I just think Atheism is too pop-culture
Agnostism is rooted in science
What do you think?
No offense but I'm 100% Catholic and believe (bastardized) Eastern influence is sending a vast majority of us to hell....
by that i mean home decor, music, clothing etc.
2007-11-28 17:20:12 · 24 answers · asked by xenon 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Quick Correction:
Eastern religious people WILL go to heaven too
It is the people who take on bit's and pieces of spirituality (i.e. eclectic people) I'm worried about...It's like they are disrespecting each Theology they pretend they are worshiping
2007-11-28 17:22:34 · update #1
Agnosticism rooted in science? that doesn't even make sense! To be agnostic is to believe that knowledge of a deity is literally unknowable. 'Unknowable' is not in the scientific lexicon.
As for atheism, I would say it's intellectual foundation /is/ science. Science is what allows an atheist to both be an atheist and intellectually honest.
I think the 'agnosticism' you are referring to is the "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" position. These things would make one an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist, depending on which way one leans. True agnosticism, however, by definition precludes both of these notions in favor of "I can not know".
2007-11-28 17:31:10 · answer #1 · answered by Dashes 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Atheism are 100% sure GOD is not real. The Faithful are 100% that GOD is. Agnostics have the humility and intelligence to admit that they have no idea, and that they are okay with that.
Science is rooted in the idea that the hypothesis supported by the most evidence and which can be applied consistently with the same expected results over and over again is the correct idea, but NEVER calls any idea a 100% fact or truth, because evidence can always come along that disproves it permaneantly. For this reason, agnosticism IS the only philosophy that is rooted in science. Good job.
2007-11-28 17:29:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Every rational agnostic is an atheist.
You see an atheist lacks a belief in god while an agnostic doesn't think there is any proof one way or the other.
It is a rule of logic that you do not assume things for which you have no proof and since there is no proof of a god one should not believe in a god.
Thus all rational agnostics are atheists.
2007-11-28 20:36:23 · answer #3 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only reason you think agnostics have a "better argument" and "more substance" is because you think they'd be easier to convert. Atheists already have the sign of the beast on their foreheads, but agnostic still have a "chance" to be "saved".
It's pretty arrogant that you're calling Eastern religions bastardized. Why is your religion any more valid than theirs?
2007-11-28 17:30:38 · answer #4 · answered by Ash 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm an atheist cos I've seen no evidence of any Invisible Sky Critters ... I've been searching since I was seven when I first heard of the imaginary god concept.
I'm too old to worry about what's in or what's out of 'pop-culture' - I don't follow crowds or worry about what the mob is thinking.
As for agnostics - I think of them as chicken-hearted xians who are already cowards in their own right cos they aren't courageous enough to try life and reality without their imaginary friend cos they're frightened he'll send them to hell if they don't suck up to him.
.
2007-11-28 20:03:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm extremely Eclectic. It's not disrespectful; quite the opposite. It's an admission that ALL paths of faith are relevent and are genuine connections to the Divine. It's saying that no one person or group of people could possibly have all the answers. It's saying that all cultures across time and space are One with each other.
2007-11-28 17:46:56 · answer #6 · answered by philly_dragonfly 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pop culture? Ever seen a cross on a necklace?
I see no valid reason to assume there is a god. Assuming there is a chance there is a god just because there is no evidence that totally eliminates the possibility of a god is like taking into account the possibility that gravity may stop working at any second.
2007-11-28 17:30:22 · answer #7 · answered by Boris Badenov 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every atheist is an agnostic. Not every agnostic is an atheist.
Can you understand that?
Those who call themselves agnostic but not atheist or theist are just those who are unsure.
------
Atheist are not 100% sure god is unreal. Atheist just don't believe in the existence of supreme creature, logically, because there are no proof for it. Therefore, there is no reason to believe it. When there is proof, I am quite sure atheists would not mind looking at the proof and think for themselves if they want to start to believe or not.
2007-11-28 17:43:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no longer an atheist, yet i am going to respond to anyhow. the three factors he lists: a million) DNA isn't basically a molecule with a trend; it truly is a code, a language, and an suggestion storage mechanism. 2) All codes are created by a wide wide awake concepts; there is not any organic procedure regular to technological knowledge that creates coded suggestion. 3) for this reason DNA changed into designed by a concepts. it is depending largely on Creationist and suggestion theorist Werner Gitt's artwork. it is his definition of suggestion: (NC = needed subject, SC= sufficient subject) NC1: A code gadget could exist. NC2: The chain of symbols could comprise semantics. SCI: It could be a chance to determine the ulterior target on the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic tiers (get jointly: Karl v. Frisch analysed the dance of foraging bees and, in conformance with our style, ascertained the degrees of semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. therefore, suggestion is unambiguously present). SC2: a series of symbols does no longer characterize suggestion even if it truly is in accordance with randomness. in accordance to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics professional, randomness can not, in concept, be shown; therefore, for this reason, verbal change about the originating reason is significant. In SC2, randomness can't be shown. In SC1 he someway could "determine" an ulterior target, even as he can't teach that it's not random. If it truly is random, there is not any target, yet he states he can't tell even as something is random or no longer. His intestine feeling can't be used to outline what's "suggestion" and what isn't any longer. by affirming that records must have an sensible source to be considered suggestion, and through assuming genomic sequences are suggestion installation that definition, Gitt defines into existence an sensible source for the genome without going to the hardship of checking even if one changed into surely there. it is round reasoning. in case you truly opt for further refutations that comprise severe symbolic good judgment and require a honest carry close of suggestion theory you are able to check out the internet web site that i tried to get right down to an "Irreducible Complexity" - lol
2016-10-25 04:33:22 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All agnostics are atheists (though many do not realize it), but not all atheists are agnostics. For most atheists, logic tells them they cannot prove a universal negative, but they do not use the term agnostic for fear of being lumped in with those namby-pamby "you just can't prove it one way or another" types. (Hey, you, dingleberry! If a god existed it would be EASY for it to prove its existence, and once it did, atheists would quickly respond to the overwhelming evidence.) Those few atheists who honestly belong in the non-agnostic segment are usually too limited in their god definitions, accepting the absurdity proposed by most religions.
I think you're looking at the surface, not the reality.
2007-11-28 17:34:38 · answer #10 · answered by Brent Y 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