Pro: Agnosticism / Con: Atheism

[Anonymouse]

I am not uncomfortable with anything but I do not agree. It is perfectly obvious to me that they are not the same. But again, if you do not have an opinion regarding one opposing the other, which you just expressed that you do not, then stop posting in here. I made this thread with the intention of a format that would be an atheist versus an agnostic. Also, I made it feeling it would not get that response.

Okay, let me clarify this. From the viewpoint of morality, I do not see a difference between atheism and agnosticism. However, I used to be an atheist, and as well an agnostic. As far as their core on origins and causation, yes there is a difference.

[dusken]

Dusken, your initial post and explaination of agnosticism is the very reason I love "The Matrix" so much (Yes, I'm bringing it up again, people....SHUT UP!). Whether the Warchowski brothers meant it this way or not, to me it is a metaphor for breaking away from the rules, labeling, defining, etc, wheather literal law, or refering to human behavior...a metaphor for the philosophy that anything is possible if you realize that all of the above are part of a program that has imprisoned every human mind since birth. And the system was established for the very reason anileve alluded to: People fear not having answers. They want to always be in the know. They set up social customs and structures, morals, values, norms, education systems, make scientific progress, and so on all for the sake of covering up the fact that we don't know jack about what we are, or why we are here. For everything that can't be defined or answered, there is god and religion. All the inexplicable are "acts of god".

I'm not going to get into the marriage thing again, but this whole people struggling to come up with concrete answers to live by is why lives and relationships are a meaningless mess right now. Everyone has to pick a mold or character to fit into, and progress down the checklist of things that follow the flow of "the truths". People's lives revolve around acting, but there's only so long anyone can put up an act. This constant dance around the outside shadows of one's true self is what leaves people's lives in disarray. The mass confusion in not understanding why "the answers" aren't working...it destroys your being and relationships. If you can't figure yourself out, how are you going to figure out what you want out of life, let alone another person? Just look at what people "want" or "need". How many of those things are actually personal desires as opposed to things that you feel others would expect of you, or envy you for? We're so busy pretending we've got life all figured out better than the next person, that the gap from what we become, and what we could have been continues to grow (yes, that's the Bob Frissell philosophy).

I know you know this is all off topic, especially when you dig into worldly ideas. But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

[dusken]

Okay, let me clarify this. From the viewpoint of morality, I do not see a difference between atheism and agnosticism. However, I used to be an atheist, and as well an agnostic. As far as their core on origins and causation, yes there is a difference.

Good. That is what this is about: logic and the view of creation. Their manifestations and places in humanity is not the discussion. Feel free to start another morality thread and if I am in the mood to run around in circles, I will join you there.

[Crimson Glow]

I know you know this is all off topic, especially when you dig into worldly ideas. But I appreciate your enthusiasm.

Was it really that far off topic? I thought I was just getting into a deeper view of agnosticism, all be it a personal one.

By the way, being agnostic doesn't necessarily make you non-spiritual, does it? As in you don't have to be against everything that is not scientifically proven?

[loseyourname]

Theistic agnosticism just means that you have no belief regarding the existence of a supreme creator or person god. You can still believe that man is a spiritual being.

[Crimson Glow]

Theistic agnosticism just means that you have no belief regarding the existence of a supreme creator or person god. You can still believe that man is a spiritual being.

Oops, that I knew. I meant that question regarding atheists, not agnosticism.

[loseyourname]

Still applies. There needn't be one supreme being. Jainism is a good example of a religion that is atheistic.

[Anonymouse]

A tiger was prowling about the forest one day, when he came upon a Jainist sitting underneath an apple tree. The Jainist's stomach was growling fiercely.

"You are hungry" The tiger observed. "Why don't you do as I do, and take nourishment from the creatures of the forest?"

"I cannot, for I am a Jainist. I cannot harm any living thing."

"Interesting" Murmured the tiger. "Why don't you pluck an apple from the tree behind you?"

"I could not do such a thing," The Jainist replied "for plants are living things as well, and so I must not harm the apple tree by tearing off one of it's fruits."

"There are fallen apples all around you, why don't you eat one of them?"

"Surely, I would, but they are out of reach. I cannot move for fear of harming the grass and insects beneath my feet."

The tiger replied: "Fear not, Jainist, for I believe I have the solution for both of our problems!"

The tiger then devoured the Jainist, and continued on his way.

[anileve]

Rhetorical. Not sarcastic.

No, it was sarcastic as Lose noted. In addition it was very much on topic, please read again more carefully this time.

[anileve]

Whether there is a broader meaning or not, it must be established explicitly rather than relying on implicit assumptions about our definitions. Otherwise, there will be nothing but chaos as nothing will mean anything specific anymore and everything will be subject to personal interpretation.

Gray areas exist, unless you have your mind set on black and white. In which case you are prefer you are a fan of packages with labels. Thus you can only be an Atheist or a Believer.

By the way, everything is almost always subjective.