Atheist vs. Religious

[CaptainSSO]

Always wondered this--I know most scientists are atheists, wondering how med students compare.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[link2swim06]

Haven't found a religion that made sense, but you do wonder how the hell this all happened by chance.

 

[Lunasly]

You know, I'd love for someone to answer this question for me: If God wanted to be known and worshipped among the people he "created", then why are there so many religions that say so many different things? Why is there more then one prophet? Why did they all convey different messages to the people?

I do believe in a higher power, but I don't like to be a part of any organized religion. At the end of the day, if you are religious then you believe in God. Why isn't that enough?

 

[Frazier]

Haven't found a religion that made sense, but you do wonder how the hell this all happened by chance.

Welcome to agnosticism.

 

[username456789]

You know, I'd love for someone to answer this question for me: If God wanted to be known and worshipped among the people he "created", then why are there so many religions that say so many different things? Why is there more then one prophet? Why did they all convey different messages to the people?

I do believe in a higher power, but I don't like to be a part of any organized religion. At the end of the day, if you are religious then you believe in God. Why isn't that enough?

The hilariously knee-jerk response you'll get from believers is "because he's testing us." That's sorta the catch-all convenient response to anything that challenges the validity of a person's given religion.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

.

 

[KinasePro]

You know, I'd love for someone to answer this question for me: If God wanted to be known and worshipped among the people he "created", then why are there so many religions that say so many different things? Why is there more then one prophet? Why did they all convey different messages to the people?

I do believe in a higher power, but I don't like to be a part of any organized religion. At the end of the day, if you are religious then you believe in God. Why isn't that enough?

I could take a stab at this question, but you'll have to humor me and agree that truth exists (an entirely separate debate, but bear with me). If there is a single spiritual "Truth," it's likely that many religions will give you portions of that Truth or mechanisms to discover it. However, it's not unreasonable to argue that certain faiths are probably closer to the Truth than others.

 

[FSU2013]

What about if you believe in God, yet you don't believe in religion? There should be a "Theist" option.

I was a fairly religious person once. Although I still believe in God, I'm no longer sure about the concept of "religion". I believe that there's a meaning for all this, but I'm tired of following rules sat by someone centuries ago. Besides, the idea of "my religion is right, and yours is wrong" has never made sense to me. How can anyone be sure about anything? isn't that what faith is all about, believing in something you've never seen? Why would someone be doomed to misery in hell just because he/she believes in a different religion or simply can not believe? If God created everything and controls everything, how is it fair that he created me with a doubtful mind that can not blindly believe?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but unless I find convincing answers to my doubts, I'm not going to affiliate myself with any religious group.

What sad is that, as Christians, that's what we believe and that's what Jesus preached - but a lot of people miss the point. Jesus preached that salvation isn't through following rules or works - he preached that it comes from loving God and loving people. Unfortunately, modern Christians don't always teach this. But don't be fooled, true Christian theology isn't about organized groups (Jesus only had 12 disciples) or fancy religion (Jesus was shunned by the church). It isn't about the guy on the corner telling people they're going to hell or telling other people how to live their life, it's about loving the adulterer and inviting the tax collector to dinner.

 

[zoner]

Jesus was basically a buddhist. everything else about him is all fluff made up by paul.

You should do a polling. Are you
1. Atheist
2. Spiritual (whatever that means)
3. Agnostic
4. Religious for social reasons
5. Religious but don't go to church
6. Religious but don't buy most of religious stories.
7. Very religious
8. I kill for my religion
9. I will die for my religion

Funny. I was just watching a beautiful documentary about the Buddah on netflix and reading "Jesus lived in India"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[DrSnips]

What sad is that, as Christians, that's what we believe and that's what Jesus preached - but a lot of people miss the point. Jesus preached that salvation isn't through following rules or works - he preached that it comes from loving God and loving people. Unfortunately, modern Christians don't always teach this. But don't be fooled, true Christian theology isn't about organized groups (Jesus only had 12 disciples) or fancy religion (Jesus was shunned by the church). It isn't about the guy on the corner telling people they're going to hell or telling other people how to live their life, it's about loving the adulterer and inviting the tax collector to dinner.

