Atheist or Agnostic?

mindless said:
Im an atheist, and thats the way I expect I will stay.

Remember, we are all born as atheists, its the way nature intended
Click to expand...

Mindless (heh), that is a poor argument IMO. It reminds me of the ultra-religious arguments who say that we were born in God's image, just the way nature intended.

Hey, we were also born not able to feed or wipe ourselves, without any knowledge, maybe that is what nature intended?

And just how do you know what nature intends? :) And what does it mean for nature to intend? It seems by saying that you are personifying nature.

:arrow:
 
IANAM - but - flipping through a book of lay mathematics this example (used in a totally different and over my head context) struck me.

To save me typing let's call the number 10^1000 erth. let's use e in its normal Napierian sense.


Take the statement "The erth digit of e is 4'" This is just engineering or computer science.

Take the statement " In the expansion of e there exists a string of erth 4's." This is true or false and one leg can be shown to be true, although we don't know how long it will take. The false leg cannot be proven by grunt work, we would need some knowledge to say that the statement is false. I think this is mathematics.

Take the statement " the number of 4's in the expansion of e is finite." I don't think there is any way of proving this either true or false.

I think this last statement is religion. To state that either leg is true is a matter of belief, and faith is choosing one option in the absence of evidence, which option for the believer comes to have the force of fact.
So I end as an agnostic, which I have been from the age of 15, since I just cannot jump one way or the other.

When asked I usually tell people that I don't believe in belief, because if an idea is so bizarre that only one person in a million could fall for it, 6,000 people hold that as a tenet of their faith. That said, I do believe in Sidney, AU in Texas, in condors and in the New South Wales Social Sippers.
 
T'ai Chi said:


Mindless (heh), that is a poor argument IMO. It reminds me of the ultra-religious arguments who say that we were born in God's image, just the way nature intended.

Hey, we were also born not able to feed or wipe ourselves, without any knowledge, maybe that is what nature intended?

And just how do you know what nature intends? And what does it mean for nature to intend? It seems by saying that you are personifying nature.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that was a joke, T'ai. Though it would have been funnier if he had said, "I was born an atheist just as God intended."
 
tedly said:

Take the statement " the number of 4's in the expansion of e is finite." I don't think there is any way of proving this either true or false.
Click to expand...

[OFF-TOPIC]
It is conjectured that e is an "absolutely normal" number. Although this is not proven yet, it is one of those claims that should have a proof (not having a proof for this is very annoying). A trivial consequence of e being a normal number would be that there are infinite many 4's in its decimal expansion.
[/OFF-TOPIC]
 
Commander Cool said:
So, while I could continue to call myself an agnostic, in that I don't purport to know all the answers, I'm basically an atheist. Because there is no difference between the two.
Click to expand...

I like this approach to what you are talking about...

http://atheism.about.com/

There are basically three types of "atheist/agnostics" according to this guy. And, this is the way I would paraphrase it:

1) Agnostic - "I'm not sure if there is or is not a God as has been laid-out in any of the various tomes, and I'm not willing to reject any of those paradigms off-hand. I can't decide, so won't worry about it until I get more data. The Bible or Koran (etc.) may or may not turn out to be true, but I'm content to ride the fence even though I may lean one way or the other from time to time."

2) Agnostic-Atheist: "I don't believe any of the books have gotten it right. Still, it's not that I 'actively disbelieve' in what they say, I just simply refuse to accept them based upon what we now know from observable science. However, the stories in those books are silly and clearly not really what happened. No one can really know whether or not there is a God, and the currently posited and widely accepted attempts to codify and definitively state that as a true fact (e.g., Bible, Koran, etc.) are wrong without a doubt."

3) Atheist: "There is(are) no God(s). Period."

I think most of us would probably fall under number (2), or am I wrong?

-TT
 
In a previous discussion we came up with the idea that "atheist" and "agnostic" actually are somewhat divergent concepts...

one is a statement of belief, the other is a claim of knowledge.

