Richard sent in this question:
A friend recently commented that he had never met an atheist who wasn’t, in fact, a “deep agnostic.” A deep agnostic is one who doesn’t deny the possibility of a god but considers the possibility of such an existence extremely slim.
I contended that there were atheists who hold the non-existence of god as firmly as theists who maintain the existence of god. I’m hoping that other atheists might chime in on this.
I do not believe a god exists. I could probably be said to hold this non-belief as firmly as most theists hold their beliefs. So I’m an atheist.
But I’m also a type of agnostic. I don’t think god’s non-existence can be proved. For instance, it could be that a god exists but is hiding. So I think there is an extremely slim chance that there is a god — about the same odds as the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The reason I don’t believe in a god is because I see no evidence for one, but instead see a world where a god is not needed and does not show up. If new evidence were to turn up, then I would believe in a god.
It’s my understanding that most atheists hold to something similar, but I could be wrong.
What do you think?
Anyone who thinks critically about the exitstance / non existance of god will have to concede that it is impossible from a practical point of view to search every cubic micrometer of this very vast (and expanding) universe to definitively state we have eliminated the possibility that this missing god has not been found. And what tests would you use? Would you actually know if you found it?
Surely the “spirit” of the definition of an agnostic is a person who cannot decide or state whether or not a god exists. This does not really include people in the category above.
If your definition of an agnostic includes those who concede the 0.00000000000001% chance that one day we will stumble upon some universal higher power, then you couldn’t honestly say you are not agnostic.
Dawkins defines a “strong atheist” as one who states there is no god (weak atheist says there is probably no god). Even the strong atheist has to accede to the small chance mentioned above, but I don’t consider this makes one any less an atheist, or really an agnostic.
I don’t think that theists in general either understand or care about the delineation between agnostic and atheist.
Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology was indistinguishable from magic. Consider this variant: Any being wielding sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a god.
Do you believe any such beings could exist in the universe? Does that mean you believe in the possibility of a god?
What I consider to be atheist is what many people consider agnostic, that is, the belief that any random thing is as likely as god existing, but that there is still a chance.
As Bertrand Russell posited, the likelihood of an unseen teapot, forever orbiting between Earth and Mars is, on the surface, preposterous. Unless, of course, it was the stuff of sacred books, rites and dogmas. Then it would be known as a religion. An atheist would find no disconnect between disbelieving in the fanciful teapot…or in God.
It depends on your definition of ‘agnostic’, and I think this is a very broad definition. I do not deny the possibility of Santa Claus (in the sense that I cannot prove he doesn’t exist) but I consider the possibility of his existence extremely slim (in spite of the frequent sightings). Does that make me agnostic with respect to Santa?
The wikipedia definition speaks of “the truth value of a certain claim is unknown” or “inherently impossible to prove or disprove”. Most atheists, however, would argue that you can at least say something about the possibility of god’s existence.
On a related note, how many theists would be totally, 100% certain of god’s existence? Sure enough, they would want to be certain but even they must notice that it is mostly awfully silent and empty out there.
Religions, theologians and dictators believe in absolutes, scientists do not. The uncertainty principle means that we have to use statistical analysis techniques when looking at experimental data. So scientifically you cannot say God definitely or absolutely does not exist however that is not to say that one must therefore believe in a God or because there is a very remote possibility that a God or Gods exists that you must therefore believe in a God or choose a religion to follow. The evidence for God or Gods is based purely on highly questionable narrative accounts of divine experiences that have nothing to do with science. If you simply look at the number of religions and their attendant Gods you soon realise the futility in trying to disprove any of their claims. The same statistical analysis would undoubtedly come up with similar figures for the existence of Zeus, Horus or the Christian God. Religion is about control if you are born into a middle class white evangelical family in the Mid West of the USA it is highly improbable that you will believe in Buddha, similarly a boy brought up in an Islamic family is unlikely to have the desire to be the next Arch Bishop of Canterbury.
I am an Atheist and totally sick of the notion that any Religion is worth a damn particularly the ones with the bloodiest histories.
Agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. One can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.
