Atheism

ronbyrne2005

Any one who has sufficent intelligence can see that atheism is as blind as christianity or islam, only agnosticism is the home of the openminded.we cannot know if a god existsor doesnt exist as athiests beleive, we cannot know the origins of the universe etc but we can be curious and ponder it or just accept that we wont ever know unless there is an afterlife(highly unlikely but no possible to say it doesnt exist) or a god reveals himself to us or provides evidence.anyone that follows a religon based on poor documentary evidence from unscientiic era's like the bible and koran are fools,but their blind faith could be true! nothing re faith can be completley discounted!
from agnostic ronnie

Firewalkwithme

Sorry Ron but I have to disagree. I consider myself to be atheist based on all current information available to me at this point in time. Should something happen in the future that leads me to reconsider my beliefs I would certainly look at it. I don't think that's being 'blind' as you put it.

As I see it, at least I, other atheists and those of faith, have the courage of their convictions to state clearly what their beliefs are whereas all agnostics seem to want to do is sit on the fence and take pot-shots at both sides.

Goodshape

Despatch wrote:

I consider myself to be atheist based on all current information available to me at this point in time. Should something happen in the future that leads me to reconsider my beliefs I would certainly look at it.

So based on current information you believe there is no point in stating that God exists -- but, you would be willing to change your mind if new information becomes available. So you don't really believe nor disbelieve.

Sounds more like an agnostic to me. No?

ronbyrne2005

"have the courage of their convictions "
what are the convictions based on?the atheists convictions are based on the same incomplete information as that of the religous zealot.it is impossible to know either way if a "higher being" exists so the information you are basing your belief on is incomplete or erroneous or incapable of being proved or all of the above

Tar.Aldarion

Blurry lines.


I personally would consier that agnosticism but others would not.
If you believe we can't know at this point in time whether a god exists or not then you are agnostic but you could still believe in a God or believe there is none.
In the case of an open minded atheist, they don't know yet they still have the belief there is none. In their minds they think there probably isn't a god but are open to the possibility of themselves being wrong.
Depends on how you define atheism and agnostism to say which one this belief falls under.
I would call most people that call themselves atheist agnotics but they might disagree.

EDIT:

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

"have the courage of their convictions "
what are the convictions based on?the atheists convictions are based on the same incomplete information as that of the religous zealot.it is impossible to know either way if a "higher being" exists so the information you are basing your belief on is incomplete or erroneous or incapable of being proved or all of the above

As I said, they can be open minded and still hold the personal belief that a god doesn't exist.

ronbyrne2005

did anyone see the jonathon miller series on religous disbelief on bbc
very good

Firewalkwithme

Goodshape wrote:

So based on current information you believe there is no point in stating that God exists -- but, you would be willing to change your mind if new information becomes available. So you don't really believe nor disbelieve.

Sounds more like an agnostic to me. No?

No, I am saying that I don't believe.

If something could definitively prove the case one way or the other in the future, I cannot not rule out changing my point of view (and that would apply to any subject).

That does no make me agnostic. I steadfastly believe that there is no such thing as a god or gods.

mathie

For reference

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

M

Firewalkwithme

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

As I said, they can be open minded and still hold the personal belief that a god doesn't exist.

That's more or less what I was trying to say. Glad to see you got it Tar.

Tar.Aldarion

Got it? I only read the first post, speed posting...got a project to do

Dades

I'm tentative to dive in without some form of charter but I'm pretty sure this type of comment is unhelpful...

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

anyone that follows a religon based on poor documentary evidence from unscientiic era's like the bible and koran are fools

But hey since the argument is genuine...

The thing to remember is that a belief itself is not a claim to knowledge. Yes you will find believers who will claim definitive knowledge of any number of spurious notions, but this standard should not be applied to all beliefs.

You don't have to know something is the 100% uncontestable truth to believe it. If I walk into a room and see a man holding a smoking gun and a fresh stiff on the floor, I am going to believe a murder has happened. I didn't see it, so I can't know it, but in my head the evidence points to it. The point to note is that new evidence may lead to a different belief.

Sidenote: before anyone goes suggesting that agnostics rule and atheist's don't (or vice-versa) perhaps first define your idea of a "god". Just in case the waters weren't muddy enough already...

ronbyrne2005

"The thing to remember is that a belief itself is not a claim to knowledge."

so as an atheist your belief is not a claim to knowledge that a god definetley doesnt exist,and a beleiver in christ is not claiming to have absolute undeniable knowledge of the existence of god,therefore the safest belief to hold seems to be that it is impossible to say with any certainty either way ie,agnosticism -it has the added benefits of hedging your bets but it is the most truthful belief as it cant be wrong! either way you win!.

people "beleive" that psychics really can predict their future, we have to draw the line on beliefs of people and assess them objectively with all known absolutely true information,it breaks down though i suppose because every piece of information is usually subject to subjective interpretation and in reality we cant be sure of anything including our perceived reality or time or jaysis time to move to the philosophy forum.

