Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[StarvingArtist]

Atheism itself requires quite a bit of faith. Agnostic is the way to be.

 

[Bat-Mite]

We already had this conversation just a couple of pages back. I hope this topic doesn't devolve into someone posting that statement (or a slight variation of it) every other page and thinking that they've said something new, witty, and profound.

 

[StarvingArtist]

We already had this conversation just a couple of pages back. I hope this topic doesn't devolve into someone posting that statement (or a slight variation of it) every other page and thinking that they've said something new, witty, and profound.

I figured it had already been said. Had I known I'd get such a smug response I would have elaborated. Atheism makes just as much of an assumption about the universe as Theism. There's nothing profound or witty about that, it's just a fact. Atheism is usually built on a foundation of contemporary scientific knowledge, Theism on gut feeling and emotion. Both have proven inadequate to fully explain the true nature of the universe, so why blindly believe either one?

 

[Sloth7d]

There's so much wrong with what you just said.

 

[Cuyan]

I don't see what's "wrong" with it at all.

 

[Alex Summers]

I think science has done a damn fine job in explaining the universe. It hasn't offered anything like a universal truth or why we're here, but I don't think that will ever be the case. I do think that science, and biblical studies, has shown that an anthromorphic semitic tribal deity named Yahweh or "I am" doesn't exist.

I'm an ignostic. For the people who don't know what ignosticism is here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

[Sloth7d]

I don't see what's "wrong" with it at all.

Other than comparing the discoveries to science with that of a gut feeling, or to say to accept the findings of science is a sort blind faith? Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Perhaps to do so without knowing the method to how scientist go about unconvering facts would be blind faith, but then his already generalized remark about atheists would become even more generalized to assume they don't. Thus, him making such a self-sure, all-encompassing statement without anything backing him but first hand experience becomes ironic considering the point he tries to make about agnosticism "being the way to go". Though that is weird to say anyway, since it's not like a person can't be an agnostic atheist.

 

[Cuyan]

I think we may have read it differently. Your interpretation seems to imply some kind of superiority. I did not read it that way.

Your reply is incredibly snide and scoffing, I don't feel there is any reason for that.

 

[Sloth7d]

"Agnostic is the way to be?" That is a "superiority claim."

 

[Cuyan]

I was referring to the post preceding your original statement.

However, his "superiority" statement doesn't ring as high-minded as yours. It reads more like a flippant statement made by someone not getting involved in a futile debate over personal beliefs.

Your response reads as personal antagonism as opposed to intellectual response.

 

[Marvin]

I don’t think religion starts out as myth or literature and then transforms. It typically starts out (oddly enough) as “science” – an attempt to explain the natural world and the mystery of death. Subsequently, the mythological narratives are grafted onto the “science.”

Most myths or rather early myths before they became "commercialized" if you will were creation myths. Explaining say where the Sun came from, or why the seasons changed. I assume that's what you mean by early science.

Either way my comparison stems from the confusion I have over why some people would put more faith in one over the other. I mean what is it exactly that differentiates them, by our modern calculus that is. After studying religions for a little while now I find (not to offend anyone) them of having so much opportunity to be man made that I really am at a loss as to why they are given more credence then divinity myths that came before. Especially Islam, a beautiful story of the mans life but no more so than say Genghis Khan who also walked around telling people about his divinity.

Abrahamic faiths have something going on, anyone have any insight?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think that the Abrahamic faiths have good things going on. Christianity's central message is to treat others how you wish to be treated. Islam is to help people and Judaism is be a good person or a vengeful God will destroy you, or the entire world again. Taken at face value, they are tales of morality, but I just don't see anymore than that to them.

 

[Bill]

I was referring to the post preceding your original statement.

However, his "superiority" statement doesn't ring as high-minded as yours. It reads more like a flippant statement made by someone not getting involved in a futile debate over personal beliefs.

Your response reads as personal antagonism as opposed to intellectual response.

If you want an intellectual response, Agnosticism isn't some third option that speaks of a more refined and open-minded viewpoint concerning the existence of God. It exists as one facet of the question, namely the knowledge concerning that God. Atheism is about the lack of belief in that God. The atheist often lacks belief because they are agnostic(or gnostic, depending on the atheist).

The only way to make some definitive statement about how much faith is required of an atheist's position is to ask the atheist to detail their position. Otherwise you have no business making ignorant statements based on assumptions about Atheism that are wrong from the beginning.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you want an intellectual response, Agnosticism isn't some third option that speaks of a more refined and open-minded viewpoint concerning the existence of God. It exists as one facet of the question, namely the knowledge concerning that God. Atheism is about the lack of belief in that God. The atheist often lacks belief because they are agnostic(or gnostic, depending on the atheist).

The only way to make some definitive statement about how much faith is required of an atheist's position is to ask the atheist to detail their position. Otherwise you have no business making ignorant statements based on assumptions about Atheism that are wrong from the beginning.

Thank you! Finally someone points out the real definition of agnostic and atheist.

 

[Dr.]

