Agnostic or Athiest--which makes more sense?

by whyizit 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  whyizit

  I can see how someone could be agnostic in their view. "I don't know, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Who knows, who cares?" Yes. I can certainly see that, because I have been there. Thinking that perhaps "God" is just a spiritual Santa Claus for people who are afraid of death, etc....

  But atheism? That is harder to grasp.

  In order to be a true athiest, you would essentially have to know absolutely everything about everything. To be agnostic, you merely have to admit that you just really don't know.

  Example: To say there is no gold in China, you would have to know absolutely every thing there is to know about China. You would have to know what is in every speck of soil in China, you would have to know whether there is gold in any of the homes in China, you would have to know if there are any gold teeth in the people's dental work in China, and so on and so forth. BUT: to say there IS gold in China, all you have to know is ONE person with a gold filling. One store with a gold chain.

  The same would be with the existence of God. In order to say there is no God, you would have to possess absolute knowledge of everything in the universe and beyond.

  At least that is how it seems to me. I don't know how my eyes do all the amazing things that they do. No one has been able to "build" a perfect substitute for the eye. If you lose an eye, you will never have the same vision again. To think it is the developement of a cosmic burp, doesn't seem very realistic. Something that magnificent had to have a creator. Don't you think?
• 

  juni

  Hi whyizit!

  I agree w/you. I could never be an atheist. But who God is and what he wants from me I have no idea. After being a Methodist for 18 years and then a JW for 21 I still don't have the answer.

  What bugs me is that my thought processes when it comes to God always have the influence of JW thinking. I wish there was a way to zap that out and start w/a new slate.

  Juni PS How's Lady Marilyn doing? You can PM if you wish.
• 

  Borgia

  You´ve been there?......Fascinating. What made you turn your feeling about this subject?

  Cheers

  Borgia
• 

  riverofdeceit

  In most cases I consider myself an atheist, however, I do not rule out the possible existence somewhere in the universe of a different type of life, possibly more intelligent than humans. I don't believe there is some sort of spirit being watching what we are doing or expecting worship. I don't believe in the existence of some "bible" god (or any other religious based gods). I find the idea to be a ludicris(sp?) fairy tale. If you define being an atheist as not believing in a supreme being, I am an atheist. You don't have to know everything about everything to be an atheist. I deny the existence of a God, and until one decides to show himself, I will continue to. The likelyhood of that happening is, well, it is pretty unlikely. Whether or not one believes something has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
• 

  TheSilence

  you don't have to know everything about china to say you don't *believe* there is gold in china.

  jackie
• 

  jwfacts

  It can not be proven that there is no God, so being an Athiest takes faith. Athiesm takes a dogmatic approach that borders on the qualities required to be a fundamental religionist.

  Agnostic makes far more sense.
• 

  bavman

  Perhaps it depends on your' definition of an Atheist. There is a difference between an "Atheist" and a "non-theist" for instance.
• 

  jaguarbass

  At least that is how it seems to me. I don't know how my eyes do all the amazing things that they do. No one has been able to "build" a perfect substitute for the eye. If you lose an eye, you will never have the same vision again. To think it is the developement of a cosmic burp, doesn't seem very realistic. Something that magnificent had to have a creator. Don't you think?

  I aggree, put me down with the agnostics.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>Perhaps it depends on your' definition of an Atheist.

  Exactly. And definitions vary by dictionary, and by atheist.

  For me, "agnostic" doesn't say what I want to say. I want to say, "I don't have a belief in god(s)". I am "a" - "theistic". I don't know, that's true. So technically, "a" - "gnostic" would apply too. But In addition to being "without knowledge", I am also under the impression that it is unlikely there is a god in the generally accepted sense of the term. So just as I don't KNOW there isn't a tiny blue smurf dancing in my ear, I think it's very unlikely.

  Dave of the "defines his own terms" class
• 

  riverofdeceit

  It can not be proven that there is no God, so being an Athiest takes faith. Athiesm takes a dogmatic approach that borders on the qualities required to be a fundamental religionist.

  Agnostic makes far more sense.

  There are many things that don't exist that cannot be proven to not exist. That argument means absolutely nothing. Prove that there is no invisible rabbit sitting next to me.