Agnosticism, the *Only* Logical Belief Today?

[Techno]

Okay, all this arguing between theists and atheists is getting on my nerves. No, I like the people of DV, so I'm not talking about anyone specifically. I'm talking about the WHOLE conflict, where it takes place in the world. So you can see where I'm coming from, I'll tell you a little about myself: I was born and raised a Christian for about 15 years of my life. I've been a Baptists, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, and even a Non-Denominational at some point in my life. When I was 14, I came up with this crazy idea: make a work of fiction that truly pieces together the origins of the world, God, and religion. The desire to create a fictional world based upon real-life religions got me interested in studying religion as a whole. So I started comparing religions, and saw their similarities through the lens of a Christian. Then, I started to become interested in philosophy, and started to ask myself why Christianity was the true religion, and why other religions were wrong. But, I kept on reading about it, and saw that people brought claims against Christianity. I did not understand Atheists, nor did I believe in evolution. So, I debated with people on the internet often, and realized that evolution, in fact, did not conflict with Christianity at all. I examined it closer and saw that the half-assed arguments against Christianity were indeed half-assed and incorrect. Then, I thought that if Christianity was correct, and evolution is actually correct as well, then there was nothing stopping me from solving those big questions of life. I would not believe something till I had evidence for it when trying to answer these questions, which eventually led me to question the value of human life itself. Life has no absolute value in itself, as we eat other organisms to survive. So, ethics failed when it came to other species, but what about humans themselves? After some serious deliberation, I came to the conclusion that human life has no absolute value in itself, and it's value exists in an abstract, relative sense within each human being. The laws of the Bible, if correct, were meant to protect human life, but I saw that it leaned more towards the protection of the faith itself in many cases as well. I then wondered about the Flood, Creation, and God Himself. Where was the evidence? Wasn't it obvious they happened and exist? If God was real, how could Atheists exist? So I continued to think about it and concluded that Genesis was metaphorical, and that the universe could have been created 4.6 billion years ago, and that Genesis never really happened. But, that would imply that either God lied to us either way, since either the world was made with the appearance of age (a lie to physicists), or that the world was made long long ago (a lie to Christians). Still, God's "plan" seemed overrated and fraught with inconsistencies, mainly because an omniscience, omnipotent being cannot have made Adam and Eve with freewill if He knew that they would sin (omniscience), or with a brain stupid enough to be fooled by the Serpent. Even so, the geological timescale conflicted with Genesis, as humans were not created by God but rather evolved from Homo erectus and their ancestors. But I seemed to dismiss this idea in my thinking, and rather question God's existence as a whole instead. Without evidence FOR His existence, I couldn't say yes, so I jumped to the conclusion that He didn't exist. I became an atheist, and remained as such until a few weeks ago. I thought about the "burden of proof" for theists pertaining to god(s), and then I remembered an old argument I proposed when I was a Christian. I said that it was irrational to say that god(s) don't exist without proof, but the irony was that I had done the same thing, except I assumed the existence of god(s). So I'm thinking, hey, aren't theists AND atheists both being irrational when they claim their views are correct. Unless we have proof that god(s) do and don't exist, shouldn't we all just be agnostics and look at things in a neutral, skeptical view? Your thoughts.

[TweaK]

You manage to sum up my thoughts quite accurately. And with that, I just mean the last paragraph.

[thegnome54]

I reached the very same conclusions myself not too long ago. Both sides of the argument are effectively unsupportable - the only rational position is that of uncertainty.

[Carôusoul]

This is true. However I feel it logical to conclude that none of the Gods worshipped by mankind exist Of course we can never conclude there is no greater power; but I do believe we can deduce that if there is; it isn't one we know about. Sure there is a chance it is, but it is somewhere in the region of 0.01%

[thegnome54]

Well, that's life. You make a thread like this and the three or four people who already agree with you are the only ones who answer. I really wish people like lucid_boy and that lonewolf guy would read this, as well as some of the more outspoken militant atheists.