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
-Deuteronomy 22:22

Yup, sounds like you love yourself some adulterers alright

 

[KinasePro]

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
-Deuteronomy 22:22

Yup, sounds like you love yourself some adulterers alright

The Bible without context is just words and nonsense. Picking a verse at random (esp. from the Torah) is not a reflection of the central teachings of Christianity. (yes, I admit that mainstream Western Christians are frequently guilty of this, as well.)

 

[sinuous sausage]

God can't logically exist. But then I wonder where the hell logic came from.

 

[zoner]

I don't think Jesus ever said anything nasty like that himself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[DrSnips]

The Bible without context is just words and nonsense. Picking a verse at random (esp. from the Torah) is not a reflection of the central teachings of Christianity. (yes, I admit that mainstream Western Christians are frequently guilty of this, as well.)

Put that in a context that makes it sound like you aren't supposed to kill people for committing adultery.

You are right, that quote is from the old testament. What did Jesus think of the old testament?

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."
-Mark 5:17

 

[sinuous sausage]

Jesus was basically a buddhist. everything else about him is all fluff made up by paul.

You should do a polling. Are you
1. Atheist
2. Spiritual (whatever that means)
3. Agnostic
4. Religious for social reasons
5. Religious but don't go to church
6. Religious but don't buy most of religious stories.
7. Very religious
8. I kill for my religion
9. I will die for my religion

Funny. I was just watching a beautiful documentary about the Buddah on netflix and reading "Jesus lived in India"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

That's pretty inaccurate, and just intellectually lazy.

Jesus was more Hindu than anything, well, other than more Christian.

Edit: He was also rumored to be Jewish, which complicates things even further.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I could take a stab at this question, but you'll have to humor me and agree that truth exists (an entirely separate debate, but bear with me). If there is a single spiritual "Truth," it's likely that many religions will give you portions of that Truth or mechanisms to discover it. However, it's not unreasonable to argue that certain faiths are probably closer to the Truth than others.

Nah, the absolute truth debate is handled pretty easily.

Is there an absolute truth?

No.

So it's absolutely true there's no absolute truth?

Damn.

 

[zoner]

That's pretty inaccurate, and just intellectually lazy.

Jesus was more Hindu than anything, well, other than more Christian.

Edit: He was also rumored to be Jewish, which complicates things even further.

True true. But many many of his teaching s are identical to buddhist teaching who came before him by several centuries. You know there are jews living in north india right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[wjs010]

Agnostic here, but open to truth, it if ever presents itself

 

[KinasePro]

Put that in a context that makes it sound like you aren't supposed to kill people for committing adultery.

You are right, that quote is from the old testament. What did Jesus think of the old testament?

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."
-Mark 5:17

The context is that Deuteronomy is not addressing the reader. It's a historical book from a time when people assembled in tribes, stoned ******ed children, and left unwanted infants to die in the sun. Pretending that it's a book of instruction is just poor scholarship. No educated critic of Christianity/Judaism/Islam believes these passages are anything beyond historical narrative.

Also, you're doing the same thing with a new testament verse and its equally nonsensical.

 

[sinuous sausage]

True true. But many many of his teaching s are identical to buddhist teaching who came before him by several centuries. You know there are jews living in north india right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

I actually have heard that. Those Jews, man, they get around.

I've heard Buddhism described as watered-down Hinduism and Islam described as watered-down Christianity, with Hinduism and Christianity sharing a lot of theological and philosophical underpinnings. It's not like I've crafted a thesis on the subject, but I know I like a lot of what I've read theologically from both Hinduism and Christianity. I'm agnostic, in that I don't think proof is within our grasp, but both those religious traditions struck a chord with me. If God exists, I see him existing as they describe.

 

[DrSnips]

The context is that Deuteronomy is not addressing the reader. It's a historical book from a time when people assembled in tribes, stoned ******ed children, and left unwanted infants to die in the sun. Pretending that it's a book of instruction is just poor scholarship. No educated critic of Christianity/Judaism/Islam believes these passages are anything beyond historical narrative.

Also, you're doing the same thing with a new testament verse and its equally nonsensical.

You just hit the nail on the head. The savages that wrote the bible can't teach us a damn thing. It is a historical artifact that people show an unhealthy interest in. Nothing more.

