Atheists vs. Agnostics

[gc1765]

Hard to defend the "atheist" position? Then you are disagreeing with most of humanity. Most people (the vast majority) are religious which makes them 'atheists' in the eyes of every other religion. How do religious people defend their "atheism" with respect to other religions?

I say it's hard to defend the atheist position because there is no way to prove that God doesn't exist. When I say atheist, I mean someone who is 100% certain that God does not exist. If someone is a Christian, how can they be absolutely certain that Zeus or any other God does not exist as well?

And what about your agnosticism, gc1765? Dawkins would argue that in a world of atheists, you are the truly religious one.

I would argue that you are merely a conscript in this modern world of non-commitment - when the essence of life itself is commitment. Agnosticism is an attempt to avoid the issue.

I disagree. Agnosticism is not an attempt to avoid the issue. Agnosticism is admitting that we can not prove the existence or absence of God. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the absence of God, but since I can't be absolutely certain, that would make me agnostic, technically speaking. I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

[ScottSA]

Suggesting that parents ought not teach children religion has two profound effects as I see it. first, it is taking away the rights of parents to raise their children and second, it is a fairly transparent attempt to enforce secularism. My daughter goes to a Catholic school. I send her there because the education is better, but also because the Catholic Church has not, yet at least, succumbed to relativism. There is still a good and bad in her classroom and that to me is very important. But next week I'm taking her to a Buddhist service...not because I'm Buddhist...but because I was exposed to every religion when I was young too, and I think its a great idea. I am convinced there is a God, and certain there is an afterlife, but i don't presume to have met Him, so I don't know who, if anyone, has a claim to the TRVTH. I suspect it doesn't matter anyway when all is said and done.

But I would never take her to an atheistic 'service' if such existed, because I don't want her exposed to the foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Even if atheism is right, the hubris is too stifling.

[myata]

As has already been explained, religious people are not "atheists" to other religions. They are simply performing rituals that they learned. If someone were to be brought up performing a ritual from a different religion on different days of the week, they would be very content about that (a la "Pi"). The need to believe is "natural" because of consciousness of human beings; the form the belief is taking is learned from the environment outside. Using misleading, even if clever, terminology twists does not add one single bit to understanding of these phenomena.

[jazzer]

But I would never take her to an atheistic 'service' if such existed, because I don't want her exposed to the foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Even if atheism is right, the hubris is too stifling.

Some might say the same of organized religion.

[ScottSA]

But I would never take her to an atheistic 'service' if such existed, because I don't want her exposed to the foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Even if atheism is right, the hubris is too stifling.

Some might say the same of organized religion.

Not if they understood the meaning of hubris.

[jazzer]

Some definitions of hubris:

- the most common form of tragic flaw, usually ascribed to excessive pride or arrogance

- an act of excessive pride; a shortcoming or fatal flaw

- An arrogance due to excessive pride and an insolence toward others

Now think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker......., and I'd even throw in the bishop in our diocese. Atheism holds no monopoly on hubris.

[Remiel]

Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Unfortunately, rationality is a lot like fascism (ignore the fact that you apply one to yourself and one to others). Everyone thinks that they are rational, or that the other guy is fascist, but most people do not seem to grasp the full meaning and implications of the terms.

[ScottSA]

Some definitions of hubris:

- the most common form of tragic flaw, usually ascribed to excessive pride or arrogance

- an act of excessive pride; a shortcoming or fatal flaw

- An arrogance due to excessive pride and an insolence toward others

Now think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker......., and I'd even throw in the bishop in our diocese. Atheism holds no monopoly on hubris.

No, but humanism does. You're obviously being very selective in your definitions, having excluded the original and only true meaning.

[jazzer]

Scott, you used these words: foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Take out the word humanist and you have components of many organized religions, the worst of all IMV are the evangelicals. I certainly would not expose my kids to the likes of Fred Phelps for instance, or any of the major fundamentalists. I rather have them study Darwin than pollute their minds with a belief system based on myths.

[myata]

But I would never take her to an atheistic 'service' if such existed, because I don't want her exposed to the foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Even if atheism is right, the hubris is too stifling.

Such form of "atheism" would be no different from any religion that attempts to impose certain particular view of the world. Why many religions and some atheists are still so bent on it, after all the tragedies of the past is quite puzzling.

[ScottSA]

Scott, you used these words: foolish unidimensional closedmindedness and humanist conceit of atheism. Take out the word humanist and you have components of many organized religions, the worst of all IMV are the evangelicals. I certainly would not expose my kids to the likes of Fred Phelps for instance, or any of the major fundamentalists. I rather have them study Darwin than pollute their minds with a belief system based on myths.

I have no problem with evangelicals. They believe what they believe, and at least they believe in something. Far too many today wander around in a haze of nihilism believing in nothing at all. The only time I think belief in something is bad is when that belief encourages harm to others. Christian evangelicals don't brandish swords and call for the heads of their enemies, and that makes all the difference between Islam and Christianity.

[AndrewL]

I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

That's not true. You just reject it as evidence. Irrationally.

[AndrewL]

I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

That's not true. You just reject it as evidence. Irrationally.

Oh please, show me the evidence that the dozens of major and minor gods of humanity exist in reality. Would your evidence apply to Zeus and Poseidon as equally as it would to the monotheistic gods of modernity?

Or are you just referring to some Francis Collins silliness where he 'sees' the 'language of God' written in our DNA?

If there was evidence i could not reject it.

Andrew

[gc1765]

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

Just because there is no evidence for something, does not mean that it is not possible. IOW, what evidence is there to prove that there isn't some sort of God/deity?

