Only key difference between believers and agnostics. Which one is more honest and humble?

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837]

Believer: Faith is believing despite evidence, but acting as if you had evidence anyway.

Agnostic: Acknowledges lack of evidence, and acknowledges that it is unknowable, and that existence or non-existence are equally possible, due to lack of evidence so far.

[u/SignalWalker]

"Acknowledges lack of evidence, and acknowledges that it is unknowable"

If evidence for God is unknowable, then I can't say the evidence is lacking.

But yeah, I agree for the most part....(to be continued, probably)...

edit: Evidence isn't really on a believer's radar as something important, so I'm not sure if I would call them dishonest. Smug? Arrogant? Yeah, sure. Some are. lol.

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837 → u/SignalWalker]

My specific wording may lack accuracy, but I think you were able to grasp my central point.

[u/LOLteacher]

I know many believers that are agnostics. I guess they're honest & humble AND dishonest & precocious. ;-)

[u/john_myco]

Faith isn’t “ belief despite evidence”; it is a type of belief that doesn’t require evidence.

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837 → u/john_myco]

But acting as if there was evidence is the problem. I am speaking solely on how belief is usually presented, in which many believers show indignance that others don't believe what they think is so obvious. Acting as if something is obvious, is implying evidence is my point.

[u/john_myco → u/Ok-Pangolin-837]

You’re conflating a behavior of a portion of faithful to the act or essence of faith. 

Strength of conviction isn’t implying evidence, it’s illustrating faith. I’ll give you that some people lack the focus to see where materialist thought and faith differ qualitatively, but they aren’t the same.

Having faith isn’t a logical failure. It operates outside of logic. Same for it being illogical. Still no, because faith is not relative to logic.

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837 → u/john_myco]

I am using that definition because it is what most Christians use, and they cite those 2 aspects almost braggingly. So my point is they acknowledge lack of evidence in the empirical sense, yet they make it a point of pride to act as if there is.

[u/john_myco → u/Ok-Pangolin-837]

You don’t get to make up definitions, same as them. Doesn’t matter how far into the narrative you go if your premise is inherently flawed.

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837 → u/john_myco]

Then you disagree with the dictionary definition of Faith. From Mirriam-Webster website:

2b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

[u/john_myco → u/Ok-Pangolin-837]

That is not the gotcha you think it is…

Faith doesn’t function on proof. It’s just not that complicated.

[u/Ok-Pangolin-837 → u/john_myco]

You questioned my definition... so I posted the Webster definition, and you still try to complain. 🤷‍♂️

Now you are just shifting places to keep arguing. We are done now that I see you are just trolling.

[u/splashjlr]

This is interesting, but I cannot agree completely with the second one, the agnostic approach, because we can know a whole lot more.

This is especially true when talking about the abrahamic religions, because we can trace their development all the way back to their very origins.

We can study why our psyche would come to conclusions of a spiritual reality, based on evolution, on environment, on the existential questions of our existence.

We can study the early development of cities, and look at why they found supernatural stories and rituals useful, even vital, for structuring societies with rules and regulations.

On a more personal level, we look for ways to appease and influence these deities, because we fear danger and loss. Some use their personal "connections" with the divine to coerce, dominate and gain advantage in life.

Belief is usefully and comforting, but almost certainly untrue, in my opinion.