Atheism & agnosticism

[KingMerv00]

People 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.

Not all atheists say that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

@ easycruise:

agnosticism.

You don't need to justify agnosticism to anyone. I don't see why you bothered, but thanks for your thoughts on the matter anyway.

I went the other way. Used to be an atheist, then gave it some more thought and then became an agnostic.

Cool.

Atheism is clearly a religion, IMO.

Nope. That statement is wrong.

DR

 

[fls]

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.

I don't know of any atheist who would say that. The only time that the various silly positions attributed to atheists ever seem to come up is when someone who wants to say that they are agnostic needs to find some way of distinguishing themselves from 'atheist'. But nobody seems to actually hold these silly positions, not even atheists.

Linda

 

[fls]

@ easycruise:

agnosticism.

You don't need to justify agnosticism to anyone. I don't see why you bothered, but thanks for you thoughts on the matter anyway.

Yeah, I think that is what leads to the problem. Conflict arises not because someone wants to call themselves an agnostic, but because they want to do so at the expense of atheists.

Linda

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm an agnostic without a theistic belief system. What does that make me?

I am only agnostic because we don't have complete knowledge yet. You never know what you will find when you are looking.

And if we do happen to find it one hypotheical day. Would it be something that we would recognise?

Would it be something to be worshipped? Would it "want" to be worshipped? Would it "feel" or "care" in any manner that we could understand? Could we understand it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I feel the same way. I *feel* like there is something more out there, something divine, though I recognize the difference between feeling this to be true and knowing this to be true. What's more, I make no claims as to what that "something" is...whether it's a being or multiple beings or a force or energy as opposed to an actual physical being/beings. I believe in the possibility of supernatural things and phenomenon, though I have yet to see or hear anything on earth that I specifically believe to be supernatural or resulted from supernatural forces.

But then again, I also freely admit there could be nothing at all divine or supernatural, and my "feelings" are just that, "feelings" and nothing more.

 

[Bikewer]

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.

However, this bit of agnosticism can be very small.... With no evidence of such a being, nor any evidence of the necessity for such a being... (and rather a lot of evidence that belief in such beings is an artifact of human psychology)

I have no problem defining myself as "atheist".

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Define "God".

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.

Strawman.

People 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.

Strawman.

That's incorrect logical thinking, I say.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think a better question than "do you believe there are gods" is "how likely is it that evidence of God will be brought forth?"

Then again, that last question can only be answered by considered, "What evidence of God has been brought forth?"

Why should I have to bother speculating on what someone will come up with in the future? I think it is sufficient to base it on, "What evidence for God has been brought forth?" Given the fact that people have been postulating god for thousands of years, the fact that the answer is, "none" is all you really need to know.

Your question would be relevant if for example this was a random musing that is a new idea, but the evidence we have is that no one is able to come up with evidence for god. This is not "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," because if you have looked under pretty much every rock large enough to hide the object and it isn't there, then the conclusion is that you aren't bloody likely to find the object you are looking for. Sure, it may be under a smaller rock, and there are plenty of those you haven't checked, but if that is the case, then that object does not have the properties you initially thought, and I know your feelings about nondescript versions of God.

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.

 

[pgwenthold]

I tend to take a different perspective on the agnostic vs atheism stance. While I tend to agree with everyone trying to give easycruise the perspective of how self-professed atheists view themselves (I was very similar - I knew I really didn't believe in god, but didn't know how to characterize it; when hanging out in alt.atheism, I encountered those atheists who said, "It just means I don't believe in god - "not a theist." I was like, hey! I resemble that remark!)

But for agnosticism...

If we take agnosticism as "belief that the existence of god cannot be known," then I contend that atheists must agnostic. It's basically a tautology. If I do not believe that god exists, then how could I believe that someone (including me) can KNOW that he does exist? It's not possible to KNOW something exists while at the same time not believing that it does (unless you are using some bizarre notion of "know" that does not mean "undeniably accepted as true").

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?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
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.

There's only the one hypothesis: A God exists. Most atheists merely point out that no adequate evidence has been found that would confirm that hypothesis. And maybe ask what God the theist means, because many of them have self-contradictory attributes.

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.

One, it's dirty pool to use things we know exist as an analogy for something we don't know exists, secondly, few atheists say it is not possible for God to exist. Usually we are on a spectrum: the self-contradictor God concepts don't exist, and we lack material evidence for any of them, so the logical default position is lack of belief. Magical leprecauns don't suffer from the internal contradictions of an omni-max God, but most of us don't believe in them, either. Note that we don't have to maintain they are impossible in order to not believe in them.

People 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.

That's putting words in the atheist's mouth that don't belong there, I say. A more likely response would be: How do you know that?

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..

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.

That is the classic atheist position.

 

[Manopolus]

Wow, thanks guys. This thread has convinced me that I am neither atheist nor agnostic. I've run out of words to describe myself, religiously. Humanist might come close, but not really... and that's just another branch of atheism. I think from now on, when asked about my religion, I'll just have to say "confused," or perhaps take a page from the Jefferson book of quotes and say I belong in a sect all by myself (but I'm not exactly a deist either). Anti-theist isn't quite right either, though I've used it a few times. I'm not against any "gods" that may or may not exist, I just consider them untrustworthy without further knowledge.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Wow, thanks guys. This thread has convinced me that I am neither atheist nor agnostic. I've run out of words to describe myself, religiously. Humanist might come close, but not really... and that's just another branch of atheism. I think from now on, when asked about my religion, I'll just have to say "confused," or perhaps take a page from the Jefferson book of quotes and say I belong in a sect all by myself (but I'm not exactly a deist either). Anti-theist isn't quite right either, though I've used it a few times. I'm not against any "gods" that may or may not exist, I just consider them untrustworthy without further knowledge.