 

[KinasePro]

True true. But many many of his teaching s are identical to buddhist teaching who came before him by several centuries. You know there are jews living in north india right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

There are a lot of parallels btw the Orthodox Christian view of God and the Buddhist/Taoist view. Some argue this is an example of different groups finding some degree of "Truth" by independent paths, and the question then becomes which approach gets you to Truth more completely?

 

[KinasePro]

You just hit the nail on the head. The savages that wrote the bible can't teach us a damn thing. It is a historical artifact that people show an unhealthy interest in. Nothing more.

Scripture outside of the Church is of little use. History, tradition, and scholarly interpretation are required to give the writings any meaning.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You just hit the nail on the head. The savages that wrote the bible can't teach us a damn thing. It is a historical artifact that people show an unhealthy interest in. Nothing more.

See, this is something I've always found interesting. You project back onto a subset of people removed from you by centuries, distance, and culture, and judge them by your standard of what is "savage."

Who will do the same to us in the future? Wrongly, I might add?

The same ontological questions of meaning are still here. With all our technological advantage and knowledge we're still no closer to finding out the ultimate truth of "why?" It's like each new leap in knowledge just better acquaints us to the depth of our ignorance.

I might even argue the fact that millions of people the globe over, 3000 years later, can relate to a book cobbled together by nomads in the Middle East is evidence of some deep value in it.

 

[DrSnips]

See, this is something I've always found interesting. You project back onto a subset of people removed from you by centuries, distance, and culture, and judge them by your standard of what is "savage."

Who will do the same to us in the future? Wrongly, I might add?

The same ontological questions of meaning are still here. With all our technological advantage and knowledge we're still no closer to finding out the ultimate truth of "why?" It's like each new leap in knowledge just better acquaints us to the depth of our ignorance.

I might even argue the fact that millions of people the globe over, 3000 years later, can relate to a book cobbled together by nomads in the Middle East is evidence of some deep value in it.

In the future they will likely be more enlightened than we are now and will rightly look back on us as barbaric savages.

With all our technological advantage and knowledge we're still no closer to finding out the ultimate truth of "why?" That is because our technological advances do not seek to answer the question of "why?" They answer the question of "how?" and so far they are answering it at a remarkable rate.

People can find value in just about anything. All that glitters is not gold.

 

[KinasePro]

See, this is something I've always found interesting. You project back onto a subset of people removed from you by centuries, distance, and culture, and judge them by your standard of what is "savage."

Who will do the same to us in the future? Wrongly, I might add?

The same ontological questions of meaning are still here. With all our technological advantage and knowledge we're still no closer to finding out the ultimate truth of "why?" It's like each new leap in knowledge just better acquaints us to the depth of our ignorance.

I might even argue the fact that millions of people the globe over, 3000 years later, can relate to a book cobbled together by nomads in the Middle East is evidence of some deep value in it.

Some great points here. I think it's very easy to judge the practices in the Torah and elsewhere as a 21st century American, sitting in air conditioned house typing on a macbook pro...

But what's ironic is much of our idea of right and wrong actually came from Judeo-Christian thought. Take for example one of our country's founding principles -- "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." If you look at the history of western philosophy, this irrefutably originates from the Judeo-Christian idea of Imago Dei (man was created in the likeness of God). Of course now we take for granted that there is sanctity to human life and sorrow in human suffering, but we easily forget that this planet was once governed by barbaric principles like "might makes right".

 

[sinuous sausage]

In the future they will likely be more enlightened than we are now and will rightly look back on us as barbaric savages.

With all our technological advantage and knowledge we're still no closer to finding out the ultimate truth of "why?" That is because our technological advances do not seek to answer the question of "why?" They answer the question of "how?" and so far they are answering it at a remarkable rate.

People can find value in just about anything. All that glitters is not gold.

I suppose I think of enlightenment as relating strictly with the "why?" question, and my point is enlightenment--or understanding of why--is realized the same way then as it is realized now, and will be realized in the future. Knowledge of the physical world... I mean, does it matter? Am I actually any more knowledgable than they are? Look at the everyday items around you: watches, cars, microwaves, computers. Do I know how to make any one of these things? Resoundingly no. Drop me off in premodern Palestine and see how well I get along. Our technological accomplishments are our fathers' technological accomplishments, and back and back until the beginning.

But the questions that matter--I think religion has something to say about them. At least it tries.

