an atheist believes that there is no god. There can be a variety of reasons why an atheist believes this, but there is no question in an atheist's mind that there is no God.
An agnostic claims not to know. What they don't know varies from person to person. Some think that you can't know. Many agnostics believe that there is a God, but are unsure about the form which God takes.
An atheist generally has his or her mind made up on the subject, an agnostic is often still searching for answers.
Using the term atheist/agnostic would be similar to the term Christian/Muslim or a Christian/Wiccan. A bit too inclusive for everyday use.
These types of debates never fail to make me wonder anew the reasoning why early Christians were regarded throughout the Roman empire as akin to "athiests".
This would be especially understandable if elements of "gnostic" ideas comprised the make-up of a many early Christian movements, which were an assault upon the deeply engrained Roman and Greek ideas of a perfect and perfectly ordered "cosmos" - wherein one believed that one's lot or destiny in life - whether rich or poor, male or female, free or slave, race, etc. was divinely pre-determined in the universe by the powers that be throughout all creation.
But then Christians appeared claiming otherwise; overthrowing such cherished beliefs. No. This creation no longer controls us. No, the powers that be are overthrown by a greater power than they - a power unknown to this world. No, - to hell with your gods - we no longer will be governed by them nor the laws of their universe. "This world is not our home, we're just a passing through..."
I think much of this dramatic effect eventually became watered down in orthodox Christianities, when such ideas offensive to the Roman citizenship at large became toned down for public consumption.
It's interesting how expressions concerning the topic of creation characteritically pre-occupied a many gnostic documents, as with the recent publicised "Gospel of Judas". Perhaps one indication of a larger public debate that transpired in that era.
Early Christians did not believe in the gods of the Roman empire = the gods of the universe.
To give a little more details on the matter, I've heard that there are 1) strong atheists, who actually believe that there is no god, and 2) weak atheists, who don't go that far perse, but who themselves don't believe in any god.
Six of one, half dozen of the other? Same thing? Not quite. Strong atheists make a positive claim that there IS no (or cannot be any) god. It goes beyond their personal opinion/belief to a matter of fact (to them anyway). While weak atheists don't/can't say for 100% certainty (to them) that there isn't any god, it's just that they don't believe there is any. It's like the difference between saying "There is no Madagascar", and "I don't believe there is Madagascar."
It basically has to do with the intensity of the (un)belief. There is a similar comparison re: agnostics.
Just a bit of educational info for you folks, no extra charge.
Danny,
No, - to hell with your gods - we no longer will be governed by them nor the laws of their universe.
I find that idea voiced by the early Christians against the Roman pagans rather amusing, seeing that since the Christian church took over since Constantine, they had their own style of governing that was very similar to the pagan Roman religion when it came to the dealing with the voices of dissent that challenged their 'cherished beliefs'.
I've been re-evaluating everything from A to Z. I feel pretty sure there is a God - but part of that is because I'm scared not to. I don't think one can totally discount a "supreme being" based on the Earth and the universe alone...BUT I'm pretty sure it isn't THE GOD talked about in the Bible. TWI has soured me on that....that, and, it led me to more "logical" sources of information.... *shrug*
I've learned a lot more about "critical thinking" and been more confident in my ability to discount "miracles" like getting the first parking spot at the grocery store - "believers' parking" - etc. I'm more likely to look for "logical" explanations of "phenomena" rather than to take them at "face value".
I think that, to a certain degree, yes, believe in God and belief in Jesus requires a bit of "take it on faith" stuff and I'm just not sure if I'm willing to do that after doing that with TWI. <_<
Like I always say, my views, beliefs and thoughts are subject to change from day to day, but there seems to be a persistent "gnostic" view of life these days.
I'd like to add that 90% of my learning has come from WayDale and GSpot - even though a lot of WayDale I saved till I could really devote my full attention to it without the emotional involvement due to trying to save my marriage.
I am an agnositc. It's not a squishy, not-quite-sure-of-myself position. It's a place I've arrived in my head.
I think it's the only logical thing to be. There is no definitive evidence of a god or gods, unless you want to make the a-priori assumbtion that "Well, there's all this stuff, therefore - GOD!" Pretty lame reasoning, though, IMHO.
But to claim atheism would indicate a certainty that I simply don't believe it's possible to have - logically. Certainly if a being was wise and powerful enough to create the entire universe, how tough would it be to keep himself undetectable by His creation? Not very, I would think. Hence, agnosticism makes sense to me, atheism, not so much...
I find that idea voiced by the early Christians against the Roman pagans rather amusing, seeing that since the Christian church took over since Constantine, they had their own style of governing that was very similar to the pagan Roman religion when it came to the dealing with the voices of dissent that challenged their 'cherished beliefs'.
Garth,
I also stated in the paragraph immediately following:
I think much of this dramatic effect eventually became watered down in orthodox Christianities, when such ideas offensive to the Roman citizenship at large became toned down for public consumption.
