Abortion

[The Cummunist State]

Although I still think that the reason for the differences in opinion on abortion is rooted in the different sources of morality, it seems that at least one woman claims to have a philosophical argument that should convince both atheists and theists here.

Second premise: Every unborn child is a person.
I stopped reading after that. Fetuses are not people. They are fetuses.

[Camicon]

God did not say that, or put it in the Old Testament. Moses said it (Moses =/= God), and the other Israelites put it in the Old Testament.

You shouldn't have made assumptions and blown up at him for something he neither said, nor implied.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Thus, atheist's share a belief that there is no God. I call it a belief, because they cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. In much the same way those of faith believe in their God/gods despite lack of tangible scientific proof, nobody has yet to tangibly or scientifically disprove the existence of a God/gods. Atheists have faith that there is no "higher power", or what have you. Yes, they base their faith on science, but that science has not conclusively disproven the lack of a God. Thus, they base their beliefs on something that has not been proven by science, thus: faith, and consequently, belief.

The Bible is not an argument against religion, Silly. Many religions agree that God did not create man with original sin, but that sin was introduced to man after he has been created (Such a view is purely subjective to the religion under purview, however, and so using such a varied perspective on the origin of man as an argument against the Bible is utter foolishness).
Now, It is stated in the Bible that God flooded the Earth because humanity, with the exception of Noah and his family, was corrupt. Now, this does make God seem like an asshole. However, stating your disbelief in God, and then using an act of God as an argument against religion, is really quite childish. If God does not exist, how did he flood the Earth? If he did not flood the Earth, why do you use that to paint God as a dickwad?
That being said, Noah's flood is easily reconciled with religion and science. Is is agreed upon by many a religion, that God does not exert such an extreme influence on world, to the extent of flooding it. However, at the time Noah's flood occurred (there is scientific evidence to support the occurrence of Noah's flood, though not a world-wide flood as is suggested by the Bible) the people in the region in which is occurred were very religious (everybody was, back in those days). They wondered why God would flood their world (in reality, only a very, very, very small portion of the world. Unfortunately, that part in which they happened to live) and so they came upon the conclusion that mankind (as far as they knew, they were the entirety of mankind) must have been corrupt, and that God was purging them because they had fallen from goodness. Thus, this explanation helped explain a catastrophic event in their lives, and was subsequently included in their religious works.

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

Anything else?

Bahaha! You didn't even read the dictionary you went to! Wow. That gave me a laugh, I needed that.
No, disbelief isn't a belief something doesn't exist. And their disbelief is not necessarily because of science. There are many many other reasons. The fact is, disbelieving in a god has no burden of proof. It's not asserting anything except "I do not believe a god exists."
Also, you still keep assuming god exists in your arguments and that the bible is wrong and yadadadad. So I'm just ignoring that entire last half as preaching "OHhohohoh but god loves you so he exists and abortion is wrooong hohohohooo"

I do have to ask one thing, though. If all of that shit is metaphores, why couldn't the god speak some fucking clear words? Or better yet, just put "E=mc squared" in the bible. That'd be some good proof. But then, why doesn't he just reveal himself? His goal, after all, is to get humans to heaven.

Part of continuing an intelligent debate is responding with, at the very least, a reply that addresses what you were responding to. I prefer addressing responses that are coherent, and well-thought out. But beggars can't be choosers, now can they? Thank goodness I'm not a beggar.

A fetus is a Human at the moment of conception, PROVED BY SCIENTIST, Abortion is only legal in my country if the mother is in danger, otherwise, is illegal

Prove it.

He is speaking from the position of his NationStates nation, methinks.

Although I still think that the reason for the differences in opinion on abortion is rooted in the different sources of morality, it seems that at least one woman claims to have a philosophical argument that should convince both atheists and theists here.

Second premise: Every unborn child is a person.
I stopped reading after that. Fetuses are not people. They are fetuses.

How can you make informed decisions on a subject without knowing both sides of the argument? Actively blocking out any discussion with the opposing side only breeds ignorance and intolerance.

