Discussion Thread

[Husker_x]

Shot in the dark here, but I was curious about something. If any of you on this forum happen to consider yourselves an atheist, why do you choose that position over agnosticism? (Granted that you don't use the terms interchangeably in the first place, which they aren't.)

[bennychico11]

what about agnostic atheism?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

or agnostic theism?

or nontheism?

too many choices!!

 

 

I've never really labeled myself as any of them. I've always seen atheist as "without gods". Meaning no belief in a god(s) whatsoever...but that didn't mean one didn't believe in an afterlife, spiritual beings, etc. While agnosticism was more on the side of "There is no proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion."

 

I guess I'm closer to the latter than the former. But like I said, I don't like to label myself. I just believe what I believe. The way I see it, my beliefs come down to three important choices...ones that set me apart from theists.

I disagree with organized religion as a whole. I find it very detrimental in many many ways...however, I also find them extremely interesting...especially the extremists.

Next, I don't believe in a god(s). However...that's based on scientific reasoning. I'm in constant awe of everything in our world and beyond, but none of it has given me a reason to think that their is a single or multiple deities at work behind it all.

And last, the afterlife. Again, I cannot know so I cannot make a valid assumption. However, I hypothesize that the afterlife was more of a "reward" made up by organized religions to offer us hope after we die. One of my favorite quotes on this was from Gore Vidal:

"The idea that good behavior only depends upon your fear of what will happen to you after you die; that you will be punished. Well, that excludes all of philosophy. It excludes Plato, it excludes the mystery cults of Greece, it excludes the Roman idea of what is a good man. There goes Marcus Aurelius, there goes Epictetus, there go the Stoics. These are all better thinkers than anything that the Christian church has come up with in 2,000 years."

-Gore Vidal

[Husker_x]

what about agnostic atheism?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

or agnostic theism?

or nontheism?

too many choices!!

 

 

I've never really labeled myself as any of them. I've always seen atheist as "without gods". Meaning no belief in a god(s) whatsoever...but that didn't mean one didn't believe in an afterlife, spiritual beings, etc. While agnosticism was more on the side of "There is no proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion."

 

I guess I'm closer to the latter than the former. But like I said, I don't like to label myself. I just believe what I believe. The way I see it, my beliefs come down to three important choices...ones that set me apart from theists.

I disagree with organized religion as a whole. I find it very detrimental in many many ways...however, I also find them extremely interesting...especially the extremists.

Next, I don't believe in a god(s). However...that's based on scientific reasoning. I'm in constant awe of everything in our world and beyond, but none of it has given me a reason to think that their is a single or multiple deities at work behind it all.

And last, the afterlife. Again, I cannot know so I cannot make a valid assumption. However, I hypothesize that the afterlife was more of a "reward" made up by organized religions to offer us hope after we die. One of my favorite quotes on this was from Gore Vidal:

"The idea that good behavior only depends upon your fear of what will happen to you after you die; that you will be punished. Well, that excludes all of philosophy. It excludes Plato, it excludes the mystery cults of Greece, it excludes the Roman idea of what is a good man. There goes Marcus Aurelius, there goes Epictetus, there go the Stoics. These are all better thinkers than anything that the Christian church has come up with in 2,000 years."

-Gore Vidal

 

Hey Benny. Thanks for the response.

 

I'm interested in your second reason for disbelief, the bolded point. You could say this is the question that started the thread in an ancillary kind of way. My thesis here is that atheism as defined as the emphatic disbelief in the supernatural is an untenable position. Or more simply, not knowing if there is a God (agnosticism) is a different and more intellectually sound position than calling yourself an atheist. You could say that the default position for anyone religious or not is agnostic, because none of us really know. The other question for you would be what scientific criteria would cause an atheist to change his opinion?

 

If you were walking down the street and were stopped by a stranger who proceeded to make an apple materialize out of thin air into his hand and claimed that he did this by the power of God, occam's razor would still hold that an alien transporter device is a simpler explanation than a supernatural deity beyond the scope of the universe. I'm curious what atheists of any flavor think about this. Because if we're honest with each other, seemingly no event which occurs in the boundaries of the universe––regardless of how fantastic––could ever serve as 'proof' of the divine. There's always a simpler explanation than God.

 

Therefore there is no conceivable way that any scientific evidence of any kind would sway an atheist to accept the proposition of God.

 

Therefore even if God does exist, an atheist could never accept it based on his criteria of scientific evidence. He seems to have erected an unfalsifiable paradigm.

 

What do you think?

[bennychico11]

Because if we're honest with each other, seemingly no event which occurs in the boundaries of the universe––regardless of how fantastic––could ever serve as 'proof' of the divine. There's always a simpler explanation than God.