The orthodox Christianities that won out over their gnostic competitors combined the OT and NT "gods" into the same deity. The "Stranger" or "alien god" of the gnostics - which had little if nothing to do with the creation of the world - became transformed and "established" into the Creator of the world, thereby preserving the popular attitude in Greek and Roman culture of the providence/authority/ perfection of creation.
One needs to bear in mind that with ancient Christians, we're dealing with diverse movements, which were hardly homogenous in their ideas.
Garth, When you say "the Christian Church", what do you mean or assume by that?
The Catholic Church at Rome? The Marcionite Church (presumedly based at Sinop)? Or any other number of ancient Christian movements we may add to this list, including that behind the recently published "Gospel of Judas"?
Garth, When you say "the Christian Church", what do you mean or assume by that?
The Catholic Church at Rome? The Marcionite Church (presumedly based at Sinop)? Or any other number of ancient Christian movements we may add to this list, including that behind the recently published "Gospel of Judas"?
The one(s) that happen to be in power at any given time. At least until governments became more secular and distinct in relation to the church(es), and started copying the concept of separation of church and state from the U.S.
The one(s) that happen to be in power at any given time. At least until governments became more secular and distinct in relation to the church(es), and started copying the concept of separation of church and state from the U.S.
Hurray for the US Constitution (I wholeheartedly agree with you Garth, because under a theocracy, I would perhaps be slated for having my head lopped off along with yours into the same basket). I just re-read your original post, and you mentioned " the Christian church [that] took over since Constantine".
I think what I was unsuccessfully attempting to raise awareness along with my question was that "the Christian Church" that took over "since Constantine" was NOT representative of ALL Christian movements in existence up to that time. The Church that won out over all the others held a more "pro-cosmic" view of creation than those Christians along the "Gnostic" vein in their anti-cosmic perspectives.
Take for example, the material comprising Romans 1:19ff, which is appealed to by Christians to condemn homosexuality by reason that such is "against nature"(according to this supposed sacred text).
Well that section was NOT contained in the earlier versions of Romans, as attested by our knowledge of the earlier Marcionite version. In fact, "Paul" had originally launched an attack against the original 12 apostles in this section. A later (orthodox) interpolator naturally changed this, to exonerate the apostles, and promote a doctrine more agreeable to the empire at large. One which was aimed (in particular) against the "eunuchs" of a rival Christian sect (and not homosexuals).
Eunuchs oft inhabited the palaces of power and authority. They could be extremely influential in the presence of those in political power. It was absolutely imperative to lessen the status of these "eunuchs" in any way conceivable. Especially if they were "eunuchs" of a rival sect.
For further information on my theory that Romans 1:19ff is a later interpolation, and the reasons behind the addition of that material, I have posted a draft of a study on the subject at
which also includes some thoughts on the varying perspectives among ancient Christian movements toward "nature" and "the world".
It is, I must emphasize, a "draft", which I had completed near the end of last year, before getting distracted by "cosmic" events (lol) occurring in my personal life, which led to the destruction of my parents' home.
This is obviously material "THE EVIL CREATOR" DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
Let's be clear on our terms:
an atheist believes that there is no god. There can be a variety of reasons why an atheist believes this, but there is no question in an atheist's mind that there is no God.
An agnostic claims not to know. What they don't know varies from person to person. Some think that you can't know. Many agnostics believe that there is a God, but are unsure about the form which God takes.
An atheist generally has his or her mind made up on the subject, an agnostic is often still searching for answers.
Using the term atheist/agnostic would be similar to the term Christian/Muslim or a Christian/Wiccan. A bit too inclusive for everyday use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
reminds me of T-Bones thread
can an atheist change their mind?
can a theist change their mind
seems an agnostic is open to mind changing
all these labels-sheesh
i hope noone gets stuck in a label!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I do like your post Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oak,
To give a little more details on the matter, I've heard that there are 1) strong atheists, who actually believe that there is no god, and 2) weak atheists, who don't go that far perse, but who themselves don't believe in any god.
Six of one, half dozen of the other? Same thing? Not quite. Strong atheists make a positive claim that there IS no (or cannot be any) god. It goes beyond their personal opinion/belief to a matter of fact (to them anyway). While weak atheists don't/can't say for 100% certainty (to them) that there isn't any god, it's just that they don't believe there is any. It's like the difference between saying "There is no Madagascar", and "I don't believe there is Madagascar."
It basically has to do with the intensity of the (un)belief. There is a similar comparison re: agnostics.
Just a bit of educational info for you folks, no extra charge.
Danny,
I find that idea voiced by the early Christians against the Roman pagans rather amusing, seeing that since the Christian church took over since Constantine, they had their own style of governing that was very similar to the pagan Roman religion when it came to the dealing with the voices of dissent that challenged their 'cherished beliefs'.
<_<
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I always welcome education, Garth :)
I stand corrected
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm not sure where I fit in here. :)
I've been re-evaluating everything from A to Z. I feel pretty sure there is a God - but part of that is because I'm scared not to. I don't think one can totally discount a "supreme being" based on the Earth and the universe alone...BUT I'm pretty sure it isn't THE GOD talked about in the Bible. TWI has soured me on that....that, and, it led me to more "logical" sources of information.... *shrug*
I've learned a lot more about "critical thinking" and been more confident in my ability to discount "miracles" like getting the first parking spot at the grocery store - "believers' parking" - etc. I'm more likely to look for "logical" explanations of "phenomena" rather than to take them at "face value".