I think the agnostic objection to atheism is based (at least in part) on a pedantically precise standard of logic and “absolute certainty.” That’s fine – except that in normal and pragmatic discourse, few concepts are held to such scrupulously exacting standards.

For example, non-belief in leprechauns is a reasonably uncontroversial claim. It means that the existence of leprechauns is rejected due to an overwhelming lack of physical evidence. In the highly unlikely event that a village of these little folk is discovered tomorrow, non-belief will simply become belief. In the meantime, few of us will bother with the affected (though technically accurate) “leprechaun agnostic” label. Yet when it comes to the question of gods, the philosophical pedantry comes out in full force.

Put it this way: to the extent that we must be agnostic about gods, we should – likewise – not claim practical certainty about anything.

 

[Lighthouse]

I believe Dawkins referred to it as "temporary agnostic in practice".

 

[Alex Summers]

It might be pretty cool if the Hype created a religion forum under the SHH Community section . We already have a politics section, so a religion forum could work out. The problem, though, is if it's created it might get pretty nasty.

I'll write a mod and see if it's possible.

 

[Dr.]

I believe Dawkins referred to it as "temporary agnostic in practice".

That’s part of it.

Dawkins fashioned a 7-point scale of belief. A “1” is absolute certainty that there is a god; a “7” is absolute certainty that there’s not. In between are the shades of grey – with strong to mild belief at one end, fully neutral “temporary agnosticism in practice” in the middle and mild to strong skepticism at the other.

Dawkins assumes that “1’s” exist but questions whether there are any “7’s”. He looks at the issue from a scientific perspective and he says that science only deals with probabilities (albeit, often very high probabilities) – but never absolute certainties. Therefore, he puts himself at a “6.x”. Effectively – for all intents and purposes – he’s an atheist. But if you want to get persnickety and technical about definitions, he’s an agnostic.

Those who praise agnosticism and denigrate atheism as “faith” are not, I submit, acknowledging the subtleties and ambiguities that exist within the terminologies.

 

[GhostPoet]

I think that the Abrahamic faiths have good things going on. Christianity's central message is to treat others how you wish to be treated. Islam is to help people and Judaism is be a good person or a vengeful God will destroy you, or the entire world again. Taken at face value, they are tales of morality, but I just don't see anymore than that to them.

Not just treat othters as you would want to be treated. Jesus explained that the most important of his teachings was to love and forgive others with your whole heart.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The issue with theism is that people claim to know the will of said god. If everyone was deist, there wouldn't be any religious conflict.

People seem to conflate being atheist with being anti-theist. It's not by definition. It's being without religion.

Most people are atheist one way or another. Do Christians worry about what Lord Krishna thinks? No. Because they are atheists towards Hinduism.

 

[redhawk23]

I think science has done a damn fine job in explaining the universe. It hasn't offered anything like a universal truth or why we're here, but I don't think that will ever be the case. I do think that science, and biblical studies, has shown that an anthromorphic semitic tribal deity named Yahweh or "I am" doesn't exist.

I'm an ignostic. For the people who don't know what ignosticism is here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

You see that assumes that there is a "why" or that there is meaning for existence. That may not be the case at all. Does anything really have meaning that we don't assign? Not a cause or effect or an if/therefore relationship but actual inherent meaning?

 

[redhawk23]

I figured it had already been said. Had I known I'd get such a smug response I would have elaborated. Atheism makes just as much of an assumption about the universe as Theism. There's nothing profound or witty about that, it's just a fact. Atheism is usually built on a foundation of contemporary scientific knowledge, Theism on gut feeling and emotion. Both have proven inadequate to fully explain the true nature of the universe, so why blindly believe either one?

Everyone Chillax. What he was getting at is if you back a few pages or so, or a few pages before that, or a few pages before that you'd see several arguments that "agnosticism" isn't actually a third option at all. Agnosticism is just not claiming to know for certain the nature or existence of god. Saying "I believe in God." is not the same as "There is a God" as definitive statement just as there is no direct correlation between saying "I don't believe in God" and "There definitely is not a God." Basically "agnostic" is just a modifier. Just as there have been "gnostic christians' who claim to have definitive knowledge of the existence of god, there are "agnostic christians" who believe but accept that they don't "know." Colloquially though we don't use the term in this way, but from a philosophical stand point "agnosticism" is not a statement of belief or non belief.

 

[Alex Summers]

You see that assumes that there is a "why" or that there is meaning for existence. That may not be the case at all. Does anything really have meaning that we don't assign? Not a cause or effect or an if/therefore relationship but actual inherent meaning?

Redhawk23,

You make a good point. I made an assumption about "why" we're here without really thinking about it. There's a strong possibility that life has no purpose, and the meaning of existance is nothing.

 

[Dr.]

There's a strong possibility that life has no purpose, and the meaning of existence is nothing.

“If nothing we do matters… then all that matters is what we do.” – Angel

 

[chaseter]

There's a strong possibility that life has no purpose, and the meaning of existance is nothing.

I believe that is called depression.