Atheism & agnosticism

[Snide]

I guess that puts me in the same boat as you. Although I am in the "I have no belief in the gods described by the present/popular definitions" deck of the boat.

I believe that the gods of the present religions almost certainly do not exist because of the contradictory, biased, and simplistic nature of thier definitions.

I only have the belief in the *possibility* of something that could be considered a "god" or "supreme force" or "initiating element". or at least something that is self-determining and self-aware and far more complex than us or the univers.

Yeah, I think that's pretty well-said.

In that context, I see myself as atheist to every god I've been made aware of. I'm agnostic to any other possible supernatural entity (or just beyond our species' capability of understanding naturally). Pretty much the same thing you said, I think.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I submit to you that we can't know if there is a deity. Until you get in a spaceship and explore the entire known universe searching for a supreme deity, then you can't know if there is one or not. If you do this search, then return to earth and pronounce that there is no deity to be found, then I will become an atheist. Until then, agnosticism is the proper way to think. Without doing this search while proclaiming atheism, clearly turns it into a religious belief. You have to admit you can't know if you don't do a search. And with such a very structurally complex place such as the universe, you can't outright dismiss the work of some unknown deity without conducting a full search.

Is my thinking incorrect in some way?

Yes, totally. Am I supposed to believe that if I embarked on a cruise with a spaceship and landed on planet X-Alpha-42, I might - just might - find something that you call "a supreme deity" there? Maybe I don't even need to embark on a journey like that, and such a supreme deity thing is hiding right underneath my keyboard, huh?

Sorry, but no.


I know full well that whatever I could possibly discover within this universe will not ever pass muster as a God. I sort of do have a hunch that the standard religious claims and beliefs are in agreement with me here.

And when it comes to things that are supposedly indicative of a God ... well, for some of it I wouldn't even have to leave the room. Here is a google search for "pretty flowers:"
http://www.google.de/images?q=pretty flowers

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have to disagree with that analogy. Both sides (atheists and theists) fail to prove their hypothesis (existence or absence of a God) under the scientific method. A better analogy I would use is that paper and adhesive and ink exist. Atheists would say that it is not possible to make a stamp and stamps could not exist. I say there is no evidence of stamps but they could exist.

What about invisible pink unicorns? Or better yet, colorless green ideas?

IPeople come to you and point to the vast, complex universe and say..'A god-like supreme being created that". You say.."No", no such being!". Despite a vast, structurally complex piece of evidence, you still say "No, absolutely not"? That's incorrect logical thinking, I say.

What I, the agnostic, say is.."Maybe you're right, but I'm from Missouri and you have to show me this guy". Until then here's what I, dare I say, believe..

Let me ask you a different question. By "this guy" you mean what, exactly? And by "this guy" "created that" you mean what exactly?

After all, you consider it to be perfectly possible, no?


What I can say is that I have little idea what "A god-like supreme being created that" is supposed to mean. At all. And without such an idea I could not ever identify anything *out there* with that idea.

Well, you've heard the saying about a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters and eventually out come the works of Shakespeare? I like to think of the universe as trillions of chemical and physical interactions happening over billions of years and eventually you get the now known universe.

I don't think this is relevant. I do not think I need to have an explanation for the universe in order to be an atheist. I cannot explain lots of things. And "Gods" do not ameliorate that situation one bit. Often enough the best you can hope for is the illusion of an explanation.

 

[easycruise]

Strawman.

Strawman.

That's incorrect logical thinking, I say.

No, they are called "allegory" to explain my point in this debate. It's disappointing that many people on JREF will refuse to debate the point and reduce themselves to throwing barbs incorrectly.

 

[Malerin]

Yes. The mistake you make a is common one. Atheism and agnosticism do not lie on the same continuum, they are two entirely separate things. The atheism/theism/deism scale addresses what you actually believe, the gnosticism/agnosticism addresses what you think it is possible to know. Being agnostic in no way affects whether you are an atheist or not.

