Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Bat-Mite]

Which is why it is safe...

Because if a religious person says 'what do you believe' and you say 'I don't know', then you are not argueing against them. Your just not argueing. And the same if an Atheist asks that question.

You have basically removed yourself from the arguement.

It's not the only 'defendable' stance... A because both Atheists and Religious people are perfectly capable of defending theirs. But also because it's not a belief at all.

I was Agnostic for a long time because I felt I didn't know enough to say for certain God doesn't exist.

There is one important fact that changed my mind.

The Bible was written by a bunch of men, over 2000 years ago. Before that, most people believed in many Gods.

But both of those 'ideas' came from man. From human brains. From imagination and a primitive form of reasoning in order to explain how the world works, BEFORE we had science to actually show us without just guessing.

And that tells me, that this idea that people came up with a long time ago is just that - and idea. A very very outdated idea, that for some reason people cling to desperately.

Because it's easier to just imagine a man who takes care of everything than accept that in the development of our society and our knowledge, we have found out the truth of how the world works.

It's not removing yourself from the argument at all. If anything, you're more likely to get attacked from BOTH sides. The Christian will say, "Well, that won't save you from hell. God doesn't like the lukewarm." And the atheist will likewise call the agnostic a fence sitter and a coward and go on about how there's no need to even entertain the idea that gods could exist. I'm generalizing here, but this is what agnostics go through and there's no security to it.

I'm an agnostic because I don't think it's any more rational to declare that there is no God (or gods) than it is to declare that there is one. Being influenced by Buddhism, I tend to reject extremes in most cases and go for the middle ground. In this situation where neither side has evidence to prove their point, it seems a logical stance. Disproving a dogma is hardly the same thing as disproving the concept of deities all together. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Yes, these concepts of Osiris and Zeus and the Christian god are extremely primitive, but that doesn't negate the possibility of there being some form of higher intelligence in the universe that surpasses these concepts.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I have no issue with accepting that there are things that perhaps we are too primitive to have discovered yet.

But I don't see the possibility that this human idea that has been concieved, might just coincidentally turn out to be true.

If there are things yet undiscovered, I do not bellieve one of them is the existence of a God or Gods.

That is a very simple human way of dealng with it - giving the forces that govern the world a face and human attributes.

I can accept that there can be energies governing the existence of things, at levels we cannot comprehend yet.

But I do not believe in God. Because God is something humans made up to describe these things, and over the years that image has been warped to suit people.

Therefore I am an atheist.

 

[redhawk23]

I have no issue with accepting that there are things that perhaps we are too primitive to have discovered yet.

But I don't see the possibility that this human idea that has been concieved, might just coincidentally turn out to be true.

If there are things yet undiscovered, I do not bellieve one of them is the existence of a God or Gods.

That is a very simple human way of dealng with it - giving the forces that govern the world a face and human attributes.

I can accept that there can be energies governing the existence of things, at levels we cannot comprehend yet.

But I do not believe in God. Because God is something humans made up to describe these things, and over the years that image has been warped to suit people.

Therefore I am an atheist.

The Bolded: You mean like atoms? Because that is something that just started out as an idea but turned out to be true. It took hundreds of years after someone first thought the earth was spherical for someone to prove it mathmatically, and it was almost 2000 years later that we finally saw it with our own eyes.

For the rest, I am not talking about an anthropormorphized God of our fantasies, of projecting human qualities onto the universe, because I agree with you that is likely nonsense. I simply operate with the understanding that we have no idea what existed before or outside the universe. I don't operate with the assumption that there is something, but I will make no definitive statment that there isnt something. (bearded, robe wearing men are another matter.)



You say I am removing myself from the argument of what I believe. You are correct, because arguing belief is pointless. What I believe is irrelevant in terms of a logical and successful argument. I choose to argue only what I know, which admittedly, just as it is with anyone, is truly limited.

Statments of belief are acceptable, but in general, unless they are about specific things that are provable, beliefs on the whole are no more valid than any others.

You're arguing a subjective understanding. To the best my ability I am arguing what I know to be objectively true, which is the fact that it is true that I do not know.

 

[Dr.]

There's no security or apathy involved in calling yourself an Agnostic. Stating that there is no god is no different than stating that there is.
The only certain logical conclusion that anyone can make is that they don't know. Some can accept the uncertainty of that and accept that until further evidence is found Agnosticism is truly the only fully defendable stance.

In my experience, some self-described agnostics actually haven’t given the question a lot of thought. So they just assume that “agnostic” is the right label. They should probably just say that they haven’t given the question a lot of thought. “Agnosticism” connotes that informed analysis has been undertaken and that “inconclusive” is the verdict.

