good morning/evening/night religious nairalanders, hope you all enjoyed your christmas.

the reason i started this thread is because i want to get a few clarifications on a few things. before i get down to my questions, let me give you a little background information about me. i was born into a very religious anglican family, and throughout my childhood and teenage years i was involved with church. i have always been the type of person who loves to ask questions and learn more about certain subjects, so when i was involved with church, i always asked many questions to the clergymen. during bible study, i always paid close attention to what we learned, and at around the time i entered secondary school, i started to notice many contradictions in our readings. at first i refrained from thinking those thoughts because i thought i was being blasphemous, but as i said earlier, i was always the type of person to ask questions, so i started to ask a few clergymen the questions i had.

i would always wonder why god would let so many people on earth suffer, if we are his children? i would wonder why if we were made in his image, why is there so much evil in the world? i had many more, but to make a long story short, i started to ask members of the clergy some of these questions i had. at first, they would direct me to certain scriptures that supposedly explained why certain things are, but being the knowledge thirsty person i was, those quotes did not satisfy me. i would keep coming back asking more and more questions, and they would do the same thing, but as the questions became more detailed, the usual response was reduced to 'god works in mysterious ways.'  After getting that response so many times, i thought to myself 'why is there always some sort of excuse for any contradiction in the bible?' i gained the courage to a question similar to this to a bishop, and instead of giving me a straight forward answer, he accused me of being blasphemous and said the devil has come inside of my mind. he scolded me, and then afterward talked to my father about it, and lets just say i was punished when we got home.

ever since that incident, my faith in christianity started to diminish, and i started to do independent research. at the time, i would still go to church because i was not yet in a position to dictate whether i should go or not, but i was never as enthusiastic as i was before. after a few months of doing this, it got to the point to where everything that was said in church was going through one ear and out the other. i was very weak in my beliefs, but i never let it show. after coming to the realization of just how unfair the world is, and how much influence man has on religion, i finally told myself that i cannot continue to pretend to believe in things i dont, so i decided to stop believing in christianity all together. some personality traits of mine also had an influence in why i decided to stop believing, but that is an entire different subject.

i dont believe in christianity, but i do feel that there may be some sort of higher power that we dont know about, but even then i am confused. when i tell people how i dont believe in god, but i believe that there might be some higher power we dont know about, they tell me 'oh you're atheist.' ive always thought i was an agnostic since i believe in something, but honestly i am largely ignorant of that. even though i do not believe in god, i still have this negative feeling about atheism for some unknown reason. my question is this: what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism, and how significant are they?

i apologize for the long read, but i feel that in order for me to truly share my viewpoint, i have to go into great detail.

ops. too long to be read .

@ jcob

reading is fundamental.

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods)

Agnosticism is a position that states that nothing can be known about God (or gods) the subject being too abstract for the human mind.

The Atheist states: God does not exist. The Agnostic states: I do not know, can never know, and it does not concern me.

@iyapo_ny,

Without much ceremonial opening statements, I will just give my 2 cents of opinion and advice.

The difference between Atheism and Agnotism can be illustrated as this:

An Atheist is someone who has 100% knowledge of everything and anything that can be known in this universe and beyond. That is, he has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future, and because of this he can accurately conclude that there is no God. You know no one like this exists, therefore, God does not believe in Atheists.

An Agnotist is a much careful but unecessary position. He claims that he is not sure of the existence of God or a higher power but he does not rule the idea out. This probably explains your position as well as most folks that see themselves as atheists.

My analogy will determine whether either positions make sense or not.

If I tell you the name of my cousin as mr. XYZ and atheist who doesn't know him will conclude that out of 6 billion people on earth he has not come across such a person and therefore concludes that such a person does not exist. I know that my cousin exists but he is unaware that that person is my cousin. You can see that his position is not a wise position to take.

An Agnotist on the other hand will tell me that I don't know whether the person exists or not and that he does not care. You can see that this position is an unecessary position to take. If he really cared to know or if he had something to get from him maybe a huge amount of money I am sure that he will surely find him out, and if he does a proper search he will find out that the person is my cousin and then proceed to know him.

