Do Agnostics and Athiests fight with each other?

Question

From reading and listening, I guess I fit more into the "Agnostic" category than any other. I don't have a desire to argue with Athiests, and they don't seem to want to engage in theology debate with me either -- even though there are distinct differences between our respective beliefs. But the Christian sects lump us into one category and we can engage in battle for days on end. Why is this?

Yes, I was raised as a "believer: Assembly of God. I also tried to "grow in my faith" as an adult for 25 years, but could never pretend to believe it completely - and did not want to submit my inate gifts to emptiness and lies. I am now a recovered Christian and have the life I always longed for.

Kranti: I'll answer (but why?): What the "f@(! I'm doing here: I am self-employed, so that's not an issue. I work when I want. The kids are in school. I love debate and gaining knowledge and other perspectives. I love THINKING and CONTRIBUTING. I am particularly interested in the final closure of the religious abuse chapter. Everyone has, or should have, a purpose. I obviously lend some value to these discussions - and I always have between 10-12% best answers. So, Miss "F-off," that's why I'm here.

Answer 1

Agnostic is misunderstood. The word agnostic is derived from the greek work meaning "without knowledge". Oddly enough, one can accept by faith alone the existence of God but still admit they do not possess the knowledge of this existence without faith alone.

I can not say for a fact that I know the planet Mars exists, as I have never actually seen or been on it. I have no personal knowledge of it's existence other than going on faith of others who claim it's existence. It really hinges on whether or not you accept "faith" as "knowledge".

I consider myself agnostic because while I have faith in the existence of God, I accept that I do not know this with certainty to be able to prove his existence. I "choose" to believe in the theory of a supreme being but will not claim someone is wrong for not doing the same.

There are many that are so faith-driven to the point where they accept faith alone as evidence. When debating such people, inevitably the debate will come down to faith and not actual proof or evidence. Athiests will choose not to debate an agnostic because an agnostic basically ends any such debate with "maybe you are right". Faith-driven believers WILL argue with agnostics and athiests alike as their lack of belief or lack of faith defies what they base their beliefs on.

Answer 2

Depends on how you mean fight. If you join some of yahoo's atheism groups you'll find people who like nothing better than to disagree with each other, at great length, over trifling details of opinion. Well, about 8-15 people do most of the posting in the groups, so making some big generalization based on that might be a mistake. Atheism and agnosticism are pretty big tents, sure to contain a few overly combative people in both.

Lumping all outsiders into the category of 'bad guys to be viciously opposed' is a sad human tendency that shallow contemporary religiosity frequently encourages and casts as a virtue.

Answer 3

Well as a Christian I can say I think atheists should have definitive questions for both Christians and agnostics, if they are following the definition of agnostic. However, it seems they get more animated arguments from Christians becausethey are so firmly rooted in their beliefs and stheists I think just wan to shake them up a bit and get them to really have to think . A Christian should be able to answer questions from anyone without malice and without quoting fifty gazillion scriptures. An atheist can read...I think they just really want to know more about why we think the way we do and a lot of Christians were indoctrinated instead of educated. I am self-educated. I do not follow any denomination. I read about all religions and am tolerant of all. I believe more along the Methodists line of teachings but I have issues with all organized religions.

Answer 4

Well sure, anyone can argue with anyone. Maybe as a rule, atheists and agnostics have more in common than they don't have. I know that Christians argue continually between the denominations. Then they argue with the 'Heathen'. I do get tired of strident arguing over every little thing.

I went to a Buddhist Temple once and a Tibetan Buddhist monk was giving blessings to Vietnamese Pure Land Buddhists. Their beliefs are quite different but they were very unified as Buddhists. I was impressed.

Answer 5

Agnostics and atheists have a unwritten truce because neither of us attack the other or tell each they are going to hell. You make a good point though. They are not the same, and we probably should be at least having some kind of logical argument or debate between each other. We are allies in a common cause...

Answer 6

My friend has a bumper sticker that reads "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either."

While funny, it fits him - he'll argue all day with someone who claims they know that there is no god, as well as someone who claims to know that there is.

But generally, most atheists are not "strong atheists" on a campaign, and agnosticism tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive: agnostics are more likely to draw inspiration from many traditions, theistic or non-theistic.

Some religious people group anyone who holds differing views into a single "atheistic" category, a symptom of simplistic dichotomous thinking. Indeed, some Christians I know equate "theistic" with "Christian", and "atheistic" with "non-Christian". to these people, Hindus and Wiccans and whatever are atheists! Most religious people aren't this bad, but it's a surprisingly large minority who are.

Answer 7

How can they argue? If athiests are the pillars of logic they claim to be, then they must concede to the agnostic position that it's impossible to disprove something that is completely imperceptible aka "God". I'm sure most athiests would say that it's impossible to completely disprove God via the tools of science and they choose to assume that something so imperceptible simply musn't exist.

Answer 8

The only difference between you and me is that you say: "There is no evidence so I don't know" and I say "There is no evidence so I don't believe".

This is the same way that I don't believe that there is a silver teapot in orbit around Neptune, an oak tree on Mars or that Michael Jackson can fly. I don't have any evidence either way but I don't believe.

Answer 9

I don't fight with Atheists. Usually their line of thinking is more in line with my own philosophies than Religious people on the other end of the spectrum. There ARE things I disagree with--especially some of the hostility in some of their methods. But most of them I encounter here make more sense than some one's religious babbling.

Answer 10

Athiest and agnostic are just labels that religious folk place on us. We usually don't argue with each other because agnostic world view has room for athiest and athiest world view has room for agnostic.