[The Cummunist State]

-snip-

If you start by assuming a point that is not confirmed to be true, such as god exists, or fetuses are people, then the entire argument is moot and useless until that assumption is proven true. Basic logic here.
Also, I love it. "You didn't even respond to me."
Even though you ignored me whenever I said you were wrong about the definition of Atheism, and in fact further provided evidence for me with the dictionary. And you ignored even my question.

[Camicon]

-snip-

If you start by assuming a point that is not confirmed to be true, such as god exists, or fetuses are people, then the entire argument is moot and useless until that assumption is proven true. Basic logic here.
Also, I love it. "You didn't even respond to me."
Even though you ignored me whenever I said you were wrong about the definition of Atheism, and in fact further provided evidence for me with the dictionary. And you ignored even my question.

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

Bahaha! You didn't even read the dictionary you went to! Wow. That gave me a laugh, I needed that.
No, disbelief isn't a belief something doesn't exist. And their disbelief is not necessarily because of science. There are many many other reasons. The fact is, disbelieving in a god has no burden of proof. It's not asserting anything except "I do not believe a god exists."
Also, you still keep assuming god exists in your arguments and that the bible is wrong and yadadadad. So I'm just ignoring that entire last half as preaching "OHhohohoh but god loves you so he exists and abortion is wrooong hohohohooo"

I do have to ask one thing, though. If all of that shit is metaphores, why couldn't the god speak some fucking clear words? Or better yet, just put "E=mc squared" in the bible. That'd be some good proof. But then, why doesn't he just reveal himself? His goal, after all, is to get humans to heaven.

Part of continuing an intelligent debate is responding with, at the very least, a reply that addresses what you were responding to. I prefer addressing responses that are coherent, and well-thought out. But beggars can't be choosers, now can they? Thank goodness I'm not a beggar.

Second premise: Every unborn child is a person.
I stopped reading after that. Fetuses are not people. They are fetuses.

How can you make informed decisions on a subject without knowing both sides of the argument? Actively blocking out any discussion with the opposing side only breeds ignorance and intolerance.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If you start by assuming a point that is not confirmed to be true, such as god exists, or fetuses are people, then the entire argument is moot and useless until that assumption is proven true. Basic logic here.
Also, I love it. "You didn't even respond to me."
Even though you ignored me whenever I said you were wrong about the definition of Atheism, and in fact further provided evidence for me with the dictionary. And you ignored even my question.

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

Cami, if I may say so, many atheists would disagree with your assertion of them holding a belief. Many lack belief.

[Camicon]

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

Cami, if I may say so, many atheists would disagree with your assertion of them holding a belief. Many lack belief.

Yes, they would, and I would tell them it's merely a matter of perspective.
They hold the opinion that there is no God, no gods. And yet they have no evidence, no scientific proof, to prove that God, or any god, doesn't exist. They hold their opinion despite a lack of evidence to support. Much the same as people of faith, who believe in their respective deities despite the fact that there is no proof they exist.

[The Cummunist State]

If you start by assuming a point that is not confirmed to be true, such as god exists, or fetuses are people, then the entire argument is moot and useless until that assumption is proven true. Basic logic here.
Also, I love it. "You didn't even respond to me."
Even though you ignored me whenever I said you were wrong about the definition of Atheism, and in fact further provided evidence for me with the dictionary. And you ignored even my question.

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

Part of continuing an intelligent debate is responding with, at the very least, a reply that addresses what you were responding to. I prefer addressing responses that are coherent, and well-thought out. But beggars can't be choosers, now can they? Thank goodness I'm not a beggar.


How can you make informed decisions on a subject without knowing both sides of the argument? Actively blocking out any discussion with the opposing side only breeds ignorance and intolerance.

It's brilliant that you still refuse to admit you're wrong about Atheist's lack of belief. I'm not moving forward until you explain your reasoning behind "No, see, all Atheists are strong Atheists because I said so."
And as I said, god exists, and fetuses are people are faulty premises. They have not been proven and therefore the argument can be discarded. We might as well argue about who would win in a fight between captain Kirk and Mario.

[IshCong]

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

Cami, if I may say so, many atheists would disagree with your assertion of them holding a belief. Many lack belief.