Dades

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

though i suppose because every piece of information is usually subject to subjective interpretation and in reality we cant be sure of anything including our perceived reality or time or jaysis time to move to the philosophy forum.

Now you're gettin' it.

What we "know" in this realm is nothing - so all we have is belief, disbelief, or faith. Just because we can't know doesn't mean we can't have one of the aforementioned. We just need to be able to justify that belief etc. when asked to.

ronbyrne2005

yes and agnosticism is the most easy to justify to others and most importantly my self whatever my "self" is.

pH

I really can't believe that an agnostic can actually exist. Are you agonstic about the Greek Gods? or the Roman ones? What about the Norse Gods? Are you as agnostic about Thor and Zeus as you are about the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God?

Of course not, today no one in their right mind considers themselves agnostic or even athiestic about Apollo and Bachus, all consider them fanciful inventions of an unelightens people - supersticious nonsense, fables and myths.

If you think about it, very little is provable, does anything exists outside of your mind? Did the creator make us a scant 15 minutes ago with made up memories of a life we haven't led? How can you prove that he didn't?

Tar.Aldarion

pH wrote:

I really can't believe that an agnostic can actually exist. Are you agonstic about the Greek Gods? or the Roman ones? What about the Norse Gods? Are you as agnostic about Thor and Zeus as you are about the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God?

Of course not, today no one in their right mind considers themselves agnostic or even athiestic about Apollo and Bachus, all consider them fanciful inventions of an unelightens people - supersticious nonsense, fables and myths.

Totally incorrect. Zues has as much chance as existing as the christian God.
Infact all agnostics would believe this.
Persoanlly believe that every religion is fancyful wishmongering but that is my belief. I do not know. Even if they are all wrong then I am 'as agnostic' about any 'god' existing.

Did the creator make us a scant 15 minutes ago with made up memories of a life we haven't led? How can you prove that he didn't?

You cannot, simple as.

pH

But that encloses the agnostic/athiest distinction into a more general philosophical mindeset that no one can be certain about anything. Therefore being certain or unsure about the existance of God is meaninless in that philosophy as by definition nothing is certain.

You seem to be equally agnostic to the claim that we were all made 15 minutes ago as to the claim that God exists.

You also state that 'You believe that Religion is fanciful wishmongering', which is an Athiestic statement in my book. You say agnostic, I say Athiest .. le's call the whole thing off!

Tar.Aldarion

pH wrote:

But that encloses the agnostic/athiest distinction into a more general philosophical mindeset that no one can be certain about anything. Therefore being certain or unsure about the existance of God is meaninless in that philosophy as by definition nothing is certain.

You seem to be equally agnostic to the claim that we were all made 15 minutes ago as to the claim that God exists.

Blame all that philosophy crap I read :v:
Yes i believe in this philosophical mindset that we can not be sure of anything because of course, we can not!
That does not however dismiss the god/no god existence theory because in looking at it you give certain leeway and accept that the universe is as it appears to us and that it has infact been created or was always there etc.

You also state that 'You believe that Religion is fanciful wishmongering', which is an Athiestic statement in my book. You say agnostic, I say Athiest .. le's call the whole thing off!

I said that I do not think that any religion is correct, that extends to eaths ones only because they are what I know of and as far as I can see they were all made up by people. However, That does not mean I believe or do not believe that there is a god somewhere. So I'm agnostic.

Asiaprod

Lets take a real world example.
I am a Buddhist.

As a Buddhist I do not believe in a God, that make me definitely an Atheist.
Equally true:
As a Buddhist I do believe in higher forms of existence which we call Deities or guardian spirits, some good, some bad. They influence the way I act/react. Does that make me an Agnostic?

My concept of an afterlife is moving from one state of consciousness to a perfect, or if you like, enlighterned one. I have never seen it, yet I see reflections of this higher life condition here in real life.

How would you define what I am?

Beruthiel

mathie wrote:

For reference

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

this would be me
I cannot prove that a god of some sort doesn't exist, but until I have some logical proof that he does, I shall remain skeptial and live by my own moral code

NeilJ

I think perhaps this discussion and others on this forum would be better served if there was a charter. Already there are comments being made about peoples beliefs which others would find quite offensive. Without any sort of defining parameters I don't know if it really is possible to discuss these topics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know????