Your position before you became an agnotist was just a religious person who probably had some beliefs about God but did not actually know Him personally. To believe in the existence of God and being born again are two entire different things. I can believe in the existence of the Queen of England, read all about her but not know her as her husband or children would. That is, to have a personal knowledge of her. To be born again is to have a personal knowledge and relationship with the Almighty God especially a living relationship with Jesus Christ. This can only happen when you repent, believe and receive Jesus as your personal Saviour and Lord. When you have this experience you will then have known the Lord and not just a mental assent of Him. Once you have known Him you cannot then unknow Him unless you want to deny Him.

OLAADEGBU:



An Atheist is someone who has 100% knowledge of everything and anything that can be known in this universe and beyond. That is, he has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future, and because of this he can accurately conclude that there is no God. You know no one like this exists, therefore, God does not believe in Atheists.

This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Truly, the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist in other dimensions, including the ultimate transcendental dimension.

Deep Sight:

This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Truly, the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist in other dimensions, inclusing the ultimate transcendental dimension.

And what authority have you to dismiss the atheists beliefs, or the "dogmatic' Christian. Doesn't that make you stupid and presumptuous? Are you also omniscient, since you claim to know all that cannot and does not exist, even in the ultimate transcendental dimension?

Krayola:

Are you also omniscient, since you claim to know all that cannot and does not exist, even in the ultimate transcendental dimension?

I make no claims to know it all. I proffer arguments from my viewpoint.

The Atheist positively asserts that an entity that is said to exist outside our dimension does not exist.

That surely means that the atheist has been there to document what is there and what is not there.

@iyapo_ny,

For the atheist to make an absolute statement to say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, he must be omniscient. He must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from his eyes, and he know the intimate details of the secret sex-history of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." The atheist must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

I advice you to read the book "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" by Ray Comfort (Living Waters) available through your Christian bookstore and see why true atheists don't exist.

Guys, let's be careful in what we say and avoid stereotypes. Not all atheists assume a default position of express denials of the existence of God, gods or any supernatural realities. There are some atheists who are very open to discussions about the possible existence of phenomena and realities that cannot be explained by naturalism - these cannot be said to be among the many 'typical' atheists that like to expressly claim to 'know' that God does not exist (yet, they are not to be confused for agnostics).

It would be fairer to say that 'some atheists' are so and so, rather than lump them all in a default position.

As for agnostics, the same thing could be said - for there are agnostics who like to assume an 'i-don't-know' preference, but nonetheless actually believe in some 'higher power' (they are quite shy to give the appellation of 'god/deity' to this 'higher power' - for reasons best known to them). I guess if someone was to keep asking these agnostics questions upon questions, we might be 'blaspheming' their faith as well.



edit:
____

Deep Sight:

This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Well, ala Krayola, let's be cautious in drawing conclusions. IMO, I don't think we should hurriedly be dismissive. In very practical terms, 'atheism' is not to be dismissed with 'stupidity and gross presumption' because that is not what atheism is. People often tend to dismiss and deride what they do not know or understand, and there are many people who act that way on Nairaland because they neither know nor understand what atheism is all about. There are some questions that atheism poses to us all that none of us (including atheists themselves) have been able to answer, and yet those questions have been food for thought to so many of us who lean towards a belief in God, 'higher power', etc. I appeal that we seek to discuss and be self-controlled so we don't end up being presumptive and derisive.

Deep Sight:

I make no claims to know it all. I proffer arguments from my viewpoint.

Neither do most atheists. They just believe God does not exist. Believing something and Knowing something are two different things.

I have heard atheists and Christians give their arguments for their viewpoints. U don't recognize them as arguments. . u see them as superstitious. dogmatic nonsense.  . . . and then go on to do stuff, like analyse how some abstract s.h.it is "masculine" and some other thing is "feminine" and make all these elaborate nonsensical analogies that only make sense in your world-view.  Oh, the irony!!  

viaro:

Guys, let's be careful in what we say and avoid stereotypes.

Amen to that, my broda

@iyapo_ny,

G.K. Chesterton put it straight in no uncertain terms by saying and I quote

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

This is to say that there can be no true atheist. What we have are different degrees of agnostics, that is, those who believe that they know nothing of things beyond the material phenomena. The Chambers Dictionary defines them as those who believe that "a Creator, creative cause and an unseen world are things unknown or unknowable", a skeptic for short and this may fit the description you made about yourself in the opening post.