[cuddleyperson]

well i class myself as Atheist although I'm not 100% God doesn't exist... I feel if i said without a doubt God doesn't exist I'm being arrogant and ignorant. So i am open to the possibility of a creator( maybe not a God, maybe so, depends on definition) however i feel it is very slim, as in like 99% no God. So because I'm not 50/50 unsure and strongly lean toward no God, i class myself as Atheist and if i were to debate I'd strongly stick with any Gods humans have come up with do not exist, but i am not "militant Atheist", as in i don't go around pushing it on people. I;ll mention i don't believe in their view point if they say they are religious and it will probably turn into a debate. But i don't go around handing out loads of leaflets, knocking on door or shouting that all religious folks are idiots or killing people.

[StephenT]

Carousoul, I think it'd be pretty hard to put a real percentage on whether God exists or not. I like this though. It's great logic, and you think very similarly to myself, and many others. It is definitely wrong for anybody to assume that they are right. Atheists and Theists alike. I am an Agnostic by definition, but I lean more torwards my own beliefs that are mostly Theist. I completelly despise the comcept of religions though, and believe that it is making spirituality a commodity and a cheap trick, but still keep an open mind and learn from them. Especially Buddhists and Christians. Buddhism has many great ideas, and Christianity has many horrible ideas and mistakes to learn from. This whole argument is why I always stress to people while I'm in an argument about religion, this is why they call it faith or belief. Because there is no factual evidence to any side that gives an absolute right answer. It's up to people themselves to decide, but not to dictate. Another reason why religion is so horrible. People have the arrogance to claim that their religion is right without a doubt. People have the hypocracy to claim that other religions are crazy and wrong. People have the ignorance to join a religion blindly without thinking about spirituality to an extent needed to make a major decision such as that, leading to insufficient knowledge and oversufficient portrayal of faith. Then they try to convert, which just makes it all seem like a market. Buy our product of faith! This is the way to heaven! I keep my spirituality basic. I believe in a God, I like him. I call him Alfred because it pisses of Christians when I say that I renamed God. I don't pray to him every night or ask for forgiveness. I don't do all these wierd rituals. The only thing that I do that is somewhat of a whatever is I meditate on occasion. This is both for Dream Yoga, control over myself, and sometimes for some guidance from clear thinking, and maybe even spiritual thinking. If it's needed though, I might pray to Alfred to relieve some pressure, and maybe see if I get some idea. Don't completelly abandon the subject of God, but don't take it too far. Basically, all I do is acknowledge the existence that I believe there is a God. And I also accept that I could definitely be wrong about that, which means no repricussions. If I rot in the ground, I rot in the ground. If there is a God, I think that I'm good. Especially since I don't believe in Hell. And since I'm minimally spiritual, I at least don't dedicate my whole damn life to preaching to pygmies in Africa about some bullshit. Religion is a joke. Atheism, even though probably more logical than religion, is still a joke because of it's abandonment of anything. Agnosticism is as close to not stupid as we can get. Even though we're still all dumbasses in the end. Either way. If this makes no sense to you, don't worry... I make little sense to most people.

[Carôusoul]

Carousoul, I think it'd be pretty hard to put a real percentage on whether God exists or not. arn from. Well; it's a rough estimate to demonstrate "a very low probability". On another note; does it make one agnostic if they are willing to accept that there "could be a God"? In this case our man Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist; he is agnostic, in an unexpected turn of events.

[StephenT]

Agnosticism is unsure about whether there is a God or not. It's where they generally haven't decided whether they think there is a God or not. Or they are slightly steered torwards one side or the other like me. If they think that there isn't a God but are willing to accept that they could be wrong, they are still Atheist, except must more respectable in my opinion because of their acceptance of fallability. So he's still Atheist.

[Carôusoul]

Agnosticism is unsure about whether there is a God or not. It's where they generally haven't decided whether they think there is a God or not. Or they are slightly steered torwards one side or the other like me. If they think that there isn't a God but are willing to accept that they could be wrong, they are still Atheist, except must more respectable in my opinion because of their acceptance of fallability. So he's still Atheist. Hm. I guess this makes me atheist then.

[StephenT]

It's iffy. Define yourself with whatever you see as fit. If you don't believe that there is a God, then your probably Atheist. Unless you think that there may be a God or there may not, but probably not, then probably Agnostic. So there's common ground for both I guess. Also, I forgot to note... I'm no religious scholar... yet... so don't take my word on too much because I can be and probably am wrong on something here.