And here to support that statement...yours truly.
Atheism isn't so much a belief, as it is a lack of unwarranted belief in things that are entirely unproven.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Cami, if I may say so, many atheists would disagree with your assertion of them holding a belief. Many lack belief.

Yes, they would, and I would tell them it's merely a matter of perspective.
They hold the opinion that there is no God, no gods. And yet they have no evidence, no scientific proof, to prove that God, or any god, doesn't exist. They hold their opinion despite a lack of evidence to support. Much the same as people of faith, who believe in their respective deities despite the fact that there is no proof they exist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Just saying. Yes, to some it may be a matter of perspective. Still saying that atheists believe, in such broad terms, is wrong. Especially when the definition says otherwise.

I can see your point, I am trying to be specific though.

[Camicon]

Nonononono.

You see, you made false accusations about the Bible (mainly Moses, and Noah's flood), which I attempted to correct.
Then I went on to say that, in absence of proof that God/gods doesn't/don't exist, atheists hold a belief. They can not know that a deity/ies don't exist, as they have no proof to support their position. Thus, they hold a belief that there is no "higher power".

You responded by not reading (at least, not understanding) what I typed, confessed to not ignoring half of what i said, and then started asking me questions about God (if you want to ask someone questions, then go to a priest. I'm not a man of God).

It's brilliant that you still refuse to admit you're wrong about Atheist's lack of belief. I'm not moving forward until you explain your reasoning behind "No, see, all Atheists are strong Atheists because I said so."
And as I said, god exists, and fetuses are people are faulty premises. They have not been proven and therefore the argument can be discarded. We might as well argue about who would win in a fight between captain Kirk and Mario.

See, Cummunist, this is why I can't debate with you. I've explained my reasoning many times, and if you'll look to the two posts above, Nanatsu had no trouble understanding what I was saying.

I have not said God/any gods exist, nor have I said that fetus' are people. Nor have I made that argument in my discussion with you.

[IshCong]

Cami, if I may say so, many atheists would disagree with your assertion of them holding a belief. Many lack belief.

Yes, they would, and I would tell them it's merely a matter of perspective.
They hold the opinion that there is no God, no gods. And yet they have no evidence, no scientific proof, to prove that God, or any god, doesn't exist. They hold their opinion despite a lack of evidence to support. Much the same as people of faith, who believe in their respective deities despite the fact that there is no proof they exist.

Firstly, burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Honestly now.
Secondly, get a faith system that isn't inherently unfalsifiable, and they'll probably disprove it. Rely on a system that is incapable of being proven wrong due to structural reasons, and it is rather hard to prove it wrong.

[The Cummunist State]

It's brilliant that you still refuse to admit you're wrong about Atheist's lack of belief. I'm not moving forward until you explain your reasoning behind "No, see, all Atheists are strong Atheists because I said so."
And as I said, god exists, and fetuses are people are faulty premises. They have not been proven and therefore the argument can be discarded. We might as well argue about who would win in a fight between captain Kirk and Mario.

See, Cummunist, this is why I can't debate with you. I've explained my reasoning many times, and if you'll look to the two posts above, Nanatsu had no trouble understanding what I was saying.

I have not said God/any gods exist, nor have I said that fetus' are people. Nor have I made that argument in my discussion with you.

You are arguing that my dismissal of arguments based on faulty premises is incorrect. That is why I brought it up. Please grow a attention span.
And you said that all Atheists believe there is no god. This is false and insulting. And you refuse to say why you believe that.
Let me explain one more time what Atheism is, and what strong Atheism is.
Atheism, is not believing a god exists.
Strong Atheism, is believing no god exists.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, they would, and I would tell them it's merely a matter of perspective.
They hold the opinion that there is no God, no gods. And yet they have no evidence, no scientific proof, to prove that God, or any god, doesn't exist. They hold their opinion despite a lack of evidence to support. Much the same as people of faith, who believe in their respective deities despite the fact that there is no proof they exist.

Firstly, burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Honestly now.
Secondly, get a faith system that isn't inherently unfalsifiable, and they'll probably disprove it. Rely on a system that is incapable of being proven wrong due to structural reasons, and it is rather hard to prove it wrong.