OLAADEGBU:

G.K. Chesterton put it straight in no uncertain terms by saying and I quote

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

Could it be possible that Chesterton was wrong? I guess he was! But that is not what I would like to discuss just now. Do you guys even settle down for one moment to think about the fact that 'atheism' is not all about whether Christianity preaches 'God' or not?

The OP is making a simple enquiry: 'what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism, and how significant are they?' Could we just try and stick to that, rather than spin around every direction making unwarranted posts?

Deep Sight:

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods)

Agnosticism is a position that states that nothing can be known about God (or gods) the subject being too abstract for the human mind.

The Atheist states: God does not exist. The Agnostic states: I do not know, can never know, and it does not concern me.

Deep Sight:

This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Truly, the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist in other dimensions, including the ultimate transcendental dimension.

Deep sight, I am highly disappointed by your Above statements, you have dropped several notches in my admiration and respect for you. Your are now beginning to show your distaste and dislike for the Atheist's point of view, which had remained largely hidden until now.
For you to declare atheism as a silly presumption means that atheists have wasted their time debating with you all along.

In one breadth you define atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods) and in another you proclaim "the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist". I call that verbal aggression, or maybe you do not know the difference between knowledge and belief

So you define them as silly just because they cannot wrap their head around a less silly oneness of infinity belief.

Krayola:

Neither do most atheists. They just believe God does not exist. Believing something and Knowing something are two different things.

I have heard atheists and Christians give their arguments for their viewpoints. U don't recognize them as arguments. . u see them as superstitious. dogmatic nonsense.  . . . and then go on to do stuff, like analyse how some abstract s.h.it is "masculine" and some other thing is "feminine" and make all these elaborate nonsensical analogies that only make sense in your world-view.  Oh, the irony!!  

I differ.

As Viaro has noted, we are not discussing agnosticism, which is a position that no one could quarrel with.

The plain truth is that 99% of NL atheist have no uncerstanding of the word "Atheist" - which is why i consistently pose the question to them.

Atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism positively denies the existence of God.

To do this, the atheist must be omniscient.

It thus emerges that the atheist is more presumtuous and dogmatic than the theist.

wirinet:

Deep sight, I am highly disappointed by your Above statements, you have dropped several notches in my admiration and respect for you. Your are now beginning to show your distaste and dislike for the Atheist's point of view, which had remained largely hidden until now.

In one breadth you define atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods) and in another you proclaim "the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist". I call that verbal aggression.

Hi wirinet, it seems to me that Deep Sight might not necessarily be wrong in substance of what he posted; the problem might be more in how he had expressed himself. However, I think that we could appreciate where he was coming from when you consider this -

Deep Sight:

The plain truth is that 99% of NL atheist have no uncerstanding of the word "Atheist" - which is why i consistently pose the question to them.

Atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism positively denies the existence of God.

So, you can see where he was coming from (and that is something that has me bothered as much as he was on that subject). It is not so much a matter of the arguments many atheists put forward here on Nairaland, often based on denials of the existence of any gods/God. I often wonder: what essentially is 'atheism' for the truly informed atheist who can hold his or her own worldview without reference to any theistic worldview? What is the substance of atheism if theism is not in the picture for the typical atheist? That is something that seems to be lacking in many typical atheistic arguments on Niaraland - which is why I can understand where Deepsight is coming from.

wirinet:

Deep sight, I am highly disappointed by your Above statements, you have dropped several notches in my admiration and respect for you. Your are now beginning to show your distaste and dislike for the Atheist's point of view, which had remained largely hidden until now.

Was it hidden? That is strange. Am I not the self same person who has opened a zillion threads tackling what I believe to be wrong with atheism?

In one breadth you define atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods) and in another you proclaim "the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist". I call that verbal aggression, or maybe you do not know the difference between knowledge and belief

I accept that there are differences between belief and knowledge.

However to have a belief that God does not exist, one must within one’s mind have a basis for that belief. The only basis that would be accurate is omniscience.

So you define them as silly just because they cannot wrap their head around a less silly oneness of infinity belief.

I really should have just shut my trap and never shared my apprehension of the Godhead with anybody. It is sickening the way every Tom, Peter and Harry reverts to Oneness of Infinity when they cannot defend whatever it is that they are saying.