[thegnome54]

Hm. I guess this makes me atheist then. Ditto. I hate this ever-shifting vista of confused terminology. Screw it, let's make up our own word! As far as I can tell, other than "weak" or "soft" atheist, there is no word for being "99% sure that there is no god, but I could be wrong". Any possible words?

[StephenT]

99ist.

[Kromoh]

Don't have time to read it all now, but: So I'm thinking, hey, aren't theists AND atheists both being irrational when they claim their views are correct. Unless we have proof that god(s) do and don't exist, shouldn't we all just be agnostics and look at things in a neutral, skeptical view? Skepticism doesn't mean "staying on the fence" - skepticism means "not believing things without evidence/proof". Of course, the level of skepticism varies among people. I'll post a full-blown reply later on.

[O'nus]

I am atheist because I have yet to find a cogent reason to believe in a God. I give room for it and the possibility for it, but I have no reason to believe in it. I utilize empiricism and logic to prove facticity. Where is the flaw in the above...? How is the above different than previous purported points? ~

[thegnome54]

I am atheist because I have yet to find a cogent reason to believe in a God. I give room for it and the possibility for it, but I have no reason to believe in it. I utilize empiricism and logic to prove facticity. Where is the flaw in the above...? How is the above different than previous purported points? ~ The problem is one of semantics. You are effectively the same type of person as Carou and I - a "99ist", I suppose. I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless.

[O'nus]

The problem is one of semantics. You are effectively the same type of person as Carou and I - a "99ist", I suppose. I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless. I do this. I would call thoes atheists fundamentalists or zealots whereas I am simply a mere atheist that has not yet received reason to believe in a God. I fear that most agnostics are simply afraid to label themselves atheist becaue of its pejorative connotation when atheism seems to encapulsate their intentions. However, theists and people in general have associated atheists with nay-saying arseholes. ~

[Techno]

On another note; does it make one agnostic if they are willing to accept that there "could be a God"? In this case our man Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist; he is agnostic, in an unexpected turn of events. If you claim that there are no deities in existence then you are a atheist, whether you have evidence to back it up or not. However, if you claim that you could be wrong, but still believe there are no deities, then you are still an atheist. Either way, to be an actual agnostic (with no extra labels), you need to admit that you don't know for sure. You can believe it's more likely, but I really don't know how that works if you strive for unbiased rationality. It looks to me that Dawkin's is an atheist, because it seems to me that he's explicitly trying to deny theism as a whole. (Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?) Don't have time to read it all now, but: Skepticism doesn't mean "staying on the fence" - skepticism means "not believing things without evidence/proof. Of course, the level of skepticism varies among people. I'll post a full-blown reply later on. Even if you use that reasoning for every side of the argument, you would still be an agnostic. The claim "no god(s) exist" cannot be believable without evidence/proof as much as the claim "god(s) exist" cannot be believable without evidence/proof. Either way both remain currently unproven, but one must be correct. Since no god-o-scopes exist, and neither has any deity shown themselves to humanity, the only rational option we have left to say "we don't know yet". I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless. Sure, let's go with that. I do this as well, but seem to disagree with that last statement. Claims for their existence may be baseless, but the possibility of deities (creators or not) existing cannot be measured due to the inability for one to actually define WHAT they are, why they exist, and so forth. The odds are impossible to measure with this concept. I'm just saying that the odds aren't against deities, they're against the theists who think they know exactly who the real one is and know exactly what he's like. I fear that most agnostics are simply afraid to label themselves atheist becaue of its pejorative connotation when atheism seems to encapulsate their intentions. However, theists and people in general have associated atheists with nay-saying arseholes. Actually, as an atheist I cared little about being called what I was. Even as an agnostic still didn't give. I used to be an arsehole about religion when I got frustrated with family members, but got over it when I saw that arguing is pointless when someone doesn't have an open mind *cough*mydad*cough*. I do agree with some of the intentions of atheists, with all the secularization of society and government, but sometimes they just go too far with it. If we stop saying "merry Christmas", what do we call the holiday now, "excuse to party, give presents, and have an orgy or something"? And if we can take Jesus out of Easter, should we take Ishtar out too? Or does this "secularization" only apply to currently-active, powerhouse religions like Christianity? (O'nus, either side can say that the others are nay-saying arseholes. You should've seen me when I was an atheist. )

