Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 4

[Kent]

Originally Posted by NateHevens

Agnostic Atheist.

Atheist because I do not believe in higher powers. It's not a question of knowledge, but a question of belief, and I don't have any belief.

Agnostic because, at the end of the day, I don't know. Nobody knows. There are many who claim they know, but they don't. I mean... I'm 100% convinced that Yahweh doesn't exist, but with the exception of the infinite regress problem, how can a person completely rule out, for example, Pandeism? Until we actually know what caused the Big Bang, we should not rule anything out.

Hence you have an argument for not knowing.

So I am an Agnostic Atheist.

I find "Agnostic Atheist" to be an ultimately unsatisfying term, because as you say, of course I can't be 100% sure, but adding "Agnostic" doesn't really quantify what percentage I'm really at. If anything, it gives the (rather inaccurate) impression that I think the number is 50%.

I'm certainly closer to 100% than to a 50/50 scenario, so I just stay with "Atheist" because even though "Agnostic Atheist" is technically accurate, it sort of gives the wrong impression of my stance on the matter.

[Nevincer]

Originally Posted by Kent

I find "Agnostic Atheist" to be an ultimately unsatisfying term, because as you say, of course I can't be 100% sure, but adding "Agnostic" doesn't really quantify what percentage I'm really at. If anything, it gives the (rather inaccurate) impression that I think the number is 50%.

I'm certainly closer to 100% than to a 50/50 scenario, so I just stay with "Atheist" because even though "Agnostic Atheist" is technically accurate, it sort of gives the wrong impression of my stance on the matter.

Unfortunately, I think the erroneous assumption that every Atheist is as strong in their position as a fundamentalist is the reason people are so compelled to certify the "Agnostic" part of their belief these days. It's such a stupid thing to entertain, but given the amount of people who do assume this I can see why people do it. People keep forgetting the onus is on the person who asserts the hypothesis, not the one who has a nuetral disbelief.

[NateHevens]

Originally Posted by Kent

I find "Agnostic Atheist" to be an ultimately unsatisfying term, because as you say, of course I can't be 100% sure, but adding "Agnostic" doesn't really quantify what percentage I'm really at. If anything, it gives the (rather inaccurate) impression that I think the number is 50%.

I'm certainly closer to 100% than to a 50/50 scenario, so I just stay with "Atheist" because even though "Agnostic Atheist" is technically accurate, it sort of gives the wrong impression of my stance on the matter.

This is because you are under the impression that agnosticism is somehow a middle ground between atheism and theism, and that it denotes the idea that possibility of God's existence is 50/50. I know the word "agnostic" has been used in that sense in the past, but in reality it is simply a recognition that we have yet to discover the Theory of Everything, and thus don't yet know what caused the Big Bang, and so cannot entirely rule out the (admittedly rather small) probability that it may have been caused by an intelligent higher being.

Truth be told, I hate having to say that I'm an agnostic atheist because I find the word "agnostic" to be redundant. IMO, everyone is agnostic. No one who has ever lived, and who lives now, knows with 100% certainty. Many may claim they do, but they can't. It is impossible with our level of understanding about the universe right now.

I believe it the question will be answered eventually because I do not accept that the question of the existence of a higher power is somehow "outside the purview of science". It is a question about the nature of reality, and thus a question that can be answered scientifically. We simply haven't answered it yet, and it may be a ridiculously long time (perhaps hundreds of generations) before we do.

I simply call myself an "agnostic atheist" so people who only understand atheism through the theistic stereotype can have a slightly better handle on where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by Nevincer

Unfortunately, I think the erroneous assumption that every Atheist is as strong in their position as a fundamentalist is the reason people are so compelled to certify the "Agnostic" part of their belief these days. It's such a stupid thing to entertain, but given the amount of people who do assume this I can see why people do it. People keep forgetting the onus is on the person who asserts the hypothesis, not the one who has a nuetral disbelief.

Which is exactly why I call myself an "agnostic atheist". Because if I just say that I'm an atheist, someone will inevitably ask how I could be so sure that God doesn't exist, and then I have to go on this long tirade about how that's not what atheism is. At least when I say I'm an "agnostic atheist", they're a little more open to understanding.

[Dr.]

^^Well put.

If someone has a clear understanding of the knowledge/belief distinction, the “agnosticism” label is semantically valid. But as you say, many use the term to indicate uncertainty - or a diplomatic/non-confrontational middle ground - between atheism and theism. And I think many religious folks tend to respect “agnosticism” more because it connotes open-mindedness (hey, maybe there’s a chance the agnostic will see the light). They’d be far less sanguine if they understood agnosticism to mean “positively unknowable.” Much of the tolerance towards true agnosticism isn't really earned - it has to do with the ambiguity of the term.