Do you KNOW there is a flying teapot orbiting around the sun? You don’t, so you are are a Teapot-agnostic.
Do you BELIEVE there is a flying teapot orbiting around the sun? You don’t, so you are a Teapot atheist.
It seems to me you are an agnostic masking as an athiest then you are simply hedgng your bets, just in case.
As far as I can see the methodology to prove god’s existence is flawed, there is no scientific proof that god exists. Like time, the belief in a god or gods is made by man to control, and until such time that there is proof of god or some other deity, then I must accept there is no god. Faith is god in many is theoretically unshakable or faith would not exist, so why are so many who say they have faith shaken by the thought that god does not exist or upset when their faith is disagreed with.
Science can be good or bad, depending on who is funding…
no science yet has proved to me that god exists in any plane. There for i maintain there is no god, and to say that and qualify it by being an agnostic is more flawed than most statements made about athiesm.
A deep agnostic is one who doesn’t deny the possibility of a god but considers the possibility of such an existence extremely slim.
This definition is inept. A scientific person will be “deeply agnostic” about literally everything, from the law of gravity to the Holocaust. It’s possible that the phenomena that lead us to believe the law of gravity is nothing more than a giant coincidence… but of course the probability is very slim.
The characterization of atheists as “agnostics” is a rhetorical move, not a substantive move. It trades on the common meaning of agnosticism as undecided, ignorant or indifferent; the characterization of atheists as agnostics establishes “agnosticism” in the sense of a lack of absolute unassailable certainty, and then equivocates that lack of certainty to vacillation, wishy-washiness and indecisiveness.
If you really are undecided about the existence of God, it’s nothing but the truth to call yourself an agnostic. But don’t pretend you’re making some profound epistemic point: the Skeptics of ancient Greece beat you to it by more than twenty centuries. And don’t call *me* an agnostic: I may be mistaken, but I have most definitely made both a decision as well as taken a political position.
I believe there is a god that only rewards those who do not believe in him, because that is the only sensible position, since there is no evidence for his existence. (nope, just kidding).
I do not believe in any god. There might be a “god” that exists, but the god of the Bible or Christian fundamentalism does not. Nor does the god Islam exists, for example. I do not have any god, or believe in any god, therefore I am an atheist.
Michael Martin:
“If you look up ‘atheism’ in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one consider it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘not’ and ‘theos’ means ‘god.’ From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.” Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. 463.
I also can’t really call myself an agnostic, since I’m a physicalist. I think that science has proven that what we call mind is so far only generated by complex systems of matter, such as brains.
If someone were to respond that they think that God is material, then I would have to say that a material God is just an extraterrestrial. I am agnostic about the existence of extraterrestrials.
I for one consider myself a “negative atheist”. I do not positively assert the non-existence of God in the way that theists positively assert his existence. That would be silly. Rather, I take a much more scientific tack. I set up a null hypothesis.
Naturally, we do not assert the existence of something in a null hypothesis. It should be the logical default position. So, the null hypothesis for God is that he does not exist. It is up to the theists to procure robust evidence for the existence of God, thus causing us to reject the null hypothesis and turn to the alternative hypothesis of him existing. And with the funding given out by the Templeton Foundation, they can’t claim to have too little money to get decent results from their research! This approach is similar to the “presumption of atheism” or “burden of proof” arguments.
His non-existence can never be proven and thus positively asserted. It is the default position which we should all remain in unless somebody (or preferably many independent researchers) can provide robust and conclusive evidence suggesting his existence.
I see no reason to hold that the existence of God could never be proven. That is an unscientific mindset and the main reason I disagree with agnostics (they generally seem to be atheists who just haven’t thought about it enough yet). There is no reason why we should make an exception to the scientific method for God.
I’m an atheist, and I actually do make the claim that god doesn’t exist (rather than just saying that I don’t believe in a god).
The universe does not, and never has, and technically never can, operate on certainty or uncertainty. Depending on how you phrase the question, you can never be 100% sure about anything.