It particularly strikes me how people cannot see how simple the oneness of infinity concept is in relation to God. Afterall God is said to be ONE by the major monotheistic religions. He is also said to be eternal, or infinite. So what is so strange or new about a oneness of infinity by which I simply seek to expatiate on the Divine nature.

Deep Sight:

It particularly strikes me how people cannot see how simple the oneness of infinity concept is in relation to God. Afterall God is said to be ONE by the major monotheistic religions. He is also said to be eternal, or infinite. So what is so strange or new about a oneness of infinity by which I simply seek to expatiate on the Divine nature.

The problem with your own 'oneness of infinity' is that it is cosmetic. Sorry, Deep Sight, but tying that concept to the 'major monotheistic religions' just won't do nicely for your own deism - especially when you often seem to be borrowing from theism to embalm your deism. This is, I think, one of the reasons why so many of your readers are not happy with your own explications about your infinitiness of infinities.

*sighs*

same ol' self-righteous bullsh**t from the usual suspects.

Lol. . . Viaro. . .how i go do na?

Meeeeeeery Christmas to you!

<sub>But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

Do you deny this?</sub>

Deep Sight:

Atheism positively denies the existence of God.

Theism positively affirms the existence of God

Deep Sight:

To do this, the atheist must be omniscient.

To do this, the theist must be omniscient

Deep Sight:

It thus emerges that the atheist is more presumtuous and dogmatic than the theist.

It thus emerges, that the theist is more presumptuous and dogmatic than the atheist.
 

Deep Sight:

However to have a belief that God does not exist, one must within one’s mind have a basis for that belief. The only basis that would be accurate is omniscience.

However to believe that God definitely exists, one must have within one's mind a basis for that belief. The ONLY basis that would be accurate is omniscience. (Therefore, deep sight is omniscient)

Deep Sight:

It is sickening the way every Tom manliness and Harry reverts to Oneness of Infinity when they cannot defend whatever it is that they are saying.

Maybe other's find you anti "dogma", anti trinitarian, anti- atheist posts just as sickening.

I don't think it is your views people have a problem with, but the way you express yourself. If u can't handle it, don't dish it out.

I hardly hear the atheists here crying foul when they get shitted on. It's fair game. But just be ready for the crossfire. 

Deep Sight:

Was it hidden? That is strange. Am I not the self same person who has opened a zillion threads tackling what I believe to be wrong with atheism?

I accept that there are differences between belief and knowledge.

However to have a belief that God does not exist, one must within one’s mind have a basis for that belief. The only basis that would be accurate is omniscience.

I really should have just shut my trap and never shared my apprehension of the Godhead with anybody. It is sickening the way every Tom manliness and Harry reverts to Oneness of Infinity when they cannot defend whatever it is that they are saying.

It particularly strikes me how people cannot see how simple the oneness of infinity concept is in relation to God. Afterall God is said to be ONE by the major monotheistic religions. He is also said to be eternal, or infinite. So what is so strange or new about a oneness of infinity by which I simply seek to expatiate on the Divine nature.

As i said, there is now point in explaining any further my  beliefs as an atheist, because to you it will be a silly proposition unless i could adopt your deism beliefs or Christianity type Monotheism/Polytheism

What about other forms of polytheism? is it a silly propositions also since your notion of God is very different from their beliefs, can you say it is in agreement with your oneness of infinity?

Krayola:

I hardly hear the atheists here crying foul when they get shitted on. It's fair game. But just be ready for the crossfire.  

Hahaha! The atheists who hardly cry foul only get perfumed shit. . .  when they get some foul smelling shit then you'll hear the cries.

Krayola:

Theism positively affirms the existence of God

To do this, the theist must be omniscient

It thus emerges, that the theist is more presumptuous and dogmatic than the atheist.


However to believe that God definitely exists, one must have within one's mind a basis for that belief. The ONLY basis that would be accurate is omniscience. (Therefore, deep sight is omniscient)


Maybe other's find you anti "dogma", anti trinitarian, anti- atheist posts just as sickening.

I don't think it is your views people have a problem with, but the way you express yourself. If u can't handle it, don't dish it out.

I hardly hear the atheists here crying foul when they get shitted on. It's fair game. But just be ready for the crossfire.  