For most other categories of non-belief (e.g., unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts) we have no difficulty being definite - even if, technically, we should be agnostic. But saying we’re agnostic would suggest an equivocation that doesn’t properly reflect our extreme skepticism. Yet when it comes to the god hypothesis, plain communication seems to go out the window. Suddenly, people are lawyers.

[Bat-Mite]

Some of you guys might have already seen this, but I just found out about it tonight. It's a documentary from the early 70's called Marjoe and its subject is a man who was raised by evangelist parents and was basically exploited by them; they trained him to preach by age 4 and his youth was a great moneymaking gimmick for them. The thing is, he's an atheist and always has been, so this documentary is about him using that training to exploit the faithful, but he was getting tired of the act which is why he exposed himself in this doc. Also, some of the ladies in this show have hair taller than the empire state building.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Wiki says this about it:

At the time of the film's release he generated considerable press, but the movie was not shown widely in theaters in the Southern United States, based on the fears of the distributor over the outrage it would cause in the Bible Belt.

I wonder if it means the outrage would have been over the scam he was running, or from all of the evangelists having their scams exposed.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by larryfilmmaker

I agree both atheism and religion can be too extreme, but I don't think atheism breeds hatred or tells you to do horrible things. It doesn't. Just because an atheist is a jerk, that doesn't mean atheism had anything to do with it. However, when a wackjob flies a plane into a building or takes part in some Crusades, I think it's fair to say that religion was a direct influence! So yeah, both can be extreme... but I don't think a belief in nothing is in any way able to be linked to a desire to do horrible things to other people. So while both can be annoying, only one actually tells you to surrender your morals to a "higher" power or code and to give yourself to it's will.

Religion doesn't directly cause people to do evil things, neither does atheism....people do. Religion does give some people a powerful excuse, though. Chances are, if there were no religion, people would still hate and find something else to serve the same purpose.

[Thundercrack85]

I disagree. Without religion we wouldn't be mutilating our own genitalia.

True, people can do evil without religion, but it takes religion to make good men do evil.

[Nevincer]

Religion makes men psychologically subserviant and not trust in themselves. If religion were gone we'd still have evil from egomaniacs most likely, but the latter kind, the brainwashed kind who don't think for themselves but do what they believe a higher being commands, i'm not so sure...

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

I disagree. Without religion we wouldn't be mutilating our own genitalia.

Doesn't mean that something equally as disturbing wouldn't arise elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

True, people can do evil without religion, but it takes religion to make good men do evil.

The constant is humanity and the fact that we...and only we...come up with and practice these things. Religion didn't make the bad things doable, we made religion accept it, because we needed to. That's the part of human nature that needs to be changed, not just taking away what some use as tools for it.

You want to show that atheism is somehow 'above' religion...more sensible and so on? Then show that we can all accept full responsibility for evil...not point to an ideology as the enabler just as you wouldn't to some all-powerful protector. Accept that the problems go much deeper into human issues, and that we all equally share the blame for evil by being human...religion or no religion.

Originally Posted by Nevincer

Religion makes men psychologically subserviant and not trust in themselves. If religion were gone we'd still have evil from egomaniacs most likely, but the latter kind, the brainwashed kind who don't think for themselves but do what they believe a higher being commands, i'm not so sure...

We'd find another way to enable it. That's what we do...if we did it with religion, we could do it with something else.

[Schlosser85]

True, people can do evil without religion, but it takes religion to make good men do evil.

Garbage and you know it perfectly well.

Good people do evil for all kinds of reasons besides religion.

[Thundercrack85]

How exactly? What else would make millions of otherwise rational people do that?

Religion requires, and encourages the suspension of disbelief and critical thinking. If you can't see the destructive behavior that can and has lead to, well, then this is a pointless discussion.

[Schlosser85]

Humans invent religion to explain the universe and justify their behavior. Religion is beside the point, it's human nature at the heart of it.

If it wasn't religion....it'd be something else@!

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Garbage and you know it perfectly well.

Good people do evil for all kinds of reasons besides religion.

By definition, then they would not be good people. Perhaps I should have said "otherwise good people".

[Schlosser85]

Yes. Otherwise.

As in "wise by others".

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Humans invent religion to explain the universe and justify their behavior. Religion is beside the point, it's human nature at the heart of it.

If it wasn't religion....it'd be something else@!

Again, I challenge you to give me another reason why otherwise rational people in this day and age would mutilate their children.

[Schlosser85]

Being religious doesn't make you a bad person.