Take something that is (as far as I understand) considered to be a universal constant: the speed of light in a total vacuum. That is the same everywhere, we can be pretty sure about that. But then if, say, you ask “what about an alternate dimension”, suddenly we can’t answer. If you say “what if this is a dream and when we wake up, it’s a different speed?” again, there’s no answer. We can never be 100% sure.
I hate thinking along those lines. It’s philosophical wishy washy nonsense designed as a thought exercise, but it highlights my point. We can never be 100% certain about anything, and yet there are many things that we know to be certain. If I drop my mouse, it’ll hit the floor. It’ll happen again tomorrow in roughly the same way, and every day until I die, and even then if someone else drops my mouse at my funeral, it’ll hit the floor. We’re certain of it. We have the evidence for it.
The same goes, for my mind, with god, just in the opposite way. For thousands of years, humanity has been searching for god, some desperately, some casually. And in those thousands of years, what evidence has ever been produced? Absolutely none, whatsoever, bar a few books that for all we know were the attempts of 200CE’s Stephen King to break into mass publishing.
The concept of “god” is one of the only, if not *the* only, concepts amongst humans that we consider still a viable hypothesis despite the mounds of evidence against it, and complete lack of evidence for. To quote the more famous examples, Russel’s Teapot and the invisible dragon in the garage; both are technically impossible to disprove, but neither have any evidence for them. This is the same state of affairs for all the world’s religions. And yet if people started actively claiming that Russel’s Teapot exists, or that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, and they’d be laughed at. The idea is laughable.
The same goes for god, and that has always been my claim. Replace the idea of god with *anything* else that has the same level of evidence (i.e., none), and everyone will claim it doesn’t exist. Many people apparently think the idea of god has some special status in this, but I fail to see it.
In order for anything to “exist” in our universe it must be either matter or energy. Therefore if a “god” exists, he is either matter or energy and bound by our physical laws. So using that definition “god” as theists describe him really doesn’t “exist” in this universe but is simply an idea. “god” is an idea, conjured up in our little minds. You can put any label you want on me but it really doesn’t matter. It’s just a label.
“What do you think?”
I think there’s very clearly no such thing as an agnostic. To the extent that the nonexistence of anything is reasonable to presume, the nonexistence of god is reasonable to presume. Agnosticism, if it existed, would be nothing more than selective solipsism, the intellectual and philosophical equivalent of jumping off a balcony because no one can prove that you can’t fly. If you presume the existence of an objective reality that is reflected by observation, and if you understand that proof of a concept means only sufficient evidence for the nature of objective reality so that the failure to provisionally assume the concept as true is unreasonable–i.e. if you have a vague inkling of an understanding of the philosophy of science–then agnosticism is even more ridiculous than religion.
Are you sure, Dan, that how we feel about the possibility of a God can be narrowed down to two or three major groups?
I have my own definition of how I feel about the existence of gos, and it probably doesn’t fit an agnostic or an atheist definition.
I say that in regards to gods made up by religions I am 100% atheist. Is there a god at all? I don’t know and I don’t care. But even if there were a god, I know for sure that life is best lived when one goes about life without bothering thinking of extraterrestrial creatures.
I believe most humans are just too egotistical in either believing 100% in god or not believing 100% in god. I know how small I am in the grand scheme of things, and how much is unknown, that I cannot know one way or another. On one side, I don’t think there is a god watching over Earth, and that the Earth is the center of the universe. On the other side I see a 13 billion year old universe on a macro level, and strange activities at the quantum level, and we cannot see much at these limits, and cannot see beyond these limits. We will probably come to a better understanding of these current boundaries, but we will just discover a new boundary beyond that. I just can’t say that we won’t ever reach the level where the ‘why’ is answered which is a way I can define the idea of ‘god’.
I find sitting on fences uncomfortable, if not impossible. Because I have seen no convincing evidence for any gods, I live my life as though there were none. Thus, by my life, I am effectively asserting that there are none. To my mind, that makes me an atheist. Does that mean I’m not open to the possibility that gods, in fact, might exist? Absolutely not. But my default position is one of atheism. It will be until somebody comes up with what *I consider* to be convincing evidence for deity. *I* am the one who has to be persuaded, so *I* will decide what is persuasive.
