Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What is the difference between Agnostic and Atheist?

Pepe, welcome to the Forum and philosophical/religious discussion.

Actually Pepe, the world is full of Athiest. Virtually everyone on this forum is an Atheist. Many functional atheist admit that logically it's impossible to prove a negative. However, if you can change the negative to a question of fact, a religion can be disproven.

Let me give you an example. According to the ancient Greek religions, the Gods lived atop Mount Olympus. Men have visited the top of Mount Olympus and there were no Gods to be found. Having disproven this foundational element of the Greek religions, we can say with 100% certainty their god do not exist and relegate this religion to the status of Myth.

The same can be said for the Aztec religion that required human blood sacrifices to insure the sun would continue to rise. Their murder shrines remain idle for centuries, yet the sun continues to rise. In addition, with Newton and Einsteins explanations of gravity, the true force behind the sunrise we can with 100% certainty dismiss this religion as false, and relegate it to the status of Myth.

Likewise, we can apply the same level of scrutiny to the Bible and various Christian interperations of it. As an example EVERYONE one this site is an an Atheist in their beliefs of the Millerite sect. The Millerite predicted Armageddon would occur in 1849. Since Armageddon didn't occur in 1849, once again, we can unequivocally say they were wrong.

We can extend this same type of analysis to the idea's that the Christian God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, and that the Bible is the perfect word of God. All knowing doesn't survive Genesis, all loving doesn't survive Exodus, and as for all powerful and perfect word, well, those do not survive the conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the inability of the gospels to agree upon how many of what and at what time were present at the opening of Jesus's tomb. The inability for him to bring consensus on even these simple points once again demonstrates God is neither all powerful, nor is the test perfect.

As a result of the Biblical text failing the reading against itself, it too can be relegated to the category of Myth.

If your beliefs are consistent with the evidence, there is no need for faith.

Here's where your example falls apart. When you describe your exotic dish to me we can discuss it's ingredients. We can see if they exist. Heck, I can probably find all the ingredients in Denver. I could see the restaurant on Google street-view, and if you were in Boston, eating with Leighton and his lovely bride there will probably be pictures of your exotic dish posted right here on The Fire.

In other words, unlike your faith, there would be evidence for your exotic dish.

I have not seen where any one has said "You believe such."

Some of us have declared things we have been taught about Christianity. And some have mentioned things told to them by practicing Christians.

But so far, I have not seen where any has tried to state that a member of this board believes in any particular manner.

Well, you missed the point about testimony and the expressing of non-belief of what is known by me to be true.

You are also re-stating my narrative to suit your comments.

TF

Well here is one:

Agreed, avoiding bad acts and even trying to accomplish good ones ins the the basis for admittance to Heaven.[/b]

Hence the reason a 'Christian' will never bat an eye when screwing someone over, or diddling kids for that matter.

The comment above is clearly not what Jesus taught. He does not know of where he speaks. His view or opinion may be that but comment to totally wrong.

There are more if you care to look.

TF

And you miss the part about weighing testimony with evidence.

Lets change the above example. You tell me you flew to a country that is on no map, on an airline that does not exist. You claim to have eaten an exotic dish with ingredients that no one else has ever seen or heard of, and you can produce neither these alleged ingredients, a description of how, or where they are grown, or a photograph of the alleged ingredients, or the completed dish. As you can see, it would only be reasonable for me to be skeptical of your testimony.

If you expect your testimony to be believed, it needs to match the facts and be backed up by evidence.

Matthew 5:20
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Romans 2:6, 13
Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.

TF

AS, I will take this in bites.

2 Corinthians 5:10 refers ONLY to the judgment of Christians. We will be judged "in a review of our works, for the purpose of rewards.

Now, you obviously did not know that. You may have assumed that the passage applied to all people,. It does not.

I point out that it is "rich" that atheists and agnostics tell Christian what we believe. You have made an error in biblical interpretation.

TF

AS,


You quoted Mt 5:20


Matthew 5:20
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


You again misunderstand. Either by choice or ???

The lesson being taught here is that the "righteousness" of the Pharisees was external. Only by their practices and works. Jesus was teaching that "righteousness" must be internal and that of the heart.

Jesus taught that salvation by works or good deeds or plus point being greater than demerits was NOT how to become righteous on the inside

You missed it again.

TF

I did no such thing. We've been on the theme of evidence vs. faith for sometime. All I did was demonstrate why testimony alone may not be a sufficient basis for belief.

As for your metaphysical ramblings about some internal faith, they are neither testable, verifiable, nor falsifiable, and that's why you've retreated to this last thin tattered bastion for your failing argument.

AS,


You quoted Mt 16:27

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Warning: Ramble mode on as it is getting late here...

Odd but true, look at this passage with this translation:

"....He will reward each person according to what he has done."

So, the question is: What have you done with Jesus? Sought the Savior or rejected him?


I also point out that you seem to be doing a passage lookup and do not delve into the context of any of the verses you referred to. ok...

Jesus is referring to his "messiahship" in these verses. He will indeed return and deal with men based on their character. If righteous in heart He will reward and if found not-righteous and evil in their works, it is really bad news.

TF

It's pretty ironic how you claim none of those passages mean what they say.

Mt 16:27 is as straight forward as it gets, and that's why you had to go into "rambling mode" (aka BS mode), because there is no other way to get around the words on the paper.

An agnostic isn't really sure he's going to hell and an atheist is.

I like. Very good.

Watching christians discuss the difference between atheism and agnosticism- especially by quoting scripture-is about as entertaining as watching atheists and agnostics discussing which god to believe in by quoting google.

Well, I was just finishing some thoughts on Romans when I read your post. It is a waste of time.

Another example of a non-christian telling Christians what the bible says. You simply do not know whereof you speak.

You just have not taken the time to read and understand the verses you quoted. I think you just do a passage or keyword lookup then post it with your own meaning and then "knock it down." Just a variation of a strawman fallacy.

When you say something like "it cannot be plainer than that." You are just flat out wrong.

TF
TF

AS,

You say that "it is ironic that none of the passages mean what they say."

Do you read 2 Corinthians 5:10 and conclude that Paul is writing to Christians or the world at large, to include non-Christians?

It makes a difference. You seem to assume that it is written to everybody. I think it means exactly what it says, but to whom it is said makes a huge difference. Can you see that?

Can you see that if it is said to Christians it may mean just exactly what it says and you have taken it out of context and applied it to mankind in general?

OK now... NO bs... read the entire chapter and you tell me what you think it says and to whom it applies.

TF

TFF49 there are over 20 biblical reference regarding the path of salvation being through one's works, not faith. This is why sects like the early Calvinist places so much emphasis on works.

In contrast there about a dozen reference to salvation being through faith alone, with about half of those occurring in Romans. Since Faith alone (don't worry, you don't actually have to do any real work) is an easier sale then telling your follower they might actually have to be productive, over the last 400 years we seen a de-emphasis on works, and a greater emphasis on faith as the path to salvation. When paired with the continuing body of evidence against a literalist reading of the Bible, once again, the preacher have to fall back on the faith card, making it all the more attractive for them to faith side of the contradictions and attempt to explain away the requirement for personal works.