Neil

ronbyrne2005

when i say i am agnostic,i am assuming that the world is as the vast majority of people perceive it and that the laws of science as we know them are true ,and that the generaly accepted history of mankind/evolution is true,and that individuas are free to make their own descision...........

i could go on ,maybe we do need a charter with generally accepted definitions assumpions and premises

Elessar

I suppose I would consider myself agnostic, all told, though I tend to lean more to either belief system sometimes. I think I'll stick to being agnostic though.

I do believe however that to be athiest is just as arrogant and naive as to be religious. Who knows what science will figure out 100 years from now?

We could all be eating our hats.

Tar.Aldarion

NeilJ wrote:

I think perhaps this discussion and others on this forum would be better served if there was a charter. Already there are comments being made about peoples beliefs which others would find quite offensive. Without any sort of defining parameters I don't know if it really is possible to discuss these topics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know????

Neil

Well there does need to be a charter but give it a chance, it's quite new!
What has been said that would greatly offend people?

NeilJ

To give the two examples that caught me attention:

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Any one who has sufficent intelligence can see that atheism is as blind as christianity or islam, only agnosticism is the home of the openminded.

I'm sure there are many people of sufficent intelligence who would not view atheism this way

pH wrote:

Of course not, today no one in their right mind considers themselves agnostic or even athiestic about Apollo and Bachus, all consider them fanciful inventions of an unelightens people - supersticious nonsense, fables and myths.

I know many practising Neo-Pagans who are quite enlightened people and who believe that the prechristian gods are just as valid as the modern judeo-christain ones and not "supersticious nonsense" but rather deities in their own right or facets of the divine personified as individuals.

In fairness it's not so much what's being said but rather how it's being said. Terms like "sufficient intelligence" or "unelightens people" come across as somewhat arrogrant to me. Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive, but I feel that we can discuss matters of the existence or non-existence of God without having to bandy around phrases like this.

Neil

ronbyrne2005

my statement was not intended to offend anyone, simply i meant that given the current store of humanknowledge and experience being agnostic or uncertain as to a creator is the safest path for a curious questioning mind as it is the only path that leaves both (potentially true)options open

Tar.Aldarion

Well Neil,

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Any one who has sufficent intelligence can see that atheism is as blind as christianity or islam, only agnosticism is the home of the openminded.

He should have said it was atheists that believe that they are 100% correct and are not even open to other opinions. There are people like that that are atheist and that are deists or whatever.
It is clear that he believes that atheists by definition all fall under this way of thinking but some people believe that they are atheist and do not hold this 100% certainty so yes it should not have been said in such a vague way.
A slight editing by a mod or a tut tut would suffice. (:

pH wrote:

Of course not, today no one in their right mind considers themselves agnostic or even athiestic about Apollo and Bachus, all consider them fanciful inventions of an unelightens people - supersticious nonsense, fables and myths

Well yes I did think this post was a bit over the top. People do and did believe
in these things and nobodies beliefs can be called plain not in a right mind.
lus he said that nobody is atheist to them which means everybody believes in them

pH

People do and did believe in these things and nobodies beliefs can be called plain not in a right mind.

Some beliefs *do* indicate a state of mental illness, belief that you are Jesus or Napoleon, or ala David Icke that the world is run by reptiles are clearly the result of some form of delusion.

If you show me someone today who worships Thor or Apollo then I would have to question their sanity, there is no set of circumstances where in today's Ireland you could be rationaly convinced of their (Greek/Roman Gods) existance, whereas I accept that the vast majority of Christians/Muslims/Jews etc are in fact sane - incorrect and misguided but sane.

The point remains the same, by implication the discussion here is about belief in a single God, the question of wheter you're atheist or agnostic about Zeus just doesn't arise.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins

Dades

pH wrote:

The point remains the same, by implication the discussion here is about belief in a single God, the question of wheter you're atheist or agnostic about Zeus just doesn't arise.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins

Not quite convinced by that point, in fact your quote of Dawkin's would imply that one god is simply the same as another.

Let me give you another quote: "History is written by the winners." If Christianity had not replaced the Zeus etc. as the Roman Empire's religion of choice your point might well be reversed.

Or are you suggesting that if there is a god, it's more likely to be the most popular one?

Butterbox

An Dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac stayed awake all night wondering if there was a
dog.

Doc_Savage

Why should there be a god least the pagans had a real sense of things went they had a god for different emotions, places and things. Its a bit more believeable? then one god. What was god doing when the dinosaurs were roaming the planet?