 

actually the way I see it, the simple answer IS because of a god. Which is why religion and theism in general has worked for so long. The easiest answer has always been "God". Because it can't be challenged. It explains all things...no matter how complex. A theist can simple say "The bible is the Truth and the Word of God because I know it is" and you can't challenge it. You can't challenge someone's heart felt belief. The believer thinks because you can't disprove them...then they are in the right. But from an agnostics point of view, because it CAN'T be proven they are in the right. Stalemate, nobody wins.

I think more and more agnostics are preferring to be called free thinkers.

The self proclaimed deity will ask you to disprove his apple trick...as the agnostic will ask for it to be proven. The freethinker would also challenge your occam's razor claim that it was the result of an alien transporter, since that isn't really the more simplest solution either. You'd have to prove the claim that there are not only intelligent alien life form but also they contain ability to transport matter. Of course, that side tracks us.

 

 

Therefore there is no conceivable way that any scientific evidence of any kind would sway an atheist to accept the proposition of God.

 

Therefore even if God does exist, an atheist could never accept it based on his criteria of scientific evidence. He seems to have erected an unfalsifiable paradigm.

 

I think an atheist would never accept it based on their belief, period. Since they have labeled themselves as an atheist, they've already taken the stance that there is no god. No evidence will ever satisfy them. As do theist who take the stance that there IS a god. If scientists were to come out and state otherwise...most theists wouldn't accept it and still continue to believe what they do.

Atheists are non believers...with regards to the subject of god(s). But it's still A belief.

Agnostics hold that no human being can ever possess knowledge outside of nature. There are theists who agree to this as well.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I consider myself agnostic though I highly doubt the existence of god.

 

I've had this same discussion with several people who claim to be either a theist or an atheist and both try to use the scientific method to prove their claim. Using the so-called "null hypothesis" both somehow claim that if the existence or non-existence of god in their hypothesis cannot be proven that the alternative must be true. Unfortunately, it works both ways.

 

Edit: Also see the Law of Excluded Middle

[Husker_x]

I consider myself agnostic though I highly doubt the existence of god.

 

I've had this same discussion with several people who claim to be either a theist or an atheist and both try to use the scientific method to prove their claim. Using the so-called "null hypothesis" both somehow claim that if the existence or non-existence of god in their hypothesis cannot be proven that the alternative must be true. Unfortunately, it works both ways.

 

Edit: Also see the Law of Excluded Middle

 

So would you argue for a partial existence of God? As far as I can see, the basic premise that either God exists or he doesn't holds water.

[Husker_x]

Because if we're honest with each other, seemingly no event which occurs in the boundaries of the universe––regardless of how fantastic––could ever serve as 'proof' of the divine. There's always a simpler explanation than God.

 

actually the way I see it, the simple answer IS because of a god. Which is why religion and theism in general has worked for so long. The easiest answer has always been "God". Because it can't be challenged. It explains all things...no matter how complex. A theist can simple say "The bible is the Truth and the Word of God because I know it is" and you can't challenge it. You can't challenge someone's heart felt belief. The believer thinks because you can't disprove them...then they are in the right. But from an agnostics point of view, because it CAN'T be proven they are in the right. Stalemate, nobody wins.

I think more and more agnostics are preferring to be called free thinkers.

The self proclaimed deity will ask you to disprove his apple trick...as the agnostic will ask for it to be proven. The freethinker would also challenge your occam's razor claim that it was the result of an alien transporter, since that isn't really the more simplest solution either. You'd have to prove the claim that there are not only intelligent alien life form but also they contain ability to transport matter. Of course, that side tracks us.

 

 

Therefore there is no conceivable way that any scientific evidence of any kind would sway an atheist to accept the proposition of God.

 

Therefore even if God does exist, an atheist could never accept it based on his criteria of scientific evidence. He seems to have erected an unfalsifiable paradigm.

 

I think an atheist would never accept it based on their belief, period. Since they have labeled themselves as an atheist, they've already taken the stance that there is no god. No evidence will ever satisfy them. As do theist who take the stance that there IS a god. If scientists were to come out and state otherwise...most theists wouldn't accept it and still continue to believe what they do.

Atheists are non believers...with regards to the subject of god(s). But it's still A belief.

Agnostics hold that no human being can ever possess knowledge outside of nature. There are theists who agree to this as well.

 

I doubt you intended this, but I think that position walks you right into a trap. Since occam's razor essentially states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, if God is indeed the simplest explanation, it is the best explanation. I doubt that's where you were headed, and someone like Christopher Hitchens would break a chair over you for saying so.

 

God may be the 'easier' answer in that it doesn't require a lot of thought or study to say, "God did it." But it most certainly isn't the simplest answer in our magic apple trick. If there was a man who claimed to be from God and could hold out his hand and an apple literally materialized in front of your eyes, you would have a couple of options to test.