LOL!!!!! i KNEW THIS WAS COMING. . . .


mEEEEEEERY cHRISTMAS kRAYOLA!

wirinet:

As i said, there is now point in explaining any further my beliefs as an atheist, because to you it will be a silly proposition unless i could adopt your deism beliefs or Christianity type Monotheism/Polytheism

What about other forms of polytheism? is it a silly propositions also since your notion of God is very different from their beliefs, can you say it is in agreement with your oneness of infinity?

Perhaps i was heavy-handed and presumptuous too. I apologize.

Meeeeeeery Christmas, Wirinet

wait - I'll re-write that!

Every individuals assembles his universe like a jig-saw puzzles using different pieces from his background, exposure, personality, education, and interests, that is why no two people can have identical sets of beliefs. So it is very wrong to proclaim anybody's belief system as stupid - From the trinitarian Christian to the Cow worshiping hindu. I assume we are only here to exchange ideas and probably expand our limited horizon, and not to judge anybody.

Merry Xmas and a happy new year.

Well Wirinet - Like i said, i am sorry to have gone that far. It was silly and presumptuous OF ME.

And i will really hate to lose the privilege of interfacing with you.

You have taught me much science.

viaro:

wait - I'll re-write that!

OOOOOOO ! You are frustrating me o. . . i was already quoting and responding. . .oya, i will wait. . .

Deep Sight:

OOOOOOO ! You are frustrating me o. . . i was already quoting and responding. . .oya, i will wait. . .

_{Hehe. . i forgot that my babe's mum is a deist - can't afford to take risk typing 'nonsense' while she's caressing her teacup in close proximity}

Okay, here it is - and I'm off!

---

Deep Sight:

Lol. . . Viaro. . .how i go do na?

Meeeeeeery Christmas to you!

Amico mio, Seasons Greetings aplenty to you! I trust you had a swell time!

But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

Do you deny this?

I do not deny that; but perhaps you're not catching the drift here about what some have been trying to point out. For me, I have no problems with the grey areas that many of us don't get in own individual worldviews. What worries viaro is the manner in which some of us present our views.

But let me take the opportunity to point out something about your recurring reference to 'oneness' (if the thread owner does not mind very much).

You see, 'oneness' in the major monotheistic religions cannot be used to lend support to your deistic position. Theism has many shades - and there are several other monotheistic religions (such as Zoroastrianism and Bahá'í), as well Henotheism as a form of monotheism - I know you are well aware of all these.

The problem, however, is that your deism is miles away from any monotheistic religion I know of. The essential difference is that the monotheistic religion are committed to a Deity/deities that are not reduced to some hazy 'concept'. The identities they give to these deities are concrete - and perhaps that is where you have not been able to wire the connections for the concepts you have been trying to share about 'God' in deism.

Let me look again at this:

But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

No worries. Concerns, however, are that an appeal to 'one' and 'infinite' just won't do the job.

There are indeed some 'mono' and 'poly' concepts in deism. For the former, we have 'monodeism'(or just simply deism, as many contend that there is no such word as monodeism); for the latter we have polydeism.

But in all this, someone else might argue about 'one' or 'oneness' and still arrive at a completely unrelated word and idea - so completely foreign that we might laugh out loud when they spell that word as 'monoideism'. Basically, we know that monoideism would be understood simply as a 'state of having one ideal or ideology', yet, this state of prolonged absorption in 'a single idea' is often a psychological or mental condition - a state of prolonged absorption in a single idea as in mental depression (some consider it to be a slight degree of monomania).

Yada-yada. But I hope you get the drift? The idea of a repetitious 'oneness', 'singularity' or 'infinity' that has no concrete identity and only leaves your readers confused all the more is something that really should be taken care of. An appeal to 'one' is not enough - as long as one does not want to confuse that 'one' for a state of monoideism.

To all the so called "atheists" and "atheist advocates" out there, listen to the Word of The One who has absolute certainty in all things and what He is still saying today whether you like it or not:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." -- Psalm 14:1

No matter how you twist His Words to mean what you want Him to mean, you may be good people from man's viewpoint and begin to pat yourselves on the back as you are doing here but God's point of view gives no room for self righteousness. He says that there is no such thing as an "atheist." He is a "fool." saith the Lord God Almighty.