He isn't, for what I can see, attacking either system.

[IshCong]

Firstly, burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Honestly now.
Secondly, get a faith system that isn't inherently unfalsifiable, and they'll probably disprove it. Rely on a system that is incapable of being proven wrong due to structural reasons, and it is rather hard to prove it wrong.

He isn't, for what I can see, attacking either system.

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

[Camicon]

Yes, they would, and I would tell them it's merely a matter of perspective.
They hold the opinion that there is no God, no gods. And yet they have no evidence, no scientific proof, to prove that God, or any god, doesn't exist. They hold their opinion despite a lack of evidence to support. Much the same as people of faith, who believe in their respective deities despite the fact that there is no proof they exist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Just saying. Yes, to some it may be a matter of perspective. Still saying that atheists believe, in such broad terms, is wrong. Especially when the definition says otherwise.

I can see your point, I am trying to be specific though.

And I understand where you're coming from. This is the major reason, I think, that the debate between theists and atheists will never be resolved. Both sides hold a belief (a "state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true") that God/gods either do exist, or don't exist. Neither side can provide irrefutable evidence to prove that their belief is true, or that the other side is wrong.

Perhaps it is incorrect of me to say "atheists" while I'm making this argument. What I mean, when I say "atheist" is "someone who disbelieves that God/gods exist".

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

He isn't, for what I can see, attacking either system.

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

As I said, I understand the point. However, one needs to consider how both sides think. One beliefs while the other, broadly, centers on a rejection of belief (yes, I am aware that there is implicit and explicit atheism, and that not all atheists think the same). And yes, I do understand that it is a faulty way to set an argument.

But, in my experience, atheism and theism aren't the topic of this thread. It would be good if we could get back to the topic of abortion.

[IshCong]

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

As I said, I understand the point. However, one needs to consider how both sides think. One beliefs while the other, broadly, centers on a rejection of belief (yes, I am aware that there is implicit and explicit atheism, and that not all atheists think the same). And yes, I do understand that it is a faulty way to set an argument.

But, in my experience, atheism and theism aren't the topic of this thread. It would be good if we could get back to the topic of abortion.

Well, yeah, but isn't there like, a quota for threadjacks we have to meet first?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Just saying. Yes, to some it may be a matter of perspective. Still saying that atheists believe, in such broad terms, is wrong. Especially when the definition says otherwise.

I can see your point, I am trying to be specific though.

And I understand where you're coming from. This is the major reason, I think, that the debate between theists and atheists will never be resolved. Both sides hold a belief (a "state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true") that God/gods either do exist, or don't exist. Neither side can provide irrefutable evidence to prove that their belief is true, or that the other side is wrong.

Perhaps it is incorrect of me to say "atheists" while I'm making this argument. What I mean, when I say "atheist" is "someone who disbelieves that God/gods exist".

I can see the point you're trying to establish, Cami. No worries. All I was trying was to save you from having to explain yourself over and over again if and when someone who's an atheist comes into this thread and sees your assertion and disagrees with it. I'm not saying you're wrong about the rest of your argument, maybe not put in the best way, but I'm not disagreeing.

[Camicon]

He isn't, for what I can see, attacking either system.

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

You can disprove many parts of a religion, but you cannot disprove the existence of God, or a god.
Nor can you prove the existence of God, or a god.

To hold an opinion on the subject of theism, on must have a certain degree of faith.
Either you have faith that there is no higher power (basing this on logic and reason, though no scientific proof), or you have faith that there is a higher power. Believing in the former shows a degree of rationality. Believing in the latter shows only blind faith. But because the existence of a higher power can neither be proven, nor disproven, to hold an opinion on the subject requires you to base said opinion on something other then irrefutable evidence. To base an opinion on something other then evidence is to show faith.

[Pilgrims]

Although I still think that the reason for the differences in opinion on abortion is rooted in the different sources of morality, it seems that at least one woman claims to have a philosophical argument that should convince both atheists and theists here.

Second premise: Every unborn child is a person.
I stopped reading after that. Fetuses are not people. They are fetuses.