[Thundercrack85]

I never said that. I just said that it takes religion to make (otherwise) good people do evil.

Or in laymen's terms, it sure helps.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

How exactly? What else would make millions of otherwise rational people do that?

Religion requires, and encourages the suspension of disbelief and critical thinking. If you can't see the destructive behavior that can and has lead to, well, then this is a pointless discussion.

And religion also provides millions of people with peace, good will, and healthy community. It becomes evil when used that way.

Again...we made that. If you're an atheist, then you must believe that it was our doing as flawed beings. It means that something in our nature made us misuse religion in that way. Removing religion from the equation doesn't remove that nature in us...we're both the egg before the chicken and the chicken that laid that egg if you will. If you feel that religion somehow discourages critical thinking, then stop the discouraging critical thinking part. Better yet, stop the part about taking advantage of it. Because if it doesn't happen in religion, it'll happen somewhere else. What would that be? Abolish religion somehow and find out...it shouldn't take long.

By blaming religion, you're giving humanity too much of a pass. Does religion help? Sure...but again, we made it help. So we should be able to stop that instead of sweeping religion under the rug as the scapegoat....if we are in full control of our destiny and morals etc. like atheists claim we are.

[Thundercrack85]

Suggesting religion can be misused, suggests it has a proper function. Obviously for an atheist that's not the case. Any good derived from it is superficial.

But you're right about that. Getting rid of religion, wouldn't solve everything. It's possible something might replace it. Hell, it's even probable. But that's not much of an argument for an atheist.

Religion is just a type of indoctrination. Difference is, we usually agree that the other kinds of indoctrination (i.e. the secular kinds) are bad.

Or just take a religion, and replace the deity's name with that of a man. North Korea has found that very effective.

[Schlosser85]

Existential.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Suggesting religion can be misused, suggests it has a proper function. Obviously for an atheist that's not the case. Any good derived from it is superficial.

To an atheist who looks down on religion, perhaps. But it can also be seen as a choice that one chooses to make or not for their own purposes. I don't think it's crazy to think that many who choose religion aren't specifically looking to 'think less critically or rationally' in life. If something doesn't have value for you, it doesn't mean that it can't possibly have value/function for someone else. And really, how can we say that it serves no valuable purpose for someone else if we're not them?

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

But you're right about that. Getting rid of religion, wouldn't solve everything. It's possible something might replace it. Hell, it's even probable. But that's not much of an argument for an atheist.

It wouldn't solve anything, really. Would people suddenly emerge from some sort of dark cloud and somehow become friendlier, happier, etc? If we were to somehow remove religion from human existence, we'd have to force it out...and hey, that'd speak really well for us, wouldn't it?

Religion would probably be a much nicer thing for a lot of atheists to live alongside of if it weren't practiced by humans....of which atheists are as well.

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Religion is just a type of indoctrination. Difference is, we usually agree that the other kinds of indoctrination (i.e. the secular kinds) are bad.

Or just take a religion, and replace the deity's name with that of a man. North Korea has found that very effective.

Or with future scientific advancement, find a way of actually creating an immortal all-powerfukl being. One that can be proven and agreed to exist...so that religion can point to something tangible and rational, etc.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

I disagree. Without religion we wouldn't be mutilating our own genitalia.

True, people can do evil without religion, but it takes religion to make good men do evil.

Well, I'm not Jewish, but I'm sure a lot of people as babies get that so-called 'useless' skin removed. I've heard it's difficult to keep clean if not cut off as a baby. Or maybe I'm confused and thinking of Catholics...

Anyway, I love seeing this thread alive and well

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

Well, I'm not Jewish, but I'm sure a lot of people as babies get that so-called 'useless' skin removed. I've heard it's difficult to keep clean if not cut off as a baby. Or maybe I'm confused and thinking of Catholics...

Anyway, I love seeing this thread alive and well

It is actually more hygenic, eventually. Just kinda' uncomfortable to think about.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by KalMart

It is actually more hygenic, eventually. Just kinda' uncomfortable to think about.

Nah, I was a baby...I don't remember that.

[Thundercrack85]

Because (to an atheist) it's not real. Yes, it may make some people happy, but you really don't want to go down that road.

Just for the record, I'm not saying being an atheist makes you a good person. Some of the worst atrocities in human history have been committed by atheists. But at least an atheist will never commit an evil act for supernatural reasons.

As for the ultimate outcome... for thousands of years religious people have tried to wipe each other (and non-believers) out. Fortunately, their destructive capabilities were limited for most of history. But now that we have harnessed weapons of mass destruction. Well, in the end, either religion goes, or we all go.