It is possible to believe one way or the other without claiming knowledge...

Many claim knowledge to go along with their belief. In the strictest technical sense, unless someone has gleaned the nature of the entire universe, or contrarily stood in the presence of a god... everyone should be agnostic. However, that's not terribly practical and I suppose many will be gnostic if they reach what is to them an appropriate level of certainty.

I also suspect... that many hold followers of an opposing belief to a higher standard of certainty than they observe themselves.
 
I think agnostic suits me best.

My take is it does not matter if there is a god or not if he cannot be shown to exist. I can amuse myself with thinking about what he must be like if he did exist and how sick a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ he must be if he does.

If there were some line of logic or research which would prove a god I would be very intrigued.

Gods may exist. Gods may not exist. I can't disprove god either. But there's a TON of things that MAY exist. It just doesn't make sense to believe everything that may exist.

Show me evidence I'll be a theist tomorrow.

FK
 
Faithkills said:

My take is it does not matter if there is a god or not if he cannot be shown to exist.
Click to expand...


I feel the same way about multidimensional theories of the origin of the universe, and other exotic space dogma thingies.


I can amuse myself with thinking about what he must be like if he did exist and how sick a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ he must be if he does.
Click to expand...


Edit Police, please take note.
 
Silicon said:
I follow no Gods. I am an Atheist. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Nothing, except that Zeus will smite you for neglecting your political duties. The thunderbolt steers all.
 
Mother f**kers better watch out!

163.jpg
 
Did a uniquely self-existent being will the universe into existence?

Yes to that was my position, so I suppose I was a Deist.

I can't prove or disprove the above proposition.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic.

I am getting comfortable with calling myself an atheist.
 
Re: Re: Atheist or Agnostic?

Abdul Alhazred said:
Did a uniquely self-existent being will the universe into existence?

Yes to that was my position, so I suppose I was a Deist.

I can't prove or disprove the above proposition.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic.

I am getting comfortable with calling myself an atheist.
Click to expand...

This is a tired question, but you sound like one who might give a straight answer for once:

If a uniquely self-existent being can exist, why not a uniquely self-existent universe?

Or at least, what would the argument be if you still go for the idea?
 
"Hard" Atheism, "Soft" Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism, Secular Humanism....

There are distinctions among these views, but I believe the distinctions are lost on many people.

And yet, I submit that the distinctions among these views are not nearly as numerous or subtle or trivial as the distinctions among the various denominations, sub-denominations and individual churches of the "Christian" religion. Ask a Presbyterian sometime about the doctrinal differences between his church and a Lutheran church. Or ask an ELCA Lutheran about the doctrinal differences between his church and a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. Best of all, ask a member of one Missouri Synod Lutheran church why his congregation can't stand to worship with members of another Missouri Synod Lutheran church that's only a couple of miles away. See what sorts of responses you get.
 
Agnostic Atheist, with the emphasis on the latter. I'm open to being shown indisupatable proof of the existence of god or gods of most any definition.

But I ain't holding my breath waiting for it.

did
 
Re: Re: Re: Atheist or Agnostic?

gnome said:


This is a tired question, but you sound like one who might give a straight answer for once:

If a uniquely self-existent being can exist, why not a uniquely self-existent universe?

Or at least, what would the argument be if you still go for the idea?
Click to expand...

The universe had a definite beginning in time and there is no reasonable explanation of why it should come into existence at all.

I was once very religious but I had to keep backing off from it. I am now an atheist.

I still don't have an explanation for the universe, but I'm OK with that.

There is no God!
 
"I feel the same way about multidimensional theories of the origin of the universe, and other exotic space dogma thingies." - TC

You feel.

Ahh systematic determined ignorance. I am impressed.

Complicated == you can't understand it == Same as religion

So then by what criteria do you judge which lies to believe and which not?

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understandable.

FK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom