Words of encouragement from scientism

Faith isn't about what gives you comfort, it's about what you believe.  For example, you cannot prove empirically that there is no god, therefore belief that there is no god is faith.

Not believing in God is agnosticism
Believing that there is no God is atheism.

Do you see the difference?

People necessarily have faith in the things that give comfort. You present a circular argument. Don't you see that?
You framed the atheist position wrongly. An atheist would say: out of all of the gods you don't believe in the atheist believes in one less god.

People necessarily have faith in the things that give comfort. You present a circular argument. Don't you see that?
You framed the atheist position wrongly. An atheist would say: out of all of the gods you don't believe in the atheist believes in one less god.

The christian gospel didn't give me comfort when I came to believe in it.  I believed in it for other reasons entirely.  I could consciously manufacture a religion that gives me more comfort - in fact the quasi-religion I came from (i.e. the New Age) was far more comforting because it involved no moral obligation.

Maybe you and/or Linda can explain to me what you think is the difference between agnosticism and atheism given that neither believe in any God or gods?

Note: I was the only one going into the house, for several days, and then the only one going into the house (for the aforementioned dog care) besides his wife, for the next week. If anyone was dropping food off or doing something for the family other than the vitally important "praying for George and then telling everyone about it", I was aware of it.

Be careful here.  Your friend's Christian friends aren't representative of the population and I have seen zero evidence to suggest agnostic or atheistic people are more compassionate as your quote suggest; intentionally or otherwise.  This just exposes some bias Linda; surely you can see that?

If we're throwing out anecdotes, two of the most compassionate people I've ever known are both Christian and the type of practical caregivers that should win awards.

Linda > "A parapsychology example. A researcher uninvolved with any of the medical care asks a subject if they have any memories from when they underwent a cardiac arrest. The subject says yes and a recording is made and then transcribed (word for word) of their recollections with the addition of some prompting questions. The medical record of the cardiac arrest is copied. Later, the subject tells their doctor about their memories and together the two of them, using recollection, try to fit those memories to the events, with the doctor filling in some of the gaps. The doctor makes a brief note in the chart about the subject's recollections. When the subject's wife comes to visit later, the subject excitedly tells about how they saw all the events in the room - who was off to the side peeking around the curtain, devices which were used during the procedure, people there who were later recognized by the subject, etc. Sometime later (weeks, months, years), an NDE researcher interviews the subject and writes down their recollections, and then confirms with the doctor that the subject had a cardiac arrest and whether the recalled story fits the doctor's own recollections about what was said. The doctor, referring to their brief note about the discussion, confirms it.  

A comparison of the documented report (the recording and transcription, the medical record) and the undocumented report (the subject and doctor interview based on recollection) finds that there was no mention of the person off to the side peeking around the curtain, accurate description of the devices used during the procedure, or identification of the people present, in the documented report. These features only showed up after information and feedback was shared. The story which continues to get passed around on the NDEs websites and in threads devoted to NDEs on parapsychology forums is that found only in the undocumented report."

Linda

So the new scientific standard is that without evidence a concept does not exist?

There is no evidence of God therefore God does not exist.

There is no evidence of "meaning" therefore meaning does not exist.

So on and so forth.

Quite frankly, its amazing that with this line of thinking we've ever discovered or learned anything since, be definition, those things didn't exist prior to our finding evidence and understanding.

Its faith, to make such proclamations from the self-defined high ground of materialism.  They just don't like the word.

I don't think there is any difference. As you say, neither believe in any God or gods. I think people use "agnostic" when they want to sound nicer.

Linda

Well the actual definitions are:

Agnostic (from a-gnosis ...Without knowledge)  one who neither believes nor disbelieves.

Atheist (from a-theist ...Without a god) one who believes that there are no gods.