 

1. He happened to catch an apple falling from the sky and you happened to blink at the wrong moment.

2. Aliens have perfected a science we're unaware of and are having fun at our expense, apparently.

3. The man has the powers of a deity and can make apples appear.

 

Pretend we can rule out the first one––you didn't blink and were totally alert and attentive. At least on the surface the event appears to have been miraculous. That leaves options two and three. Of the two, aliens are the simplest explanation. You already have the theory of evolution to explain how there could be aliens, and we have enough evidence of science on our own planet (even in similar objects like fax machines) to give us grounds that something like this would be possible. This answer may be complex, but it is not nearly as complex as a supernatural being which exists outside the universe (a nearly unfathomable concept for the human mind) and who can make random things materialize inside it. Whatever created the complex universe, which includes our hypothetical aliens, must itself be more complex than the thing it created (so the theory goes, anyway).

 

Which brings us back to my initial point. You can forget the alien apple trick and fill in whatever 'evidence' for God you want. Say an asteroid floating through the Milky Way turns up one day and we find that it has etched on it in English words, "I Am that I Am." As outlandish as this would be, and as staggering as it would be to an atheist, we still have the basic problem that we're using a physical object to induce a non-physical, non-material God. And therefore since science deals only with the physical, it is an inadequate tool to find God if he does exist.

[Husker_x]

bump

[bennychico11]

I doubt you intended this, but I think that position walks you right into a trap. Since occam's razor essentially states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, if God is indeed the simplest explanation, it is the best explanation. I doubt that's where you were headed, and someone like Christopher Hitchens would break a chair over you for saying so.

 

lol, I think maybe "easiest" is a better word than "simplest". It's the easiest answer when trying to explain what we don't know. Of course, easiest for whom? Easiest for the person saying it...yes...easiest for those of us discussing the existence of god? No. Of course, the simplest (or easiest) answer isn't always the RIGHT answer. There could be another simpler one we have yet to discover. So I guess, it's an answer.

In the apple example...the trick could also be just an illusion. Magicians have been captivating audiences for years in this way. There could be numerous examples...one not being simpler than any other.

 

 

 

we still have the basic problem that we're using a physical object to induce a non-physical, non-material God. And therefore since science deals only with the physical, it is an inadequate tool to find God if he does exist.

agreed. And that's why we have a difference between the terms. Agnostics have the realization that they will never understand things outside of our own nature. Humans don't have the capacity to do so.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I consider myself agnostic though I highly doubt the existence of god.

 

I've had this same discussion with several people who claim to be either a theist or an atheist and both try to use the scientific method to prove their claim. Using the so-called "null hypothesis" both somehow claim that if the existence or non-existence of god in their hypothesis cannot be proven that the alternative must be true. Unfortunately, it works both ways.

 

Edit: Also see the Law of Excluded Middle

 

So would you argue for a partial existence of God? As far as I can see, the basic premise that either God exists or he doesn't holds water.

 

Can one argue for a partial existence?

 

I would rather not make a choice on this until I have enough evidence to point in either direction. Until then, I will remain agnostic.

 

Edit: The truth maybe that I don't care either way. If there's a god so be it. If not, my life continues.

[huskerjack23]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

[redout22]

I believe in God and believe in after life. I am also a Cathlic. I could list a bunch of reasons and have supported claims that there is a God but it proably won't change anyone's opinion on here so I wont.

[bennychico11]

I believe in God and believe in after life. I am also a Cathlic. I could list a bunch of reasons and have supported claims that there is a God but it proably won't change anyone's opinion on here so I wont.

 

agreeably it would end in a stalemate, but perhaps a good discussion for another thread sometime

(seeing as how this one was purely started for the discussion on atheism versus agnosticism).

[Husker_x]

I'm an atheist.

 

It's also not a choice for me.

 

When I was christian, i denounced all of the other millions of gods because they were illogical. I just took another step with Yaweh.

 

It's not that he doesn't exist, it's that he can't. It defies logic. For an entity to defy logic and space and time and the other laws of the universe is unfathomable to me.

 

There are things that are extraordinary about this world. Awe-inspiring. Wonderous. Supernatural? Nope.

 

Science doesn't know all the answers, but they aren't unknowable.

 

I think you're getting hung up on words. Not a very persuasive argument. Of course a supernatural deity would defy human logic. And no he wouldn't 'exist' in the sense that you and I occupy space and time. But just like two-dimentional creatures denying the possibility of a three-dimentional being because it defies their logic would be absurd, a natural man denying the possibility of a supernatural entity simply because we can't fathom it would be equally absurd.

 

On your last sentence, in a philosophical sense everything including our own existence is unknowable. Science proves nothing.

[Husker_x]

I believe in God and believe in after life. I am also a Cathlic. I could list a bunch of reasons and have supported claims that there is a God but it proably won't change anyone's opinion on here so I wont.

 

Probably not, but I'd like to hear them. Not the goal but the game, right?