[Kromoh]

Well, I do agree being skeptic is staying on the fence a bit. But at least you actually pick a side. I mean, there is no evidence concerning god, so I choose not to believe him for that matter. If evidence ever comes up, then I'll consider the evidence and maybe believe him (if the evidence is right conclusive of course). Most people claim to have evidence god exists, but they make silly mistakes. Also, many atheists claim to have proof god doesn't exist, but it is based on philosophy only (for example, the way Carou proved there can be no omnipotent being because it creates a paradox). So I'm kind of an atheist agnostic, if that's ever possible ^^

[Techno]

Well, I do agree being skeptic is staying on the fence a bit. But at least you actually pick a side. I mean, there is no evidence concerning god, so I choose not to believe him for that matter. If evidence ever comes up, then I'll consider the evidence and maybe believe him (if the evidence is right conclusive of course). Most people claim to have evidence god exists, but they make silly mistakes. Also, many atheists claim to have proof god doesn't exist, but it is based on philosophy only (for example, the way Carou proved there can be no omnipotent being because it creates a paradox). Dude, you're a little late with the whole "we proved omnipotent beings cannot exist"; I believe my man Siddharta solved that riddle long ago. Or wait, that logic only applies to beings whose characteristics you actually define. Since the Judeo-Christian god's qualities have been explained, we can instantly deduce that he doesn't exist. Heck, the only deity that can escape disproving is a deity that cares for humanity, yet refuses to show their existence to humanity for reasons that they cannot alter, overcome, or in other ways simply override. Oh, and they can't know everything, because everybody knows that Laplace's demon would lead himself into an infinite loop of insanity, because when he finally calculates the totality of everything past, present, and future, he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know......[insert random bit of information] before he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew......it. Either way, it's completely foolish for a god to hide their existence from humanity for ANY reason, so a god that cares for humanity is pretty much out of the picture. So I'm kind of an atheist agnostic, if that's ever possible ^^ I think you're this.

[Kromoh]

haha Daniel thanks for the enlightenign references, but I really meant that as an example only. And OMG at the link - there is actually something named that? lol now we talk business ^^ http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ag...theist-faq.htm Guess I qualify for an agnostic atheist, really

[O'nus]

If you claim that there are no deities in existence then you are a atheist, whether you have evidence to back it up or not. However, if you claim that you could be wrong, but still believe there are no deities, then you are still an atheist. Either way, to be an actual agnostic (with no extra labels), you need to admit that you don't know for sure. You can believe it's more likely, but I really don't know how that works if you strive for unbiased rationality. It looks to me that Dawkin's is an atheist, because it seems to me that he's explicitly trying to deny theism as a whole. (Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?) Dawkins is definitly an atheist. Just search up "The Atheist Alliance" and you will see for yourself. However, he still gives room for others to prove if God exists or why he should believe in one. He never explicity says that there is no God and that there will never be proof of one. Just read/watch some of his material and you will see that many people manipulate his words beyond belief. Dawkins is someone who I very well respect because of how fair his beliefs are and how much he is attacked for them. Atheists are underdogs today and in his "I am an Atheist, but" he explains how it seems that we must give justifications for being atheist rather than simply stating so. Case in point, you presumed that he thought there is no way we could ever prove a God when he fervently believes otherwise; he just has not found the reason yet. Actually, as an atheist I cared little about being called what I was. Even as an agnostic still didn't give. I used to be an arsehole about religion when I got frustrated with family members, but got over it when I saw that arguing is pointless when someone doesn't have an open mind *cough*mydad*cough*. I do agree with some of the intentions of atheists, with all the secularization of society and government, but sometimes they just go too far with it. If we stop saying "merry Christmas", what do we call the holiday now, "excuse to party, give presents, and have an orgy or something"? And if we can take Jesus out of Easter, should we take Ishtar out too? Or does this "secularization" only apply to currently-active, powerhouse religions like Christianity? (O'nus, either side can say that the others are nay-saying arseholes. You should've seen me when I was an atheist. ) See what I mean though? I consider myself a very strong atheist and yet I ardently advocate people to say "Merry Christmas" rather than anything else. I am all for freedom of thought and liberal-esque movements. I encourage people to find out the reasons for holidays and why they are the way they are rather than simply blindly following them. I do not encourage others to remove and abolish them because they were founded on benign foundations. What do you think...? ~