Please explain this to me... Yes, not all foetuses are people. Some are cats or dogs or whatever. But human foetuses are people. Unless babies are not people? Or todlers are not people? Or children are not people? Or teenagers are not people? How does your developmental stage make you not a human being (= singular of people)?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As I said, I understand the point. However, one needs to consider how both sides think. One beliefs while the other, broadly, centers on a rejection of belief (yes, I am aware that there is implicit and explicit atheism, and that not all atheists think the same). And yes, I do understand that it is a faulty way to set an argument.

But, in my experience, atheism and theism aren't the topic of this thread. It would be good if we could get back to the topic of abortion.

Well, yeah, but isn't there like, a quota for threadjacks we have to meet first?

Maybe. I don't really know.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

You can disprove many parts of a religion, but you cannot disprove the existence of God, or a god.
Nor can you prove the existence of God, or a god.

To hold an opinion on the subject of theism, on must have a certain degree of faith.
Either you have faith that there is no higher power (basing this on logic and reason, though no scientific proof), or you have faith that there is a higher power. Believing in the former shows a degree of rationality. Believing in the latter shows only blind faith. But because the existence of a higher power can neither be proven, nor disproven, to hold an opinion on the subject requires you to base said opinion on something other then irrefutable evidence. To base an opinion on something other then evidence is to show faith.

Then explain agnosticism to me, please.

[Camicon]

And I understand where you're coming from. This is the major reason, I think, that the debate between theists and atheists will never be resolved. Both sides hold a belief (a "state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true") that God/gods either do exist, or don't exist. Neither side can provide irrefutable evidence to prove that their belief is true, or that the other side is wrong.

Perhaps it is incorrect of me to say "atheists" while I'm making this argument. What I mean, when I say "atheist" is "someone who disbelieves that God/gods exist".

I can see the point you're trying to establish, Cami. No worries. All I was trying was to save you from having to explain yourself over and over again if and when someone who's an atheist comes into this thread and sees your assertion and disagrees with it. I'm not saying you're wrong about the rest of your argument, maybe not put in the best way, but I'm not disagreeing.

I've resigned myself to the fact that atheists don't agree with my perspective of them, Nana.
You're right, I could have been a little clearer, but learning is a process, and hopefully I'll be a little more eloquent in the future.

[IshCong]

I'm pointing out why calling atheism a belief system due to an inability to disprove a faith system isn't really accurate.
The former point is showing that atheists simply have not made the positive belief motion of theists, ie believing in a god.
The latter point shows why many faiths have not been proven false. They're structured in a way as to be unfalsifiable, making disproving them nigh impossible.

You can disprove many parts of a religion, but you cannot disprove the existence of God, or a god.
Nor can you prove the existence of God, or a god.

To hold an opinion on the subject of theism, on must have a certain degree of faith.
Either you have faith that there is no higher power (basing this on logic and reason, though no scientific proof), or you have faith that there is a higher power. Believing in the former shows a degree of rationality. Believing in the latter shows only blind faith. But because the existence of a higher power can neither be proven, nor disproven, to hold an opinion on the subject requires you to base said opinion on something other then irrefutable evidence. To base an opinion on something other then evidence is to show faith.

There is no evidence for god. Therefore, I do not believe in god.
But no belief does not equal faith in an opposite. It means what it means, no belief in a given quantity.
A lack of belief is based on evidence, which currently suggests nothing either way, thanks to a deity being conveniently unfalsifiable.

[Camicon]

You can disprove many parts of a religion, but you cannot disprove the existence of God, or a god.
Nor can you prove the existence of God, or a god.

To hold an opinion on the subject of theism, on must have a certain degree of faith.
Either you have faith that there is no higher power (basing this on logic and reason, though no scientific proof), or you have faith that there is a higher power. Believing in the former shows a degree of rationality. Believing in the latter shows only blind faith. But because the existence of a higher power can neither be proven, nor disproven, to hold an opinion on the subject requires you to base said opinion on something other then irrefutable evidence. To base an opinion on something other then evidence is to show faith.

Then explain agnosticism to me, please.

A lack of belief or disbelief either way. Holding no opinion on the subject of existence of a higher power.