People can find value in just about anything, sure, but can so many people find value in the same thing? I used to discount the intuitive draw towards God, but not so much anymore.

 

[DrSnips]

I suppose I think of enlightenment as relating strictly with the "why?" question, and my point is enlightenment--or understanding of why--is realized the same way then as it is realized now, and will be realized in the future. Knowledge of the physical world... I mean, does it matter? Am I actually any more knowledgable than they are? Look at the everyday items around you: watches, cars, microwaves, computers. Do I know how to make any one of these things? Resoundingly no. Drop me off in premodern Palestine and see how well I get along. Our technological accomplishments are our fathers' technological accomplishments, and back and back until the beginning.

But the questions that matter--I think religion has something to say about them. At least it tries.

People can find value in just about anything, sure, but can so many people find value in the same thing? I used to discount the intuitive draw towards God, but not so much anymore.

The fact that you personally cannot implement every last human innovation is irrelevant. These are collective achievements of humanity through scientific inquiry. All of these engineering applications are based on even more important underlying principles. Sure you couldn't build a car in premodern palestine, but you could introduce them to the germ theory of disease. You could even invent the first vaccines.

Religion has something to say about "why?", but with no external validity it is no better than any philosopher's musings.

Can many people find value in the same worthless thing? Sure they can, because to a degree, we all think alike. How else do you explain that there are diamonds out there that we all agree are worth more than your house? Value is subjective.

 

[sinuous sausage]

The fact that you personally cannot implement every last human innovation is irrelevant. These are collective achievements of humanity through scientific inquiry. All of these engineering applications are based on even more important underlying principles. Sure you couldn't build a car in premodern palestine, but you could introduce them to the germ theory of disease. You could even invent the first vaccines.

Religion has something to say about "why?", but with no external validity it is no better than any philosopher's musings.

Can many people find value in the same worthless thing? Sure they can, because to a degree, we all think alike. How else do you explain that there are diamonds out there that we all agree are worth more than your house? Value is subjective.

Certainly they're collective achievements, which I think blunts your criticism of these purportedly "savage" societies.

It's a philosophical musing to render other philosophical (or religious) musings moot. Here's where the notion of God, for me, would serve as external validity--for truth, morality, knowledge, causality, etc. He would be what makes objectivity objective.

So we agree people can find value in the same thing, but we disagree on whether that value means anything. Regardless of whether or not God has any meaning (I imagine that, by definition, he does), the fact that people find value in God--warranted value or not--I think gives credence to the notion that God could very well exist. It's not an argument for God or anything, and I would probably discount it once upon a time, but it's a useful way for me to reconcile the universal draw a seemingly ludicrous book like the Bible has. One has to first be open to the idea of God before one can be open to the idea that God is communicating with us through some tribe's historical mythology.

 

[DrSnips]

Certainly they're collective achievements, which I think blunts your criticism of these purportedly "savage" societies.

It's a philosophical musing to render other philosophical (or religious) musings moot. Here's where the notion of God, for me, would serve as external validity--for truth, morality, knowledge, causality, etc. He would be what makes objectivity objective.

So we agree people can find value in the same thing, but we disagree on whether that value means anything. Regardless of whether or not God has any meaning (I imagine that, by definition, he does), the fact that people find value in God--warranted value or not--I think gives credence to the notion that God could very well exist. It's not an argument for God or anything, and I would probably discount it once upon a time, but it's a useful way for me to reconcile the universal draw a seemingly ludicrous book like the Bible has. One has to first be open to the idea of God before one can be open to the idea that God is communicating with us through some tribe's historical mythology.

Did I ever say it was their fault they were savages? They didn't know any better. A better question, do you believe they weren't savages?

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. If I claimed unicorns existed, you could just as correctly dismiss it as a musing with no substance.

A bunch of people believing something does not give it anymore credibility than zero people believing it. Sorry.

 

[evilbooyaa]

 

[KinasePro]

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. If I claimed unicorns existed, you could just as correctly dismiss it as a musing with no substance.

A bunch of people believing something does not give it anymore credibility than zero people believing it. Sorry.

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of things we can all agree upon that do exist, but cannot be empirically proven. Love, honor, inspiration, beauty, justice, etc... You can't put these things under a microscope and fully understand them. Sure, some pop-psychology will get you part way there, but those arguments have as much hand-waving as any description of God that I have ever heard.