This is great. It really helped me clarify my thinking and position.
Do I think and/or believe that there is any diety, meaning a higher intelligence that takes interest in us? That, further, we have no way of detecting and doesn’t interact with us in any way we can percieve? I have no evidence for that, and no way to disprove it. I believe there isn’t, but don’t know for sure, so I’m agnostic on that. I’m also apathistic, because I don’t really care if there is or not, since it has no bearing on my life.
Do I believe and/or think that any named defined God as defined by texts and followers exists? No. I believe there is no God, Yaweh, Thor, Mohammed, Jesus, or FSM as described by anyone who wants to describe them to me. There is no evidence, and any evidence presented for them can be proven false or inadequate. If there is a Biblegod who is inperceptible and silent, it isn’t really Biblegod because his followers and book claim he does stuff that we can perceive.
Since leaving the faith over a decade ago (I am a former conservative/evangelical Baptist preacher) I gradually moved from labeling myself as agnostic to simply admitting I’m an atheist. I say this, not because I am 100% certain that there is/are no god(s) but because I don’t believe in the existence of god(s).
Still, Christians invariably demand that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. I find this insistence on their part rather humorous. Why this ‘distinction’ is important to them is a mystery to me. After all, in their world view I am headed for eternal damnation either way.
Go figure… LOL
Tim
I am completely atheistic to the Christian “God”
I believe strongly that he doesn’t exist, and even believe that it can be proved that the Christian God is a construct compiled from earlier religions (Mithra anyone?)
Is there some being out there in the universe controlling everything? I’ve seen no evidence of it, but I suppose I cannot disprove it.
So in short
Christian God -Strong Atheist
Some kind of God – Weak Atheist, Agnostic.
In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
- Stephen Jay Gould.
God does not exist, to me that fact is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse [...] (you get the point? ;) )
You are playing at semantics. Denying the existence of a god or gods while acknowledging that we don’t know everything there is to know about the universe could be called atheism, it could be called agnosticism, it could be called common sense. Atheisms don’t claim omniscient. They merely recognize that there is no reason to believe the claims of the religious.
I think the odds of the Christian God existing in exactly the form that most modern worshipers believe is so astoundingly small that I can safely label myself atheist. I’m not 100% certain, as I’m not that narrow minded, but I’m as sure I could be about anything.
This argument gets a little too far into the metaphysical realm for my taste, though. Can we be 100% certain of anything? Would I absolutely deny the existence of unicorns in the universe when I rarely leave Missouri and am largely basing this opinion on other people’s findings? Probably not, but I can still say I don’t believe in unicorns, since the possibility is so infinitely small that it essentially does not exist.
I’m an agnostic atheist who equates God claims with claims of Mars-orbiting teapots, spaghetti monsters and so on, but I do not like statements claiming that the probability of God is very low. The reason being that we have no idea what the probability of a God is. How do you assess the objective likelihood of a claim such as “The Christian God created all, using such mechanisms as Big Bang and evolution”? On what grounds do you specify the grounds of this? How can you say that the odds are 1 in X that the appearance of undesigned complexity is all one big ruse?
Rather than saying that “1. I do not believe in a God, and 2. I don’t know for certain that this or that God does *not* exist, but the probability is very low”, I prefer to say that I do not believe in a God as I’ve been shown no good reason to believe; I have no idea what the probability of this or that or any God is, but I’ve been given absolutely no reason to treat this mere possibility as being on any higher epistemological grounds than that of flying spaghetti monsters, etc.; So just as I don’t take an infinite range of ludicrous but undisproven possibilities into account in contemplating my behaviour, I don’t consider the Bible, Qur’an, and so on.
This reminds me of one of those catchy phrases I heard when I was a member of A.A. while discussing the difference between atheists and agnostics ……”An agnostic is an atheist without any balls”.
Chuckle worthy for believers and non believers alike, yes.
