Atheism & agnosticism

[easycruise]

The only thing that changed since my kids were born was that I started calling myself an atheist instead of an agnostic.

I went the other way. Used to be an atheist, then gave it some more thought and then became an agnostic. Atheism is clearly a religion, IMO.

I examined it this way and my thinking is this...First, two definitions of agnosticism...""a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.""

""Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.""

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?

Split from here.

Posted By: Cuddles

 

[shawmutt]

I went the other way. Used to be an atheist, then gave it some more thought and then became an agnostic. Atheism is clearly a religion, IMO.

I examined it this way and my thinking is this...First, two definitions of agnosticism...""a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.""

""Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.""

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?

That's a bit offtopic, lol. Well you sound like me from a couple years ago. Atheism, for most, is not the claim of fact. I'm simply saying I'm without a theistic belief system. I went from a Baptist upbringing, to assorted new age/eastern beliefs, to a "higher power" in Alcoholics Anonymous, to Episcopalian, to deist, to agnostic, to currently atheist (pending further evidence ). Each step rendered any sort of God obsolete, and to each of the people in my former life I was already an atheist as I lacked their flavor of theism. I no longer mind the title, and it adequetely describes my stance--the Christian God of my childhood certainly does not exist according to the evidence--I can say the same for most mystical beings that are represented in the world's major religions. To the believers of these religions I am atheist.

But deism, panthesim, etc...what a tempting bastion of ignorance, most recently exploited by the Insane Clown Posse. Look around us--God is everywhere! There comes a point, right about when the belief becomes unfalsifiable, when holding on just isn't worth it. If God is some unseen being that has no effect on reality, how do we go about becoming gnostics? As far as flying around the universe looking for God--if there was a "supreme deity", why should I have to fly anywhere? Shouldn't God be everywhere? Are we to remain happy in our agnostism, a sort of psuedoskepticism, merely shrugging our shoulders in an eternal "iono?" from the backs of our great white horse?

Or, as skeptics, do we consider the evidence, and adjust our reality accordingly?

There are a lot of smarter people on here who were not only instrumental in my atheist "conversion", but have a much better gift with words and tact. A short forum search shows the "atheist v. agnostic" battle ad nauseum, with intelligent folks on both "sides", and even myself from as recent as a year ago arguing the same argument you just gave me.

In the end, the conversations are much more interesting when introducing myself as an atheist

/offtopic

 

[easycruise]

As far as flying around the universe looking for God--if there was a "supreme deity", why should I have to fly anywhere? Shouldn't God be everywhere?

Ya never know! (spoken like a true agnostic, lol) Maybe a God likes to hide out in black holes or quasars for protection? Maybe if we get close there might be some trace or visitation?

There are a lot of smarter people on here who were not only instrumental in my atheist "conversion", but have a much better gift with words and tact. A short forum search shows the "atheist v. agnostic" battle ad nauseum, with intelligent folks on both "sides", and even myself from as recent as a year ago arguing the same argument you just gave me.

How did you make out?

In the end, the conversations are much more interesting when introducing myself as an atheist /

The "conversion" of Anthony Flew is interesting..

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

 

[shawmutt]

Ya never know! (spoken like a true agnostic, lol) Maybe a God likes to hide out in black holes or quasars for protection? Maybe if we get close there might be some trace or visitation?

Maybe God is in the nooks and crannies of toilet paper, and every time I wipe my bum I am dooming myself to a hell of wandering in a mire of ****. Maybe Terry Pratchette is right, every belief, every ritual spawns a new God, and there are billions of Gods for every person on the planet. The question for the skeptic, in my humble opinion, should be, "how do I find the evidence to support my hypothesis?"

How did you make out?

Well, I started off agnostic and wound up atheist.

The "conversion" of Anthony Flew is interesting..

