouldn’t do this, though he gives enough proof in Bible stories.
As for the OP, I agree that there is not much difference, if you don’t count agnostic theists.
Some agnostics are theists, some are atheists.
Atheism is an expression of self-knowledge: “After rumaging around in my head, I can report that nothing fitting the description of “god belief” was discovered. Thanks for asking!”
In proper philosohpical usage, an atheist is someone who does not believe in god. They may actively disbelieve, they may not. You could also be said to be an atheist with respect to a particular definition of god, if you were in the mood to quibble. An agnostic is someone who actively believes that it is impossible to know whether god exists. It is, of course, possible to be an atheist or theist even when you reach that state as a matter of personal taste, but not as a matter of reason.
In common usage, atheists are those who actively disbelieve in god, and agnostics are a largely undefined group ranging from those who doesn’t participate in organized religion on. Unfortunately the common usage of agnostic is pretty much useless in debate, because you never know exactly what you’re talking about or whether the goal posts are going to move.
Now, since the OP was really just a thinly veiled attack at those deemed less holy than the poster, the difference between an agnostic, an atheist, and a believer is this: an agnostic accepts that the metaphysical is just a psuedo-intellectual pissing match and ignores it. An atheist forms a rational (though possibly wrong) opinion based on deductive logic and observed evidence. A believer takes something logically indefensible for which they have no evidence, proclaims it the truth, and denigrates anyone who doesn’t take his word for it. And then he pays his witch doctor of choice for the privelege.
Hmm…I would argue that it is impossible to know that god exists. For example, perhaps he does but intentionally reveals no sign of his presence to man. However, one could think an all powerful being could make his existence known. Although, one could argue that incredibly advanced extra-terrestrials could pull off such extrairdinary things they would be indistinguishable to me from god. Then there is the example of a being like Q in Star Trek the Next Generation. In the final episode, Q just by will takes himself and Pickard to the point of life first evolving on Earth. The show never implies Q’s powers are due to incredibly sophisticated technology. I’ve wondered if the creators of the show realized that character of Q essentially was a god. (Not necessarily the god; however there are a number of faiths which hold that there isn’t one god in the universe.)
Well, it depends. Two questions:
- Is the atheist an agnostic?
- Is the agnostic a theist?
An agnostic-theist would probably base some of their decision making on the god(s) they have faith in (and the Commandments of the god(s)) but acknowledge they cannot know about those gods (not really). An atheist-agnostic would probably base their decision making on what they believe they can know and leave the faith-based decision making out of it. An atheist-gnostic (for lack of a better term) would base their decision making on what they know and believe to be true.
I doubt there’s any significant difference between an agnostic-atheist and an atheist-agnostic… I’d wager the Ag-At would be more philosophical and deliberate on decisions longer than the At-Ag, but that’s just a gut feeling.
Crap. I feel like I’m both of these. Does that make me an atheist agnositc…or an agnostic atheist…or an agnothiest…oi, my aching head…