The Dictionary: Atheist: the theory or belief that God does not exist. Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Just clearing some stuff up. (By the way, I got this from the dictionary on my computer, so tell me if I'm wrong.)
OK I see your point but you know what mine was as well. That line is undeniably blurred. You can't get away with saying we're an atheistic nation on the grounds that atheism is neutral. You know exactly where that will get you. Actually, I do disagree with your term. I think agnosticism is more neutral. Atheism is a definite belief.
Um, like Nitrous said, they probably want you to concentrate. They also can't say that prayer is wrong, or that you should do it. But don't you have some other time to pray quietly? No one can arrest you for praying publicly, and God won't kill you for missing a prayer.
My religion differs somewhat from many others. I am a part of the Sikh religion (wiki it) and we are a monotheistic religion (we believe in one god) but we believe god to be omnipresent and insubstantial (basically IS everything and created everything and is not just some old guy.) Science can explain many things but there are many others that cannot be explained. It will in all likelihood never be possible to prove whether god really exists, but, in the meantime, i am well convinced in the truthfulness of my religion. Now, before anyone objects and says their religion is more true or something, i must comment that is only MY belief and i am not saying any other belief is any less legitimate. A real logical discussion on this topic can't really be made......because nobody knows anything about it for sure.
Agnosticism is not neutral because it does exhibit the belief that god exists but we cannot understand him. Let's say you and two friends get into an arguement. Jimmy likes football, Tom loves baseball, and you are indifferent on the two. Jim loves football so much he says it should be a mandatory class. Tom thinks baseball should be mandatory. After they argue for a bit you come in and say, "Why can't they be optional and people can play what they want to play and not push it on others?" After seeing the error of their ways the friends make up and live happily ever after. But what if Tom was sick the day of the arguement? Jim says football is awesome, and that it should be mandatory for all students! You say it's an alright sport but you don't want to play it. Seeing there is no yang and only yin, Jim mistaken labels you as someone who is anti-football freedom like he would have Tom. So instead of your non-biased standpoint being viewed as a marriage between the two sports, you come off as someone who hates football and wants everyone to hate football with you. When really you couldn't give a rat's ass who believed what, so long as they didn't push it onto you. Just then Charlie walks up and says, "hey guys, football is great and not playing it is cool too, but can't we have enough respect for each other just to respect that it is a good sport?" No! We can't! I hate football, I would never want to play it. Though, I feel very strongly about the sport I don't think I should force you to not like it and likewise you can't force me to acknowledge it is a good sport! Are you biased in your outrage? Basically, you worship the equilibrium, right? I would assume that's it. If so, why are you not an atheist?
You wouldn't say that baseball is alright but you don't want to play it. You would say that baseball is alright and you are ok with playing it. Agnostics can go either way. If there is a God, that's fine with them. If not, that's ok too. Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. (From my computer's dictionary.)
You may have missed my edit on the second paragraph. Give it a quick glance and tell me if you still think agnostics are the middle ground.
Agnostics are the middle ground. They have neither faith nor disbelief in any god. They don't know if God exists or does not exist. Those who are agnostic can go either way. Your sports analogy does not grasp the concept of agnosticism; it takes away the freedom that is necessary for other religions or beliefs to thrive. If someone forced their religion on an agnostic, then he would no longer be agnostic. So of course he would disagree to having a religion dumped on him. The main point about agnostics is not what kind of god they believe in, but whether god exists or does not exist. They don't want to be told what kind of God to believe in, because they are unsure, not against, about the existence of a God.
In response to what you said, nitrous, we DO believe that there is a god, but that he/she IS everything and yet nothing and cannot be described or depicted.
My sports analogy does it perfect justice. Is your religion pushing itself by having the Judeo-Chrisitan god in the pledge and motto? Does that not obscure in the slightest what agnostics believe? If the middle ground is being breached, why do we do it?
Agnostics are more the middle ground more than anything. I'm not saying they're the perfect center between atheism and theism. It's just that atheists do not believe in God; theists do. Agnostics are unsure, so that is a sort of middle ground between the two. They have one foot in each camp, so to speak. The only way someone could be completely neutral is if they were uncommitted to any belief.
Nitrous, I'm with Eons. The sad thing here is that I think we're on the same page theologically, and are arguing over what to call ourselves. I think you are misrepresenting agnosticism. Agnosticism is neutral, it doesn't assert any belief at all. Atheism asserts a belief that there is no god. In your analogy, atheism is the guy who doesn't want to play sports because he doesn't see the point. Also, your analogy misrepresents theistic religions in that they always try to assert themselves on others. That's not always the case. Where's the guy who likes baseball and is sure it's the best sport, but wouldn't want to force in on anybody else because he understands they might not like it as much?
I dont' know maybe your not understanding... I remove my Cover while praying... WHILE every one...Was at ease...A rest time for the unit... And such... (only available time to pray...) and People constantly interrupted my prayier... ( now ) I'm saying I was keep from praying..but I still pray... its just crap that I can't rest the same as the other troops... sorry... Now this isn't the same fact... The moment of Silence in School is crap just as well... because NO one resepects is... they talk..(that is a set time for people to be respectful to others...) NOw I agree I can pray at another time... but this is a time set for me to pray in school... (or any one else to do what ever they want at that time..except interrupt my pray time..) But that is often interupted.. Whats the point in that? If I'm given something but others steal my rights? So am I the guy that Plays sports has a good time.. and Enjoies it?
I think your referring to strong atheism. As in no god could possibly exist. Weak atheism being god probably doesn't exist so there is no sense even thinking about it. Agnosticism being god does exist we just can't define him. At least that's what I gather from discussing with people who claim to fill that niche.
People who interrupt prayer or moments of silence are just jerks. And Nitrous, I was giving dictionary definitions. =)
I've been thinking of something lately, and I don't fully support the Big bang theory and a lot of people's argument against it is that "How did it all happen so orderly then?". I've been thinking of this and I have come up with this: The Big Bang theory sees the Universe as a big breath. It breaths in for a few trillion years and breaths out for a few trillion years. Here's where my idea comes in. If time is infinite, what if the breathing in and out of the Universe has already happened lets say, 100,000,000 Trillion times. Whats not to say that after all of these times, everything worked out... we wouldn't know about the other times and understand our current Universe. It could be that the "chance that everything works out" could just be the time that we were here to see it. I don't know Its just my idea. And to finish on topic. I have a hard time deciding between atheism and agnostic. Love, Zachary9990
There is more than just Atheism and Agnosticism. There is strong Atheists, who know there is no god. Weak Atheists, who say the probability of God is very low. There is Agnostic theism who know their is no evidence, but still believe in God. Strong and weak Agnostics, the former thinks that no one knows if God exists or doesn't exist and the latter believes that God be proven or unproven. There's a few more That I can't remember. So Eons which Agnostic are you talking about?
....What happened to the days where people where what they said they were? Its almost as good as Dodging a conversation....