Your own definition for agnosticism is familiar to me. Would it surprise you to know that it’s also used as one of the definitions of atheism? I.e., given the absence of evidence one way or the other, one adopts a “null position” – non-belief.

Agnosticism is most secure as it relates to the possibility of a vaguely defined “higher power” or deistic god. But I don’t think one can coherently be agnostic towards the Abrahamic god – which is usually the context when the topic is broached.

 

[Dr.]

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

That's not universally true. Depending on the particulars, absence of evidence can - indeed - be evidence of absence.

 

[redhawk23]

Agnosticism is most secure as it relates to the possibility of a vaguely defined “higher power” or deistic god. But I don’t think one can coherently be agnostic towards the Abrahamic god – which is usually context when the topic is broached.

On that we can agree, however I wasnt speaking directly in that context.

 

[Anubis]

http://video.adultswim.com/metalocalypse/atheist-church.html

 

[Bill]

Theres no security or apathay involved in calling yourself an Agnostic. Stating that there is no god is no different than stating that there is.
The only certain logical conclusion that anyone can make as that they dont know. Some can accept the uncertainty of that and accept that until further evidence is found Agnosticism is truly the only fully defendable stance.

Agnosticism isn't a third option between Atheism and Theism. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief. They're two different aspects of the question. You can have a lack of belief due to a lack of knowledge. You can have a belief, but claim no specific knowledge. Agnosticism isn't a third way, it describes the type of Atheist or Theist.

 

[Pink Ranger]

We also need to keep in mind the difference between weak, or passive, agnosticism ("I myself will never know there is a God or not") and strong, or true, agnosticism ("The question of whether there is a God or not cannot be known, so anybody who comes down with certainty on one side or another is full of crap.")

 

[Dr.]

We also need to keep in mind the difference between weak, or passive, agnosticism ("I myself will never know there is a God or not") and strong, or true, agnosticism ("The question of whether there is a God or not cannot be known, so anybody who comes down with certainty on one side or another is full of crap.")

And the difference between positive and negative atheism.


I’m not sure about theism… but many versions of atheism don’t include any sort of logical “certainty” as part of their definitions. So it would be misleading to suggest they fall into the “crap” category for that reason.

To the extent that many atheists are “certain,” this must be read as a “very strong” probability against. Likewise – technically - we must be agnostic about the possibility of leprechauns. But in practice, we’re effectively “certain” that they don’t exist.

 

[Pink Ranger]

And the difference between positive and negative atheism.


I’m not sure about theism… but many versions of atheism don’t include any sort of logical “certainty” as part of their definitions. So it would be misleading to suggest they fall into the “crap” category for that reason.

To the extent that many atheists are “certain,” this must be read as a “very strong” probability against. Likewise – technically - we must be agnostic about the possibility of leprechauns. But in practice, we’re effectively “certain” that they don’t exist.

I don't entirely agree. I think there is a certainty to atheism (there is NOT a god), but the so-called gradiations of atheism are just measurements of whether somebody is a total doosh about it or not.

Like you can be a Red Sox fan without being openly hostile to fans of other teams.

 

[Bill]

I don't entirely agree. I think there is a certainty to atheism (there is NOT a god), but the so-called gradiations of atheism are just measurements of whether somebody is a total doosh about it or not.

Like you can be a Red Sox fan without being openly hostile to fans of other teams.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief, but there is no definitive statement being made until you classify the atheism further as either agnostic or gnostic. Agnostic atheists have a lack of belief and claim no specific knowledge of a god or gods relating to existence or non-existence. They do not believe because they don't know.

Gnostic atheists don't believe and make a negative assertion based on knowledge they possess, either through reason and logic or empirical evidence.

There are different gradations of atheists. Atheism itself is only about a lack of belief. The assertions that are drawn from that lack of belief are based on other factors, such as reasoned argumentation or some degree of evidence the individual claims to possess.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The Bolded: You mean like atoms? Because that is something that just started out as an idea but turned out to be true. It took hundreds of years after someone first thought the earth was spherical for someone to prove it mathmatically, and it was almost 2000 years later that we finally saw it with our own eyes.

For the rest, I am not talking about an anthropormorphized God of our fantasies, of projecting human qualities onto the universe, because I agree with you that is likely nonsense. I simply operate with the understanding that we have no idea what existed before or outside the universe. I don't operate with the assumption that there is something, but I will make no definitive statment that there isnt something. (bearded, robe wearing men are another matter.)

You say I am removing myself from the argument of what I believe. You are correct, because arguing belief is pointless. What I believe is irrelevant in terms of a logical and successful argument. I choose to argue only what I know, which admittedly, just as it is with anyone, is truly limited.

Statments of belief are acceptable, but in general, unless they are about specific things that are provable, beliefs on the whole are no more valid than any others.