Have you ever heard of the classic philosophical "problem of other minds"? It basically states that we can't actually prove that anyone else has mentality as we understand it, no matter how sophisticated their behavior is. In fact, I could hook you up to an fMRI or EEG and view your brain activity, but I could never prove that you have beliefs, experience sorrow, have thoughts that you choose not to express, etc... You could tell me yourself, but I would have to take your word for it. I'm forced to believe you're somewhat like me because you look and behave like me, but the proof is in no way empirical.

My point is that we actually use "faith" everyday in our assessment of the world around us, and empirical proof cannot be the only yardstick for how we evaluate "truth." For example, I believe you have a mind and are not a figment of my imagination or some automata, but I can't prove it.

 

[Michael Corleon]

These threads never end because there is no proof on either side

I believe is God. Some of you don't. That's OK and life goes on.

Some will say you have to prove this or that, but there are no such rules. If you don't want to believe that's OK, but insulting people about their faith isn't really what america is about.

Also, there are equal #s who believe and do not. These people may score higher than you do on science exams. Which is to say that intelligence or scientific reazoning have little to do with what side you're on.

 

[zoner]

Now can we talk about whether lepricans exist or not? Because I believe them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[Michael Corleon]

Now can we talk about whether lepricans exist or not? Because I believe them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

You can talk about whatever you want. You should respect people though.

 

[DrSnips]

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of things we can all agree upon that do exist, but cannot be empirically proven. Love, honor, inspiration, beauty, justice, etc... You can't put these things under a microscope and fully understand them. Sure, some pop-psychology will get you part way there, but those arguments have as much hand-waving as any description of God that I have ever heard.

Have you ever heard of the classic philosophical "problem of other minds"? It basically states that we can't actually prove that anyone else has mentality as we understand it, no matter how sophisticated their behavior is. In fact, I could hook you up to an fMRI or EEG and view your brain activity, but I could never prove that you have beliefs, experience sorrow, have thoughts that you choose not to express, etc... You could tell me yourself, but I would have to take your word for it. I'm forced to believe you're somewhat like me because you look and behave like me, but the proof is in no way empirical.

My point is that we actually use "faith" everyday in our assessment of the world around us, and empirical proof cannot be the only yardstick for how we evaluate "truth." For example, I believe you have a mind and are not a figment of my imagination or some automata, but I can't prove it.

Empirical proof is not the only yardstick for evaluating truth, nor did I say it was. However, empirical proofs are one of few things one can say are definitely true. You can still use circumstantial evidence to say that something is more likely or less likely to have happened. What you are referring to as faith is actually circumstantial evidence.

When you talk about throwing us both inside an MRI and showing the inner workings are the same, that is some extremely strong circumstantial evidence. Strong enough that you would be foolish not to make decisions as if it were true. It might not be true, but it is the best available information you have.

How much circumstantial evidence do I have that there is a billion dollars in my bank account? Last time I checked there wasn't a billion in there, but that was a while ago. There might be right now. Maybe some banker hit the wrong key on a computer and transferred a billion to me. I can certainly show you some evidence that bankers have made similar mistakes before. Should I start spending my newfound billion dollars because it is possible that it exists? Possible does not equal probable.

 

[487806]

Im an intermediate.

 

[Kaputt]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Why doesn't anyone understand this? People seem to think that agnosticism is "atheism lite" or just some way of saying "I dunno, man".

Agnosticism/gnosticism are philosophical claims about the nature of knowledge. Atheism/theism are philosophical claims about belief. For any given person's set of beliefs, they are either gnostic or agnostic, and either theist or atheist.

At any rate, these arguments have been raging since the dawn of our species so I doubt another thread on an internet forum will resolve the issues. So I'll just stick with the default position in lieu of any other evidence -- agnostic atheism.

 

[KinasePro]

Empirical proof is not the only yardstick for evaluating truth, nor did I say it was. However, empirical proofs are one of few things one can say are definitely true. You can still use circumstantial evidence to say that something is more likely or less likely to have happened. What you are referring to as faith is actually circumstantial evidence.

When you talk about throwing us both inside an MRI and showing the inner workings are the same, that is some extremely strong circumstantial evidence. Strong enough that you would be foolish not to make decisions as if it were true. It might not be true, but it is the best available information you have.