No law says you have to label yourself, although I think you'll find plenty of others more than happy to do it for you.

 

[Manopolus]

No law says you have to label yourself, although I think you'll find plenty of others more than happy to do it for you.

Yeah, but its difficult to be the only one who has a mere speck of knowledge in the truth of the matter, especially when you have no desire to convert anyone.

 

[uruk]

One of Satan's minions.

Yay! When do I get my membership card and sacrificial virgin discount card?

When will we ever have complete knowledge? An implication of "God" (the common definition, at least) is that he is more complex than us. We would never be able to fully understand something more complex than us.

Oh, I don't know. We seem to be progressing rather nicely with the universe. We already have achieved a few insights into something much greater and more complex than ourselves.

But I would tend to agree with you that we would probably never be able to understand something like god (if that is your implication).

But then again, there may be nothing there to understand in the first place.

If we knew it was something that we would recognize, we could test for it right now. But there is nothing to test for right now because there is no conception of God that fits with our current reality. Almost by definition it would be unrecognizable and would only post hoc be named "God". Plus, like I mentioned above, I do not even think it is possible to understand such God anyways if it were to exist.

I agree with for the most part.

however, I think that if the universe can become understandable to us on some level and if there is a god and if this god is linked to the univers in some way, there may exist a possibility, however small, that we may catch a fleeting glimps.

But then this idea relys too heavily on "ifs". So nevermind.

For the first three: only if it is Britney Spears. No, on the last one; not anymore than an ant can understand what it means to be human.

If it's Britney Spears; definitly sign me up for Satan's service.

At least an Ant can have an understanding, if somewhat limited, of sorts concerning one aspect of humanity, even if it is just by experiance. A final experiance. When the human steps on the ant.

I am not sure people really want to know. People want inner-peace most of all and religion help achieves that.

A lot of things other than religion can give soemone the same inner-peace. Sports, exercise, reading, scientific/intellectual persuits, hobbies, a pet, the company of good friends, etc. All of them have certain flaws in the "inner-peace" aspect. But then so does religion.

It all comes down to the person. If the person is at peace with themselves, they do not need any of the crutches mentioned.

 

[gentlehorse]

Yeah, but its difficult to be the only one who has a mere speck of knowledge in the truth of the matter, especially when you have no desire to convert anyone.

The only one who has a mere speck of knowledge in the truth of the matter, and he isn't willing to share...

Rip off, dude.

 

[uruk]

We don't have complete knowledge of what?

Everything.

Do you believe in the tenets of Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? No? Then to the majority of the world you are an atheist.

There is a difference between believing or following the tenets of a religion and believing in a god.
One involves subscribing to dogma and ritual and laws. The other is simply a statement of belief.

It's not like atheists stop doing science, as if to say "whelp, there we are, there's no God, so let's stop looking at the sky now." The current evidence points towards non-existence--at least in any meaningful sense. Sure, there can be a God in the clockmaker deist sense or the pantheist sense, but how does that differ from the atheist's view?

Science really does not deal with the issue of the existance or non existance of god. Science is simply not looking. It doesn't even ask the question.

Science basicaly says. "Hey look at this! Aint it neat? Let's see how it works." For which we have had our lives greatly enriched. More so than with religion in my opinion.

I am just saying that there may be a possiblity that one day science may say," Hey, wadda ya know, here's god. Ain't it neat?" And possibly "Let's see how it works."

And then move on to the next neat thing.

 

[godless dave]

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.

But the deities people on earth believe in aren't in remote reaches of space, they act right here on earth. Technically I'm agnostic about far-away deities who have no contact with earth, humanity, or any part of the universe visible by humans. I'm an atheist with regard to the kinds of deities humans actually believe in.

 

[pgwenthold]

But the deities people on earth believe in aren't in remote reaches of space, they act right here on earth. Technically I'm agnostic about far-away deities who have no contact with earth, humanity, or any part of the universe visible by humans. I'm an atheist with regard to the kinds of deities humans actually believe in.

The whole "we can't know if there is a deity" is strange. If a deity exists, why can't we know that? The only way that could be is if he is hiding somewhere we can't detect him.

If he is doing it on purpose, then the claim requires having knowledge of God's _motives_. If it by function of being, then it means that God has no interaction with us at all, which is indistinguishable from non-existence.

 

[Augustus]

I'm probably agnostic, but only because I would really like there to be a God; I'm just fairly certain that the Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. world view is entirely incorrect and that, if there is a God, they are way off mark.

 

[Manopolus]

The only one who has a mere speck of knowledge in the truth of the matter, and he isn't willing to share...

Rip off, dude.

My own knowledge would not be particularly relevant to those who have not had my experiences. I'm not claiming to be special, really. I only assert that there are forces which are beyond my understanding... and have personal experience which justifies that belief. I do not speculate as to what these forces want, I don't anthropomorphize them to any great degree, and I don't subject my will to some "higher power." Again, I'm not sure what you would call this, as a religious classification.

Also note that I am gnostic as to the question of whether it is possible to know more.