Do agnostics have more faith than christians?

[too-open-minded]

I know i'm generalizing two groups of people and breaking it down to the individual we will get varying results on both sides.

 

Lets talk about this from the average population standpoint.

 

An agnostic generally believes that full knowledge on the subject of god is not attainable. If their is a god were not going to understand it.

 

A christian believes that God created man and sent his son or "human form" down to earth to teach man about his presence.

 

 

Christians have a religious text called the bible. They believe that god, jesus, and other holy men have their teachings written down in this text and having faith that this text proves gods existence. So believing in Jesus and gods word, you have faith.

 

Agnostics don't have any evidence of god nor need any to be open to the existence of god.

 

 

 

On a side note - I know their are some christians who don't agree with the bible and some agnostics who are more on the atheist side.

[1f5]

In certain way you are right, an agnostic has more faith even he hasn't any proof.

Edited October 27, 2012 by 1f5

[dimreepr]

I know i'm generalizing two groups of people and breaking it down to the individual we will get varying results on both sides.

 

Lets talk about this from the average population standpoint.

 

An agnostic generally believes that full knowledge on the subject of god is not attainable. If their is a god were not going to understand it.

 

A christian believes that God created man and sent his son or "human form" down to earth to teach man about his presence.

 

 

Christians have a religious text called the bible. They believe that god, jesus, and other holy men have their teachings written down in this text and having faith that this text proves gods existence. So believing in Jesus and gods word, you have faith.

 

Agnostics don't have any evidence of god nor need any to be open to the existence of god.

 

 

 

On a side note - I know their are some christians who don't agree with the bible and some agnostics who are more on the atheist side.

 

 

Agnosticism, for me, is a cop out. Having faith is to believe without proof. Either, you believe what science has to offer (i.e. the actual world as described using evidence) or you choose to have faith, in a world that’s ruled by bullshit.

 

 

[too-open-minded]

Ahh but what if you have an "agnostic" view towards science, trying to keep an open mind that we might not have everything right?

 

Why does it have to be either or?

 

Agnosticism is a cop out? Unless i'm mistakenly speaking for the others. I don't see why being open to the concept of their being a "god" has anything to do with negation of science.

 

I think you have the label of most religious gods in your head and when you hear "agnostic" you envision someone wanting to believe in something like a holy, pure, perfect human but is aware that science runs this B!t(h and trying to find a medium.

 

I can see why you might think that and i'm sure their are some agnostics like that but generally speaking for agnostics, I don't feel like its a "cop out."

[dimreepr]

I have no problem with an open mind but I fail to see where, any sort of god, can hide given what is understood of the world around us. Please read this and whatch the video before you reply.

 

 

[too-open-minded]

That video is 28 minutes long bro, sorry lol.

 

 

 

 

Well why worry about it? If god does exist why does it have to be hiding something? Could god be everything together as a collective conscience? Maybe gods a giant flying spaghetti monster in space? Probably not and we'll never know but i'm still not counting anything out.

 

Personally I think if their is something like god, its going to be too much to comprehend anyways so yeah i'm just kinda agnostic about it.

[iNow]

There's a false dichotomy here. The distinction is not between agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism/theism are about belief.

 

One can either be an agnostic atheist (does not believe, but is not sure what really is out there) or an agnostic theist (does believe, but acknowledges a lack of knowledge about what is really out there), but one cannot just be "agnostic." It's meaningless. You still either lean towards belief or nonbelief. The state of being unable to "know" which is right applies really to all people (regardless of belief or nonbelief, with the possible exception of those who have deluded themselves into certainty).

 

I find it more useful to approach the concept with a scale like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

[too-open-minded]

Well I guess i'm agnostic atheist lol

 

I hate labels...

Edited October 31, 2012 by too-open-minded

[Caarnji]

I have no problem with an open mind but I fail to see where, any sort of god, can hide given what is understood of the world around us. Please read this and whatch the video before you reply.

 

 

 

 

There is a problem with this argument, because you bring God into it, which is a matter of theology and philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

Sean Carroll was arguing about the human framework of reality as we have it nowadays, which has nothing to do with the existence of God in what manner whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

And with adding on the above i can make a statement on the topic:

 

 

 

 

Differencing between belief and knowledge as agnostics do is from a logical standpoint a more truthful to human reality approach, than trying to prove something based on -> (individual) beliefs based on -> constructed truths , as atheists/christians tend to do.

 

On the other hand that doesn't say whoever has more faith, which you cant determine in a philosophical manner, anyway. You could try do that with a neurological measurement in an experiment, but the forum has no means to do that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

I hate labels...

Labels that are specific help to define what we mean and where we stand, for our own and other's benefit. What you probably hate are generalizations that are used as labels, like "liberal" and "dropout" and "suburbanite". These are too broad and allow people to assume too much about you.

[Ophiolite]

One can either be an agnostic atheist (does not believe, but is not sure what really is out there) or an agnostic theist (does believe, but acknowledges a lack of knowledge about what is really out there), but one cannot just be "agnostic." It's meaningless. You still either lean towards belief or nonbelief.

Sorry iNow. I am just agnostic. I don't know if there is a God or not. I don't know if can ever know. About the only thing I'm really sure about is that if there is a God it is not akin to the Abrahamic God (unless we are in a simulation and God is a programmer with a warped sense of humour.)

 

There is certainly neither belief, nor non-belief in my position: the waveform of my opinion has yet to collapse. Like Schroedinger's cat, it is neither on nor the other. I consider it the only sensible position to adopt and consequently feel quite superior to almost everyone else.

 

Certain of my uncertainty; decisive about my indecision; definitive about my vagueness.

[iNow]

Lol. I know what you're saying. We've had this chat before. If I were forced to do so, however, I'd still classify you as an agnostic atheist because you don't seem to be 50/50 about either option. You very clearly seem to lean more toward one possibility than the other. I know you will protest, though.

 

Maybe you're a strong agnostic, in which case:

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Strong_agnosticism

 

Strong agnosticism states that there is no way to answer the question "does God exist?" and further than that, there never will be. It's kind of ironic that something developed to avoid a faith position would state such a thing as a clarifying remark, as should it turn out to be wrong there would have to be some serious goalpost moving to be done.

Edited November 14, 2012 by iNow

[Ophiolite]

But as you saw I have stated I am also agnostic in relation to whether or not we can know. It's all down to the emphasis on being of two minds in any decent geology training.

[Art_Vandelay]

My position is that the concept of god is completely arbitrary. You can no more demonstrate that intelligence is required to begin a universe than you can that a toaster is.

[iNow]

At least we have a testable and agreed upon definition for "toaster."

[imatfaal]

At least we have a testable and agreed upon definition for "toaster."

 

Yep - it's someone who proposes a salutation at the end of a meal - or someone who semi-burns marshmallows in a fire.