I think that, to a certain degree, yes, believe in God and belief in Jesus requires a bit of "take it on faith" stuff and I'm just not sure if I'm willing to do that after doing that with TWI. <_<
Like I always say, my views, beliefs and thoughts are subject to change from day to day, but there seems to be a persistent "gnostic" view of life these days.
I'd like to add that 90% of my learning has come from WayDale and GSpot - even though a lot of WayDale I saved till I could really devote my full attention to it without the emotional involvement due to trying to save my marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And to clarify once again my postition:
I am an agnositc. It's not a squishy, not-quite-sure-of-myself position. It's a place I've arrived in my head.
I think it's the only logical thing to be. There is no definitive evidence of a god or gods, unless you want to make the a-priori assumbtion that "Well, there's all this stuff, therefore - GOD!" Pretty lame reasoning, though, IMHO.
But to claim atheism would indicate a certainty that I simply don't believe it's possible to have - logically. Certainly if a being was wise and powerful enough to create the entire universe, how tough would it be to keep himself undetectable by His creation? Not very, I would think. Hence, agnosticism makes sense to me, atheism, not so much...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
An atheist, an agnostic, and a believer walk into a bar.
Bartender says -- "what'll it be Gents?? Round of beer for everyone??
Atheist says ---- "I don't believe in beer."
Agnostic says -- " I'm not sure beer exists."
Believer says (after downing the first one ---- )
Everyone needs something to believe in, I believe I'll have another beer!
Good thread here!! Interesting insights. ;)
Everyone is making sense -- on both sides!
stuff to ponder ---------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
An atheist, an agnostic and a "believer" walk into a bar.
The atheist says "There is no such thing as beer, you are a charlatan for selling that which does not exist"
The believer says "I believe in beer, but this beer doesn't line up with what I was taught beer should be, I don't think that I can drink it"
The agnostic says "I don't know whether there is beer or not, so I'll keep drinking until I am convinced"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Garth,
I also stated in the paragraph immediately following:
The orthodox Christianities that won out over their gnostic competitors combined the OT and NT "gods" into the same deity. The "Stranger" or "alien god" of the gnostics - which had little if nothing to do with the creation of the world - became transformed and "established" into the Creator of the world, thereby preserving the popular attitude in Greek and Roman culture of the providence/authority/ perfection of creation.
One needs to bear in mind that with ancient Christians, we're dealing with diverse movements, which were hardly homogenous in their ideas.
Garth, When you say "the Christian Church", what do you mean or assume by that?
The Catholic Church at Rome? The Marcionite Church (presumedly based at Sinop)? Or any other number of ancient Christian movements we may add to this list, including that behind the recently published "Gospel of Judas"?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The one(s) that happen to be in power at any given time. At least until governments became more secular and distinct in relation to the church(es), and started copying the concept of separation of church and state from the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hurray for the US Constitution (I wholeheartedly agree with you Garth, because under a theocracy, I would perhaps be slated for having my head lopped off along with yours into the same basket). I just re-read your original post, and you mentioned " the Christian church [that] took over since Constantine".
I think what I was unsuccessfully attempting to raise awareness along with my question was that "the Christian Church" that took over "since Constantine" was NOT representative of ALL Christian movements in existence up to that time. The Church that won out over all the others held a more "pro-cosmic" view of creation than those Christians along the "Gnostic" vein in their anti-cosmic perspectives.
Take for example, the material comprising Romans 1:19ff, which is appealed to by Christians to condemn homosexuality by reason that such is "against nature"(according to this supposed sacred text).
Well that section was NOT contained in the earlier versions of Romans, as attested by our knowledge of the earlier Marcionite version. In fact, "Paul" had originally launched an attack against the original 12 apostles in this section. A later (orthodox) interpolator naturally changed this, to exonerate the apostles, and promote a doctrine more agreeable to the empire at large. One which was aimed (in particular) against the "eunuchs" of a rival Christian sect (and not homosexuals).
Eunuchs oft inhabited the palaces of power and authority. They could be extremely influential in the presence of those in political power. It was absolutely imperative to lessen the status of these "eunuchs" in any way conceivable. Especially if they were "eunuchs" of a rival sect.
For further information on my theory that Romans 1:19ff is a later interpolation, and the reasons behind the addition of that material, I have posted a draft of a study on the subject at
http://marcionofsinope.netfirms.com/homophobe.htm
which also includes some thoughts on the varying perspectives among ancient Christian movements toward "nature" and "the world".
It is, I must emphasize, a "draft", which I had completed near the end of last year, before getting distracted by "cosmic" events (lol) occurring in my personal life, which led to the destruction of my parents' home.
This is obviously material "THE EVIL CREATOR" DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!
(especially Garth).
(lol).
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.