Looked at simplistically, there are 4 basic possibilities (ignoring the different possibilities of belief and just using "theist" to mean any religious belief):

Agnostic atheist | Agnostic theist
Gnostic atheist | Gnostic theist

The terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" are often used to refer agnostic and gnostic atheists respectively, although technically a strong atheist believes they are certain as opposed to a gnostic who merely believes that it is possible to be certain.

An agnostic atheist does not believe in god, but does not think it is ever possible to know for certain if that is correct. An agnostic atheist believes in god, but similarly believes that we can never know for sure if there really is one. A gnostic theist or atheist either believes in a god or not, and think that it is possible to know for certain if that belief is correct. However, this does not necessarily mean that they think they do know for sure, just that it is possible to know in principle.

From what I've seen, it seems that the majority of people who describe themselves as agnostic are actually atheists. They don't really believe in any god, they just aren't so sure of themselves to declare that they know for certain, and realise that a truly omnipotent god could hide its presence and ensure that we could never know. This certainly seems to apply to you. You don't believe there is a god, you just realise that we can't prove the negative and therefore are open to changing your mind should evidence be presented.

As for your statement that atheism is a religion, as the saying goes - atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

So there must be a "not collecting stamps" message board. And also clubs where "not stamp collectors" meet and talk about stamp collectors.

 

[easycruise]

Even Dawkins says that a thinking atheist should reserve a tiny bit for agnosticism. As noted, we cannot definitively prove that there is no God whatever.

My favorite Dawkins quote is that belief in a God is the adult version of an imaginary childhood friend.

So the short answer is, yes, you could argue that it is a matter of "how likely is it that evidence will be brought forth," but in the end, that founded on the matter of, "despite thousands of years of reaching, there's never been evidence for God." So that is the fundamental question.

But we haven't even reached yet! We really haven't left our little rock of Eden called Earth to do any searching. I still need that spaceship I mentioned to conduct a thorough search.

If God doesn't exist, then knowledge that God exists is not possible. So if I don't believe God exists, how can I believe that it can be known that God exists?

Want to go on a trip on a spaceship with me? It would help solve your quandary.

I am as certain as one can be about the non-existence of any entity.

How's your spaceship running these days? What's it really like 12 billion light years from here?

Am I supposed to believe that if I embarked on a cruise with a spaceship and landed on planet X-Alpha-42, I might - just might - find something that you call "a supreme deity" there? Maybe I don't even need to embark on a journey like that, and such a supreme deity thing is hiding right underneath my keyboard, huh?

Sorry, but no.

If you lost your car keys and are absolutely positive that they aren't in your house, wouldn't you have already searched your house?

What about invisible pink unicorns? Or better yet, colorless green ideas?

But there are no traces of invisible pink unicorns. There are vast traces of an incredibly complex universe. Big difference.

Let me ask you a different question. By "this guy" you mean what, exactly? And by "this guy" "created that" you mean what exactly?

After all, you consider it to be perfectly possible, no?

What I can say is that I have little idea what "A god-like supreme being created that" is supposed to mean. At all.

What I mean is a living entity with an incredible ability to form such a vast and structurally complex universe as opposed to a universe that formed by itself via trillions of chemical and physical interactions.

 

[roger]

I don't understand all the hand-wringing about certainty that goes on in these threads.

I'm 5'8".

Any sciency/engineeringy type person will recognize there's an implied accuracy of about an inch in that statement. I could be closer to 5'7" or 5'9". But I'm right around 5'8".

Let's assume I'm insanely deluded, despite the fact that every fact in existence (so far) supports that contention. I fit standard desks, standard couches, my pants size and inseam match that convention, I'm visibly taller than people that claim to be 5'3", visibly shorter than people that claim to be 6', etc. Millions of observations daily agree with my statement.