How much circumstantial evidence do I have that there is a billion dollars in my bank account? Last time I checked there wasn't a billion in there, but that was a while ago. There might be right now. Maybe some banker hit the wrong key on a computer and transferred a billion to me. I can certainly show you some evidence that bankers have made similar mistakes before. Should I start spending my newfound billion dollars because it is possible that it exists? Possible does not equal probable.

I don't agree that faith and circumstantial evidence are one and the same. Faith is willingness to accept something without empirical evidence, while circumstantial evidence is something used to connect imperfect evidence to a conclusion via inference. They have similarities in that they are both not supported empirically, but ultimately they are different things altogether.

I do agree with you that empirical proofs are the only things we have to say something is definitely true, however most religions (or at least those worth taking seriously) don't claim to a) know definite truth or b) have the ability to prove it. God (or Tao, or w/e) is often described as a mystery hidden from man, as an entity that cannot be empirically proven but can be experienced (similar to love, respect, justice, beauty, etc... they can be experienced but not proven to exist).

The core difference between an atheist and theist IMO is how much "mystery" they will tolerate. The atheist will tolerate very little, apart from the mystery of other minds and mysteries of existentialism, while the spiritual person tends to embrace those mysteries as indication that there is "something" greater than the human mind.

 

[DrSnips]

I don't agree that faith and circumstantial evidence are one and the same. Faith is willingness to accept something without empirical evidence, while circumstantial evidence is something used to connect imperfect evidence to a conclusion via inference. They have similarities in that they are both not supported empirically, but ultimately they are different things altogether.

I do agree with you that empirical proofs are the only things we have to say something is definitely true, however most religions (or at least those worth taking seriously) don't claim to a) know definite truth or b) have the ability to prove it. God (or Tao, or w/e) is often described as a mystery hidden from man, as an entity that cannot be empirically proven but can be experienced (similar to love, respect, justice, beauty, etc... they can be experienced but not proven to exist).

The core difference between an atheist and theist IMO is how much "mystery" they will tolerate. The atheist will tolerate very little, apart from the mystery of other minds and mysteries of existentialism, while the spiritual person tends to embrace those mysteries as indication that there is "something" greater than the human mind.

If that is how you define faith, then I would agree we all use a lot of faith. I would define it however, as belief in the absence of any evidence (not just empirical).

This may be ignorance on my part, but I would disagree that most religions don't claim to know definite truth. Perhaps it is only the adherents of these religions that claim to?

The core difference between the atheist and theist is that the atheist has a built-in null hypothesis and the theist does not.

 

[CaptainSSO]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Why doesn't anyone understand this? People seem to think that agnosticism is "atheism lite" or just some way of saying "I dunno, man".

Agnosticism/gnosticism are philosophical claims about the nature of knowledge. Atheism/theism are philosophical claims about belief. For any given person's set of beliefs, they are either gnostic or agnostic, and either theist or atheist.

At any rate, these arguments have been raging since the dawn of our species so I doubt another thread on an internet forum will resolve the issues. So I'll just stick with the default position in lieu of any other evidence -- agnostic atheism.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity."

That was obviously how I was using, and how 99% of people will interpret it. It's fine if one pedantic guy feels differently.

I didn't make the thread to "resolve issues." Notice I didn't post my own beliefs? I just wanted percentages. But if people want to discuss it, so what? It's not anymore or less valid than anyone else discussing it. Humans are curious, we're going to think and discuss things. I've had hundreds of conversations about this stuf and will have hundreds more.

 

[urbanclassic]

What sad is that, as Christians, that's what we believe and that's what Jesus preached - but a lot of people miss the point. Jesus preached that salvation isn't through following rules or works - he preached that it comes from loving God and loving people. Unfortunately, modern Christians don't always teach this. But don't be fooled, true Christian theology isn't about organized groups (Jesus only had 12 disciples) or fancy religion (Jesus was shunned by the church). It isn't about the guy on the corner telling people they're going to hell or telling other people how to live their life, it's about loving the adulterer and inviting the tax collector to dinner.