But this is its meaning through my personal experience … If you’re going (to be so stupid as) to question the existence of god, pussy, don’t hedge your bets by being an agnostic, so as to keep coming around here with your talk about critical thinking. Have the balls and go all the way. So we can just demonize you by calling you (gasp!) atheist, and grandly ignore all you say without any thought”
“Atheist” being equivalent to “devil worshiper”, “murderer”
“child molester”, and a hoard of other nasties born of paranoia. “Agnostic’ just doesn’t have the teeth.
NB…Your personal god delusion monkey gets bigger and hairier when you also believe you will die a retched, alcoholic death if you don’t have a “spiritual awakening”.
I’ve done a lot of introspection about exactly that. A decade ago, when an atheist-believing, Jewish-heritage friend said he was an atheist, I said, “I’m not”, for the reason that I would have felt dishonest calling myself that if I believed in a human soul or spirit, some kind of mind or intelligence in the universe, and reincarnation. It is similar to Buddhism, but though I have gone to my Japanese friend’s temple, I do not think of myself as a Buddhist. I have always been a Jewish sympathizer, and love their culture. I do not think of myself as a new-ager, though the beliefs are similar, because I consider many new-agers to be weird: using a different belief system in the same way xians use christianity – to escape this life in hopes of a better afterlife (be it heaven or the great white brotherhood); to feed their ego that they are “spiritually superior” (I’m sick of people overusing the word “spiritual” – gag) and “on the righteous path”; to get lost in other-worldly, unprovable weirdness as a way of not taking responsibility for themselves in this life.
Since I was a christian, and absolutely, positively, don’t believe in the christian god, and because so many christians are so self-righteous and repugnant, I now think of myself as an atheist in terms of the christian (or any other religion’s) gods. I wear my “scarlet letter”.
And my beliefs are just that, the same thing I tell christians about theirs: a belief is something accepted as real, subject to change with further information. They are how I live my life and determine my ethics and values. There is no bible, no scripture, no hell, no escape from this life into some afterlife, no using one’s belief to escape resonsibility for oneself, belief in human rights and freedom, full responsibility for self, no absolute certainty, nothing to convert anyone to.
If christians were like that, I think we wouldn’t be fighting off obnoxious, controlling, intolerant christians trying to force their beliefs onto others’ lives. I have only come to think of myself as an atheist in contrast to their irrational rants, their irrational scripture, their abortion of the capacity to reason, and their insane god.
I’m nearly exactly the same as you-I don’t believe that there is a god, I don’t think god not existing (or existing) can be proved. unlike you, however, i usually call myself an agnostic or an agnostic atheist…
just came across a great video on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4&feature=channel
I’ve personally always thought of the line between agnostic and atheist as one on a continuum of beliefs. Generally, agnostics and athiests agree that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of god, but will concede that it is impossible to prove the negative of god’s non-existence. Evaluating that lack of evidence some find it more probable that god eixsts than others. Those seeing a higher probability are agnostic. Those seeing a lower probaility are atheist. (Perhaps those who think the answer is unknowable are also agnostic)
Personally I consider myself an atheist, not because I can prove with certainty that god doesn’t exist, but because based on the evidence I consider the chance of his existence to be very very very very very slim.
In the end, this argument about whether you are an agnostic of an atheist doesn’t really bolster the believers arguments for the existences of god though. Whatever you call me, I still don’t see evidence supporting the existence of god. An argument about semantics may be fun, but it doesn’t do a damn thing to prove god exists.
What would define god? Simply a more advanced form of life we could not understand? Or could it be that the universe itself could be said to have god-like properties?
Agnosticism speaks of knowledge. Aheism speaks of belief.
An agnositic is one who posses no *knowledge* of the existence of God(s).
A atheist is one who posses no *belief* in the existence of God(s). An atheist may be one by implication or may be explicitly atheist.
The term agnostic is not some middle ground betwen theism and atheism. The are totally different concepts. Theists and Atheists can each be agnostic.
By the simple reality that there is no known evidence of God(s), it is logical that no one possesses knowledge of God(s).
Thus, I’m of the opinion we are all agnostic.
In my opinion, the confusion is rooted in the perception that knowledge of God(s) and knowledge of theology are synonymous.