You're arguing a subjective understanding. To the best my ability I am arguing what I know to be objectively true, which is the fact that it is true that I do not know.

Look, this arguement between us, and probably a lot of agnostics and atheists is just a matter of definitions.

First of all 'truth' is enitrely debatable. If your really boiling it all down to what you can 'know', taking into account Descartes theory 'I think, therefore I am' the only thing you can know for certain is that YOU exist.

I am choosing too look at the possibility of God in a more tangible, non philosophical way.

Instead of just saying 'well we can't know anything for sure', I'm willing to say 'from what we know, it is logical to conclude there is no God'.

Secondly, define God.

You say that robe wearing bearded men are another matter. Does that mean you would argue against that? Because for some people that IS God.

An athiest is someone who does not believe in a Deity, right? So I guess whether you call yourself one or not is dependant on what you class as a Deity.

I see it as the human idea that the world is ruled by Gods or a God. Multiple or Single consciousnesses who are in control of everything.

I can widen my mind to the possibility, as I say, of forces outside of our comprehension. But 'God' is a made up concept, and all the attributes that different religions assign to their Gods make the idea even less believable.

Now, as to whether the idea of God is comparable to the idea of the Atom, or the world being round, I'd disagree. Those ideas were based on scientific theories. Scientific theories are completely different to religious theories. They require a lot more 'fact' than the suggestion of God ever did.

In fact, if anything, I'd say the idea of God is comparable to the idea of the world being flat. I mean can you imagine how silly it would be if people still believed the world is flat today. Even tho science has come up with other proven explanations. And it's the same as Adam and Eve versus Evolution. Or God creating the world versus the Big Bang.

If the bible said the world was flat and stars where little fireflies in the sky or something, then religious people would cling to that.

At the end of the day, the idea of Deities was developed when there was no other explanation for certain things... And now there is.

So no, I don't think they are real, any more than I accept the possibility that the world may in fact be flat.

 

[Dr.]

Secondly, define God.

You say that robe wearing bearded men are another matter. Does that mean you would argue against that? Because for some people that IS God.

Yes. And yes!

To the question “do you believe in god?” the answer, “define god” might come across as evasive or smart-alecky. But it’s actually a very good response. For example, if god is the “order visible in the Cosmos” then someone like Richard Dawkins believes in god.

Similarly, you really need to pin down what someone means by “atheist” or “agnostic.” Folks could be using different labels to describe exactly the same thing.

 

[redhawk23]

Now, as to whether the idea of God is comparable to the idea of the Atom, or the world being round, I'd disagree. Those ideas were based on scientific theories. Scientific theories are completely different to religious theories. They require a lot more 'fact' than the suggestion of God ever did.

No at one point in time, the idea of atoms was a totaly philosophical thing, long before scientific inquiry was developed. Thats's what I was refering to, not the scientific theory of atoms which came later and later still was proven true.

 

[redhawk23]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief, but there is no definitive statement being made until you classify the atheism further as either agnostic or gnostic. Agnostic atheists have a lack of belief and claim no specific knowledge of a god or gods relating to existence or non-existence. They do not believe because they don't know.

Precisely, which is why I don't understand why agnosticism is considered by some to be "safe." Its just being completley honest, we, anyone, have no specific knowedge.

Anyone making a definitive statement of the existence or non-existenc of God is full of it.

 

[Bubonic]

 

[Manic]

I'm not surprised God has a place in Boca, but I'm disappointed that he thought a timeshare was a good idea.

 

[Anubis]

Well, he is bad with money.

 

[Manic]

Not surprising. He gave his chosen people the only land in the Middle East without any oil under it.

 

[Dr.]

Precisely, which is why I don't understand why agnosticism is considered by some to be "safe." Its just being completely honest, we, anyone, have no specific knowledge.

Anyone making a definitive statement of the existence or non-existence of God is full of it.

I would dispute that – at least semantically.

You're using the term “definitively” in an absolute, mathematical sense that atheists, themselves, don’t espouse in this context. By the same reckoning, we can’t say that leprechauns or Russell’s Teapot definitively don’t exist. But few take a scrupulously agnostic position with respect to these concepts. Typically, we make pragmatic evaluations based on the available evidence (or lack thereof).

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." - adage

 

[Danalys]

that's not just an adage it's the logical fallacy Argument to moderation

 

[Dr.]

that's not just an adage it's the logical fallacy Argument to moderation

Well, expressed colloquially, it's an adage.

But you are correct; it's the Fallacy of the Golden Mean - a recognized logical fallacy.

 

[redhawk23]

Oh I don't question that one is wrong and one right, just that they know it themselves.

 

[redhawk23]

Not surprising. He gave his chosen people the only land in the Middle East without any oil under it.

One of the funnier things I've read lately.