I agree with you. There is so much hate in Christianity today, it's hard to call myself a Christian because it automatically gets you pinned as someone who hates homosexuals and is judgmental. I could not be farther from that. I DON'T CARE what two consenting adults do. I have no right to tell them what to do or how to live because I am not perfect/God. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, and I believe is loving people for who they are. We need to stop trying to "fix" people. Two people capable of making their own choices can do as they please with each other, whether it marriage, sex, or whatever. I want to share kindness and service to others, and that is it. If someone wants to know how I reach my peace I will tell them, but I will not hound on others and try to force them to do something they don't care to... it won't work, we Christians need to change our approach to one of Jesus... and not an approach of hate and scare-tactics.

 

[KinasePro]

This may be ignorance on my part, but I would disagree that most religions don't claim to know definite truth. Perhaps it is only the adherents of these religions that claim to?

I think this is exactly the case, especially in western culture. Many are raised in a religion and identify with it, but do not know the core teachings. What makes matters more confusing, is that when people talk about their faith, they often talk very matter-of-fact.

For example, a guy might say "There is a God, and I know Him." The faith he's describing in comments like these can easily be misinterpreted as what he considers to be fact. But his faith is probably better described as a process, something he wrestles with constantly. He's confident in his knowledge of God, but he should be able to admit that it is a belief that has been validated through his personal experience, not something that he can prove.

At least from everything that I have read and learned, this is the type of faith traditionally taught in the core principles of Christianity/Judaism etc... Each faith thinks they have the best idea of how to know/worship God, but I think true practitioners will acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty and searching at the core of their religions.

 

[Segway]

 

[Kaputt]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity."

That was obviously how I was using, and how 99% of people will interpret it. It's fine if one pedantic guy feels differently.

The popular sense misunderstands the terms. If we cannot accurately describe the terms we are using to define our beliefs, this discussion is utterly pointless. Here's why:

Most atheists these days are agnostic atheists. They freely admit that they do not know if a deity exists (that's the agnostic part) but don't accept the claims made by theists (that's the atheist part). Agnostic atheists do not make the claim "god doesn't exist", because they are agnostic -- they don't actually know if god exists. People love to claim that atheism makes the truth claim "god doesn't exist", which is annoying because only gnostic atheists believe that. I would agree that making the claim "god doesn't exist" is irrational, despite the fact that I am an atheist.

Here's a chart that sums it up:

Gnostic atheists and theists make truth claims about the existence of god; "God doesn't exist!" or "God exists!", respectively.

Agnostic atheists and theists don't make truth claims about the existence of god: "I don't know if God exists, but I side with doubt" or "I don't know if God exists, but I side with belief", respectively.

I didn't make the thread to "resolve issues." Notice I didn't post my own beliefs? I just wanted percentages. But if people want to discuss it, so what? It's not anymore or less valid than anyone else discussing it. Humans are curious, we're going to think and discuss things. I've had hundreds of conversations about this stuf and will have hundreds more.

Fair enough, but this thread will simply turn into an argument like it does on every other forum ever. And splitting atheism from agnosticism in your poll oversimplifies it because someone like me is both atheist and agnostic.

 

[Mbeas]

The popular sense misunderstands the terms. If we cannot accurately describe the terms we are using to define our beliefs, this discussion is utterly pointless. Here's why:

Most atheists these days are agnostic atheists. They freely admit that they do not know if a deity exists (that's the agnostic part) but don't accept the claims made by theists (that's the atheist part). Agnostic atheists do not make the claim "god doesn't exist", because they are agnostic -- they don't actually know if god exists. People love to claim that atheism makes the truth claim "god doesn't exist", which is annoying because only gnostic atheists believe that. I would agree that making the claim "god doesn't exist" is irrational, despite the fact that I am an atheist.

Thanks for clarifying that...it actual annoys me when people use the term "agnostic" so loosely. As you mentioned, there is a spectrum in agnosticism, ranging from an agnostic theist to an agnostic atheist just as there are descriptions ranging from a gnostic theist to a gnostic atheist. As with most things, the issue isn't so black and white.

As for the extremes, for you to say that you absolutely know for certain (i.e. 100%) whether or not God exists is intellectually dishonest. That's why I feel like so many people would fall into the "agnostic" category, whether they are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Since people don't understand this distinction, they will classify themselves under the two main extremes, theist or atheist.

With that said, I think you will find that many believers are technically agnostic theists.