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

I find it a bore. Old man senses mortality, starts believing in God. Not just any God, the deistic watchmaker God of our forefathers. So he believes God started the universe because such complexity could never occur naturally (I see Thaiboxerken's argument from complexity, and raise an argument from incredulity) and then went away. What's the point in that? Is it to hedge the bets? To serve as an answer to the currently unanswerable? I find the deistic clockmaker answer woefully lacking.

 

[The Painter]

Maybe God is in the nooks and crannies of toilet paper, and every time I wipe my bum I am dooming myself to a hell of wandering in a mire of ****. Maybe Terry Pratchette is right, every belief, every ritual spawns a new God, and there are billions of Gods for every person on the planet. The question for the skeptic, in my humble opinion, should be, "how do I find the evidence to support my hypothesis?"



Well, I started off agnostic and wound up atheist.



I find it a bore. Old man senses mortality, starts believing in God. Not just any God, the deistic watchmaker God of our forefathers. So he believes God started the universe because such complexity could never occur naturally (I see Thaiboxerken's argument from complexity, and raise an argument from incredulity) and then went away. What's the point in that? Is it to hedge the bets? To serve as an answer to the currently unanswerable? I find the deistic clockmaker answer woefully lacking.

You seem to be an angry atheist. I am an atheist and I don't care if people believe in God. It's their right. They believe one thing, I believe another thing. Life goes on for both. Do you feel the need to convert people?

 

[shawmutt]

You seem to be an angry atheist. I am an atheist and I don't care if people believe in God. It's their right. They believe one thing, I believe another thing. Life goes on for both. Do you feel the need to convert people?

You seem to be convinced that I am an angry man. This is the second time you have assumed this.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I didn't read anything that portrayed anger in Shaw's posts.

 

[uruk]

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.

 

[barrymore]

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

One of Satan's minions.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Enquiring minds want to know.

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

 

[shawmutt]

Edited by Tricky: 

Deleted personal derail.

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.

We don't have complete knowledge of what? Do you believe in the tenets of Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? No? Then to the majority of the world you are an atheist.

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?

 

[pgwenthold]

I didn't read anything that portrayed anger in Shaw's posts.

Me either. All I can see is that certain theists don't like to actually consider all the possibilities. Only the whitewashed, watered-down version of god is possible, and if someone suggests something different, they must be "angry atheists."

God is not necessarily what you want him to be.

 

[Snide]

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

If you are without morals, you are amoral. If you are without sexuality, you are asexual. If you are without symmetry, you are asymmetrical.

Many people mistakenly think atheists insist there is no god. I'm an atheist who admits he doesn't know, but does not believe in one.

 

[Sledge]

I can't remember who it is, but someone on these forums has pointed out that the way to determine whether you're an atheist is to answer the question "Which god/s do you believe in?" If the answer is "none" (as I suspect it is for the OP), you're an atheist.

Oh, and please don't buy into the "atheism is a religion" crap. It's bad enough when the religious goons do it.

 

[Cuddles]

Is my thinking incorrect in some way?

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thanks Cuddles - you got there just a little before I did.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Also, most people that start drinking at 9AM aren't too happy.

Generally the only occasions I drink at that time in the morning are when I'm waiting to get on a plane for a week or two somewhere hot. I'm pretty happy on those occasions.

 

[fls]

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?"

In that way, if one wants to use a God of the Gaps arguments, such as the one presented in the OP, one can find it likely that gaps will remain in our knowledge. Those who don't treat knowledge about God as different from any other knowledge can simply point to the strength of the evidence which has accumulated against God to guide likelihood.

Linda

 

[Freethinker]

An agnostic atheist believes in god, but similarly believes that we can never know for sure if there really is one.

Typo?

 

[KingMerv00]

Oh good. Another Agnostic vs. Atheist thread. I can't get too mad I guess. I started one of these when I first arrived in the forum.

Anyway, I'm both.

 

[easycruise]

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.

OK, thanks for the delineation.

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.

Yes. In response to an accusation of inconsistency, John Maynard Keynes is often reported to have said "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?"

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.

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.

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.

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.