[Techno]

Dawkins is someone who I very well respect because of how fair his beliefs are and how much he is attacked for them. Atheists are underdogs today and in his "I am an Atheist, but" he explains how it seems that we must give justifications for being atheist rather than simply stating so. Case in point, you presumed that he thought there is no way we could ever prove a God when he fervently believes otherwise; he just has not found the reason yet. I'm not so sure I presumed that about him. What I was trying to say was that I presumed he was an atheist in the sense that he's a person who attempts to affirm that no god(s) exist. I doubt it to be impossible to prove/disprove god's existence, and Dawkins could very well agree with me. But still, if you didn't prove/disprove any of the sides so far, you need to remain neutral about the subject until you come to a conclusion. Sure, you can disprove/prove man-made gods, but you can't disprove/prove the existence of creators of the universe. It doesn't fit the bill of a god, who is someone/something that wants worship from you, so then that makes me qualify as an atheist. Wait, did I JUST justify why we should be atheists? Should someone change the title to the thread now? Maybe that'll start more arguments...I mean discussions. See what I mean though? I consider myself a very strong atheist and yet I ardently advocate people to say "Merry Christmas" rather than anything else. I am all for freedom of thought and liberal-esque movements. I encourage people to find out the reasons for holidays and why they are the way they are rather than simply blindly following them. I do not encourage others to remove and abolish them because they were founded on benign foundations. What do you think...? ~ Sure, go find out why it's called Easter, but has to do with Jesus and eggs for some reason. I don't care if you want to say Merry Christmas or not, or if you want to remove religion out holidays as well. Just don't be damn annoying and act as if others can't say those religious expressions either. That's when your goals turn against you, and you become a hypocrite to your own cause.

[O'nus]

I'm not so sure I presumed that about him. What I was trying to say was that I presumed he was an atheist in the sense that he's a person who attempts to affirm that no god(s) exist. I doubt it to be impossible to prove/disprove god's existence, and Dawkins could very well agree with me. He asserts that he is more than welcome to see a convincing reason to believe a God exists, but he has yet to find or hear one. He says that it is possible, just not recorded yet. But still, if you didn't prove/disprove any of the sides so far, you need to remain neutral about the subject until you come to a conclusion. So, what is the difference between this and the goals of the scientific method? Something all atheists revere. Sure, you can disprove/prove man-made gods, but you can't disprove/prove the existence of creators of the universe. It doesn't fit the bill of a god, who is someone/something that wants worship from you, so then that makes me qualify as an atheist. Wait, did I JUST justify why we should be atheists? Should someone change the title to the thread now? Maybe that'll start more arguments...I mean discussions. Sure, go find out why it's called Easter, but has to do with Jesus and eggs for some reason. I don't care if you want to say Merry Christmas or not, or if you want to remove religion out holidays as well. Just don't be damn annoying and act as if others can't say those religious expressions either. That's when your goals turn against you, and you become a hypocrite to your own cause. As a passionate atheist, I can tell you that I would never do such a thing. For the sake of brevity, let me summarize my thoughts on this matter: Agnosticism - The belief that we can never know or understand the nature of things. Atheism - The belief that we require empirical grounds to believe in something (ie. a God). However, the meaning of Atheists has deteriorated because of fundamentalist atheists who claim that there is no God and never will be proof of one (which sounds more agnostic to me). In addition, the world is predominantly Theists who adhor Atheists and will obviously invariably manipulate the meaning of an Atheist with a pejorative connotation. Theist - The belief that a God exists, regardless of lack of proof. What do you think..? ~

[skysaw]

It's pretty well-established that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an Agnostic Atheist (as I am), or more rarely, even an Agnostic Theist. There are different flavors of Agnosticism: "I do not know if there is a God" "I can never know if there is a God" "No one knows if there is a God" "No one can ever know if there is a God" If you hold any of these to be true, but also believe there is no God, you are both Agnostic and Atheist.