 

[sinuous sausage]

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of things we can all agree upon that do exist, but cannot be empirically proven. Love, honor, inspiration, beauty, justice, etc... You can't put these things under a microscope and fully understand them. Sure, some pop-psychology will get you part way there, but those arguments have as much hand-waving as any description of God that I have ever heard.

Have you ever heard of the classic philosophical "problem of other minds"? It basically states that we can't actually prove that anyone else has mentality as we understand it, no matter how sophisticated their behavior is. In fact, I could hook you up to an fMRI or EEG and view your brain activity, but I could never prove that you have beliefs, experience sorrow, have thoughts that you choose not to express, etc... You could tell me yourself, but I would have to take your word for it. I'm forced to believe you're somewhat like me because you look and behave like me, but the proof is in no way empirical.

My point is that we actually use "faith" everyday in our assessment of the world around us, and empirical proof cannot be the only yardstick for how we evaluate "truth." For example, I believe you have a mind and are not a figment of my imagination or some automata, but I can't prove it.

^This is great stuff. I think they call it "solipsism."

I see another problem with the unicorn/leprechaun/Flying Spaghetti Monster scenarios. What characteristics would this unicorn have? If it's an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent unicorn, one that generated consciousness and reason and truth and all the rest of it, then I would say that this unicorn sounds a lot like God. You can package it as anything you want, provided it has the necessary characteristics.

Also, I think you raise a great point about the prevalence of faith--either consciously or unconsciously--in life. To value empiricism, or evidence about the physical world, I have to believe in some version of metaphysical realism to justify it, and implicit in a belief in metaphysical realism is faith in forces which could create a reality corresponding to metaphysical realism.

For example, I have to believe that a) the physical world is there b) the physical world relates to truth and c) I possess the faculties to discern anything about the physical world. These are taken on faith!

 

[sinuous sausage]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Why doesn't anyone understand this? People seem to think that agnosticism is "atheism lite" or just some way of saying "I dunno, man".

Agnosticism/gnosticism are philosophical claims about the nature of knowledge. Atheism/theism are philosophical claims about belief. For any given person's set of beliefs, they are either gnostic or agnostic, and either theist or atheist.

At any rate, these arguments have been raging since the dawn of our species so I doubt another thread on an internet forum will resolve the issues. So I'll just stick with the default position in lieu of any other evidence -- agnostic atheism.

I empathize with your POV, especially since it nicely sums up my former one.

I was bothered, however, with the notion of "knowing" that I "don't know." You're making a claim of knowledge when you claim ignorance, and I'm sure you can imagine that line of thought drawn out ad infinitum (I don't know that I don't know that I don't know...)

What stops that madness? And even if I lived in a state of permanent suspension, where I'm continually counting back how much I don't "know," I can't escape the sense that reality is objective on some level. It's a fact that "I don't know x 100000" is still a single fact I do know, or that someone knows.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I agree with you. There is so much hate in Christianity today, it's hard to call myself a Christian because it automatically gets you pinned as someone who hates homosexuals and is judgmental. I could not be farther from that. I DON'T CARE what two consenting adults do. I have no right to tell them what to do or how to live because I am not perfect/God. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, and I believe is loving people for who they are. We need to stop trying to "fix" people. Two people capable of making their own choices can do as they please with each other, whether it marriage, sex, or whatever. I want to share kindness and service to others, and that is it. If someone wants to know how I reach my peace I will tell them, but I will not hound on others and try to force them to do something they don't care to... it won't work, we Christians need to change our approach to one of Jesus... and not an approach of hate and scare-tactics.

See, I'd object to this. It's why the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle ruffled my feathers this past summer.

A Christian can believe some act, like homosexuality or homosexual marriage, to be immoral. It's a pretty clear teaching of their god. I personally think gay marriage rights are fine, even if the campaign for them is a little overwrought, but I think people should be free to think they're morally reprehensible. There are a lot of things society allows that I find to be morally reprehensible, but I still support the right of others to "do evil unto themselves." But over my dead body will some stooge come be my thought-police by telling me I'm not allowed to think some act is wrong or right, and I think the handwringing and subsequent bully campaign ("HATE CHIKIN") over CFA--a private enterprise--expressing its support for traditional marriage was utter BS. Sure, I support gay marriage rights, but I'd support someone's right to have an opinion a million times over.

 

[PercussionChick]

I don't see "apathetic"