[AndrewL]

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

Just because there is no evidence for something, does not mean that it is not possible. IOW, what evidence is there to prove that there isn't some sort of God/deity?

That is true. But im simply responding to the idea of what is and what is not rational. It is certainly rational for me to deny that there is a million dollars in gold buried in my back yard, even though i have not dug up my back yard to find out. I have no reason to believe there is 1 million dollars in gold, so im not likely to act as if their might be. In fact im quite comfortable to deny that there is. This is rational. (but in the end, a million dollars could actually be buried in my backyard).

The situation is even worse for Gods of human imaginings since there is evidence even to the contrary.

I.e., if God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing why would he design humans beings in a way that thousands of infants choke to death every year for no other reason than we breathe and eat through the same hole. Surely the God of the bible would have been more 'intelligent and kind' than that.

Andrew

[Remiel]

In the attack on the notion of God, there is a great misconception that for God to exist, God must be good or evil. In fact, it would probably be a mistake to assume that if God exists, there is an afterlife. The only fact that could be ascertained if God were proven to exist would be that God exists. Everything else would be just theory and conjecture.

[AndrewL]

In the attack on the notion of God, there is a great misconception that for God to exist, God must be good or evil. In fact, it would probably be a mistake to assume that if God exists, there is an afterlife. The only fact that could be ascertained if God were proven to exist would be that God exists. Everything else would be just theory and conjecture.

Certainly. But the gods invented by people are all about good and evil. Religion would have no purpose for a benign god.

Andrew

[Black Dog]

I have no problem with evangelicals. They believe what they believe, and at least they believe in something. Far too many today wander around in a haze of nihilism believing in nothing at all.

"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

[myata]

The situation is even worse for Gods of human imaginings since there is evidence even to the contrary.

I.e., if God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing why would he design humans beings in a way that thousands of infants choke to death every year for no other reason than we breathe and eat through the same hole. Surely the God of the bible would have been more 'intelligent and kind' than that.

You can disprove your oun interpretation of the idea, but not someone else's belief. There's simply no point because the absolute proof does not exist. Agnosticism (at least with respect to others' beliefs) is the only truly rational point of view because it does not attempt to impose one interpretation of rationality upon another.

[ScottSA]

I would argue that agnosticism is the only rational belief. Anyone who thinks they are 100% certain that God either exists or does not exist is not rational, IMO.

Hold on. One must define the content of said God first. I am agnostic about the origin of existence in general, aboslutely.

But when it comes to the god described by the worlds religions it is very rational to deny their existence 100%. There is simply no compelling reason to think the god of the bible or koran is any way accurate or true, there is a complete lack of empirical evidence that would suggest they do exist in reality.

Andrew

That's not true. You just reject it as evidence. Irrationally.

Oh please, show me the evidence that the dozens of major and minor gods of humanity exist in reality. Would your evidence apply to Zeus and Poseidon as equally as it would to the monotheistic gods of modernity?

Or are you just referring to some Francis Collins silliness where he 'sees' the 'language of God' written in our DNA?

If there was evidence i could not reject it.

Andrew

But that's where you're confusing the idea of our conception of God with God itself. Neither Zeus nor Posiedon nor Yahweh need exist in order for God to exist. Your are also confusing the term 'evidence' with 'proof.' There is no proof either way. There are centuries of extremely rich thought and anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. You just choose to reject it in favor of humanistic hubris. And btw, spare us all the strawmen and mockery...it just lowers your argument to the level of comicbooks.

[ScottSA]

I have no problem with evangelicals. They believe what they believe, and at least they believe in something. Far too many today wander around in a haze of nihilism believing in nothing at all.

"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

Gosh, sorry to hear you're having a bad reading day. It's a shame they don't teach comprehensive reading in schools anymore. You must have missed my very next sentence. Was it hiding from you or were there just too many big confusing words in it?:

"The only time I think belief in something is bad is when that belief encourages harm to others. Christian evangelicals don't brandish swords and call for the heads of their enemies, and that makes all the difference between Islam and Christianity."

[Black Dog]

Edited for humourlessness.

[AndrewL]

But that's where you're confusing the idea of our conception of God with God itself. Neither Zeus nor Posiedon nor Yahweh need exist in order for God to exist. Your are also confusing the term 'evidence' with 'proof.' There is no proof either way. There are centuries of extremely rich thought and anecdotal evidence for the existence of God. You just choose to reject it in favor of humanistic hubris. And btw, spare us all the strawmen and mockery...it just lowers your argument to the level of comicbooks.

I didn't ask for anecdotal or thoughtful evidence of God. I asked for empirical falsifiable evidence of which none exists that i know of.

Ill spare the mockery if you van actually show me some real evidence of a god of human culture that exists in reality. Without such evidence it is perfectly rational to be an atheist with respect to the gods we know from human culture.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

The situation is even worse for Gods of human imaginings since there is evidence even to the contrary.

I.e., if God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing why would he design humans beings in a way that thousands of infants choke to death every year for no other reason than we breathe and eat through the same hole. Surely the God of the bible would have been more 'intelligent and kind' than that.

You can disprove your oun interpretation of the idea, but not someone else's belief. There's simply no point because the absolute proof does not exist. Agnosticism (at least with respect to others' beliefs) is the only truly rational point of view because it does not attempt to impose one interpretation of rationality upon another.

But with regards to gods that are contained within human culture it is entirely irrational to believe they truly exist based on the same interpretation of irrationality that everybody accepts in their day to day lives.

Whether or not some supreme being created all of existence is another point altogether, and the only currently rational stance one could take is agnosticism with respect to that.

But we all think it is lunacy to believe that the Chinese monkey god actually exists in reality... the same lunacy applies to the god of Abraham for the exact same reasons.

Andrew