Agnostic vs. Atheist

[Anonymous]

I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

Okay surly. Would you respect me more if I said that everything you wrote is true? Authoritarian agnostics and atheists are just as bad as authoritarian Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists/etc. And it my statement above my "can be thought of" is not the same as saying I believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

Does this person believe there is a god? Faith isn't about proof, it's the opposite. Faith is belief despite not having proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

Okay surly. Would you respect me more if I said that everything you wrote is true? Authoritarian agnostics and atheists are just as bad as authoritarian Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists/etc. And it my statement above my "can be thought of" is not the same as saying I believe.

If someone said to you in all seriousness that an orange can be thought of as an apple, what's your reaction? If you tell him that apples are different from oranges, are you then at fault for being an authoritarian fruitologist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

If you believe that there is a god but nothing else in particular about his nature or involvement with our world, you are at a minimum a deist. Everything else will start putting you into branches of religion, starting with the fundamental belief of whether God is one entity or multiple entities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

If you believe that there is a god but nothing else in particular about his nature or involvement with our world, you are at a minimum a deist. Everything else will start putting you into branches of religion, starting with the fundamental belief of whether God is one entity or multiple entities.

Ok, so an agnostic then doesn't particularly search out whether a god exists or not? They just aren't sure and leave it at that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

If you believe that there is a god but nothing else in particular about his nature or involvement with our world, you are at a minimum a deist. Everything else will start putting you into branches of religion, starting with the fundamental belief of whether God is one entity or multiple entities.

Ok, so an agnostic then doesn't particularly search out whether a god exists or not? They just aren't sure and leave it at that?

No one is "sure" there is a god. There are people who are sure they BELIEVE in God and people who are sure that they DON'T believe in god. The certitude is about belief, not about existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

If you believe that there is a god but nothing else in particular about his nature or involvement with our world, you are at a minimum a deist. Everything else will start putting you into branches of religion, starting with the fundamental belief of whether God is one entity or multiple entities.

Ok, so an agnostic then doesn't particularly search out whether a god exists or not? They just aren't sure and leave it at that?

No one is "sure" there is a god. There are people who are sure they BELIEVE in God and people who are sure that they DON'T believe in god. The certitude is about belief, not about existence.

I disagree. I'm sure there is a God. That doesn't make me right in your eyes. But I am certain about my belief and His existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I describe myself as agnostic or secular. I find religion interesting. I sometimes attend religious services. I think that the energy that brought the universe into existence can be thought of as a divine force, and that we live in a world that can be both miraculous/ capable of producing statistical anomalies-and in that sense I see an overlap between religion and science. So maybe I'm a deist, but that seems kind of pretentious, so I call myself agnostic.

No you cannot call the energy that brought the universe into existence as a divine force. Divine implies purpose - there was no purpose, or at least there is no good reason for the need of a purpose, for the initial big bang. There is also nothing miraculous about statistical anomalies. No matter how small the chance, there is a chance and therefore possible. When the possible happens, it's not a miracle or religion, it's simply science. There is nothing pretentious about being a deist - it's a specific form of belief about the origins of the world and the relationship the creator has with this world. Agnostics simply don't know either way. You cannot be agnostic and yet still believe that there was a creator.

What is someone called who has not seen proof that an actual god exists, but still feels there is some greater purpose to living and actively looks for understanding of god?

If you believe that there is a god but nothing else in particular about his nature or involvement with our world, you are at a minimum a deist. Everything else will start putting you into branches of religion, starting with the fundamental belief of whether God is one entity or multiple entities.

Ok, so an agnostic then doesn't particularly search out whether a god exists or not? They just aren't sure and leave it at that?

No one is "sure" there is a god. There are people who are sure they BELIEVE in God and people who are sure that they DON'T believe in god. The certitude is about belief, not about existence.

You need to look up the dictionary to see what "believe" means.