So, in shorthand, I say (and think) "I'm 5'8""

Now, suppose I am hallucinating or something. As soon as new, better facts come along, I'll revise my statemnt. Oh, I was hallucinating, I'm actually 5'3", or whatever. BFD.

I don't post about the possibility of being wrong (except here to make a point), I don't wring my hands when talking to others "I think I'm 5'8", and all the evidence points to it, but I haven't definitely concluded this must be the case because as Popper argues....". I mean, what foolishness. We all recognize the philosophical limitations of ascertaining the truth, and move on, fully assuming that gravity does not shut off when we walk out the door, that water isn't actually poison, that our spouses are not shapeshifting brain eating zombies. So far, we have been proven right, haven't we, without any hand wringing.

I've seen no compelling evidence in God. I don't believe in a God. There ain't no actively participating diety of the kind mentioned in the major religions. If my some remote chance I'm wrong, then la-de-da, I'm wrong. I feel no more need to qualify that in daily life than a statement that I'm male (in the sense of having external male genetalia - no claims made on my DNA). I'm pretty darn sure I'm right, having just used the equipment a short time ago. Only on JREF would I be required to qualify my certainty of this observation.

OTOH, If you want to postulate a 'thingy' that is unreachable by us, go ahead - it makes as much sense as postulating a different universe - who knows, and it's fruitless to debate, being by definition unknowable. Why not pretend there's a "fwitba" while your at it - it makes as much sense.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If you lost your car keys and are absolutely positive that they aren't in your house, wouldn't you have already searched your house?

I think you missed the point. Would you consider it legitimate if somebody asked you to search the blocks of your harddisk for your car keys?

You shouldn't.

But there are no traces of invisible pink unicorns.

Of course not.

There are vast traces of an incredibly complex universe. Big difference.

We are not talking about the universe, or are we?

What I mean is a living entity

God does not live in the normal, traditional sense of 'life', which seems to apply more to molecular structures capable of reproduction, metabolism, etc - along with all the gory details.

with an incredible ability to form

That is what you are supposed to explain.

such a vast and structurally complex universe as opposed to a universe that formed by itself via trillions of chemical and physical interactions.

We are not talking about the universe, or are we?

 

[shawmutt]

No, they are called "allegory" to explain my point in this debate. It's disappointing that many people on JREF will refuse to debate the point and reduce themselves to throwing barbs incorrectly.

An (air quotes) allegory (/air quotes) can be a straw man.

What is your point? What is different from your viewpoint and an atheists in practical terms? Do you worship the universe? Do you live your life any differently based on your belief?

 

[Sledge]

So there must be a "not collecting stamps" message board. And also clubs where "not stamp collectors" meet and talk about stamp collectors.

There probably would be if the majority of people were stamp collectors and made laws that discriminated against those who didn't collect stamps.

 

[fls]

But we haven't even reached yet! We really haven't left our little rock of Eden called Earth to do any searching. I still need that spaceship I mentioned to conduct a thorough search.

Want to go on a trip on a spaceship with me? It would help solve your quandary.

How's your spaceship running these days? What's it really like 12 billion light years from here?

Why do you feel the need to add these qualifiers when it comes to God? For example, when I state that the 'four humours' as a description of health and illness is wrong, I don't feel a need to qualify that with, "but we haven't searched the entire known universe and there may exist somewhere an entity whose states of health and illness are best described as a balance or inbalance of four discrete substances, so I remain agnostic on whether this description really is wrong".

Linda

 

[Malerin]

There probably would be if the majority of people were stamp collectors and made laws that discriminated against those who didn't collect stamps.

What country do you live in, where there are laws that discriminate against atheists? Do you have to drink at the atheist water fountain?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What country do you live in, where there are laws that discriminate against atheists? Do you have to drink at the atheist water fountain?

The USA.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Why do you feel the need to add these qualifiers when it comes to God? For example, when I state that the 'four humours' as a description of health and illness is wrong, I don't feel a need to qualify that with, "but we haven't searched the entire known universe and there may exist somewhere an entity whose states of health and illness are best described as a balance or inbalance of four discrete substances, so I remain agnostic on whether this description really is wrong".

Linda

Exactly.

When I say I don't believe in god, it doesn't mean that my opinion will always be that way no matter what evidence I see to the contrary, it simply means that I don't think there is any god.

When I say 'my cat is asleep' OF COURSE I don't mean that in an 'I will absolutely never change my mind' kind of way. If someone showed me that my cat was actually dead OF COURSE I would change my mind.

I don't need to add 'but of course I could be wrong' to the end of every statement I make about anything.

Why are people only specifically made to do this when it comes to god? I think it is because it relates to religion, and religious people are not up for changing their minds about anything regardless of evidence in many cases.

The fact that god has to do with religion must influence peoples perceptions about the god-beliefs of people. People must assume that any beliefs relating to god must be held in an absolute sort of way, just because religious beliefs are.

This is not so. Beliefs about the world are based on evidence or lack thereof. Beliefs are based on environment and experience. All these can change, therefor all beliefs can and often do change. To assume that beliefs are unchanging in the face of evidence by default is the reverse of what experience should tell you to assume.

So, I can and will say it with confidence and certainty: there is no god.

You don't have to be absolutely certain to be certain. And being certain doesn't mean your mind can't be changed.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, they are called "allegory" to explain my point in this debate.

Okay, that's fine. That just means your entire argument is a strawman.

It's disappointing that many people on JREF will refuse to debate the point and reduce themselves to throwing barbs incorrectly.

So don't do that, then.

 

[yomero]

So there must be a "not collecting stamps" message board. And also clubs where "not stamp collectors" meet and talk about stamp collectors.

What country do you live in, where there are laws that discriminate against atheists? Do you have to drink at the atheist water fountain?

"Stamp collectors" are no threat to "Non stamp collectors. They are not attempting to turn any nation's goverment into a "collectocracy". They do not insist that the USA was founded as a stamp collecting nation. They do not have the President proclaim a National Day of Licking Stamps. And they certainly do not fly against the sides of sky-scrapers perhaps inspired by the image of an "Inverted Jenny".

Though they have been ruled unconstitutional, there are still laws against atheists holding public office in at least 7 states of the USA. In other nations, just try declaring yourself an atheist in some Islamic countries.

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

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What country do you live in, where there are laws that discriminate against atheists? Do you have to drink at the atheist water fountain?

Britain, where for a recent example, a criminal convicted of a violent assault was given a suspended sentence by the wife of our ex-prime minister because he was a 'man of faith'.

Stamp collectors haven't blown up London transport, driven cars into airports, called for the ability to choose pro-stamp collecting judges to sit on cases where someone's stamp collecting has got in the way of their paid employment. Stamp collectors aren't handed state financed schools or given tax breaks and public money. Stamp collectors don't claim that non-stamp collectors have no morals.


(Or +1 to Yomero's post )

 

[easycruise]

Why do you feel the need to add these qualifiers when it comes to God? For example, when I state that the 'four humours' as a description of health and illness is wrong, I don't feel a need to qualify that with, "but we haven't searched the entire known universe and there may exist somewhere an entity whose states of health and illness are best described as a balance or inbalance of four discrete substances, so I remain agnostic on whether this description really is wrong".

Linda

The qualifiers are required to show a lack of proper due diligence for the atheist's position of complete denial of the theory of creationism.

 

[fls]

The qualifiers are required to show a lack of proper due diligence for the atheist's position of complete denial of the theory of creationism.

So then you would say that you are agnostic about the Four Elements or the Four Humours, rather than agreeing that those ideas have been shown to be wrong? Interesting.

Linda

 

[paximperium]

The qualifiers are required to show a lack of proper due diligence for the atheist's position of complete denial of the theory of creationism.

What's a theory of creationism? Would you care to describe the exact claim, mechanism and actual predictive power of this "theory"?