Are you a “deep agnostic” about Santa Claus? Technically, I suppose: if evidence for the existence of Santa were presented, that would probably affect your belief. In the mean time, it is accurate to say that you believe there is no Santa Claus.
It’s not just that there is no evidence *for*, there is also a lot of evidence *against*.
I am annoyed by the term “agnostic.” I actually have no idea if there are many that agree with me on this, but felt I should comment and see what people think.
First off, I understand the usage of the term. Carl Sagan used it, and quite eloquently, as always. It displays an open mind.
Now why the term annoys the fuck out of me. Even if a person is agnostic, they are still an atheist. By definition an atheist is one that lacks the belief in a deity. If that belief is not there, you ARE an atheist, like it or not. A good majority of us can also be considered agnostics because we do not know. I feel, and as I have actually heard some people say before, that by choosing the term agnostic as a label instead of atheist that it is a cop-out. This is fine if you are at work and coworkers discuss religion, but it is not fine when you are filling out surveys because it will show the atheist community as smaller than it really is. We need that count in polls.
I think it’s fine to call yourself agnostic, but at least accept the fact that you are also an atheist.
‘I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden’.
-Richard Dawkins
I would classify myself inbetween a “De facto” atheist and a “strong” atheist.
The thing is, I DON’T even ACKNOWLEDGE “god” outside of this website and religious debates. I never think about it.
Basically, I’m nonreligious. I’m atheist.
Imo: you don’t do anything religious, you don’t acknowledge god on a daily basis, you’re atheist.
This is another in a long line of cases where people make a word more complex than it needs to be.
There is no belief involved if something is asymmetrical. No belief needed if you are asymptomatic for a particular illness. An atheist is simply someone that practices no form of theism. IOW’s, they are not theist.
And until someone can come up with convincing evidence as to why I should be a theist, I will remain an atheist.
I think people who say they are agnostic mostly only are when they’re talking about it. Most of the time, they are living their lives as if there is no god.
Permanent agnosticism is intellectually lazy; in what other sphere of knowledge do we declare something unknowable and assign equal probability to the alternatives?
When I say “I do not believe in god” I mean three different things:
1) I see evidence AGAINST the various gods I have studied (primarily abrahamic but a few others as well) and therefor say with as much certainty as I would say “the sun will rise tomorrow” that those gods specifically do not exist.
2) Of the many specific gods that people believe in, of which I do not have any evidence personally for or against them, my inclination is to not believe in them unless provided with evidence (the same as I would feel about Nessie, bigfoot, alien visitations, etc), and I would certainly lean towards the idea of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” before I accepted any “evidence” for those specific version of god (or gods).
3) Of the deist god who “set things in motion” (either by starting the big bang or whatever it did) and created the laws of physics but has no influence on the universe as we know it (think Spinoza’s god here) I feel it is the one truly unfalsifiable position, and thus the hardest to claim ANY degree of certainty for or against. However I would also lean towards the idea that if this god has no influence on the universe today we can treat it as if it does not exist (at least until we determine some way to look outside of the universe or back “before” the big bang).
I would go so far as to say that most atheists I have met have a similar view on the subject…
I take a very literal interpretation of the word atheist. I am “a-theistic”, i.e. “without a god”. All that means is that I personally don’t believe in a god, and therefore, by definition, a-theistic. That stance says nothing about the possibility or probability of a god. To me, it doesn’t matter. It would be foolish to assertively state “there is no god.” All I can do is state “I don’t believe there is a god” or “i see no evidence of a god, and therefore I don’t believe in one.” I see no reason for this point-of-view to be “demoted” from Atheism to Agnosticism, which usually has connotations of doubt or wonderment. I have no doubt that I don’t believe in a god, but that has nothing to do with my stance on if a god could or couldn’t exist.
I sometimes call myself a “practical atheist”, because it usually gets the message across that my disbelief in gods is not based on faith. There is simply no evidence in favor of the existence of a god or gods, and lots of evidence to suggest their non-existence. Even IF a god were to exist, if it doesn’t affect our world, it might just as well not exist. Hence, for all practical intents and purposes, I conclude that there is no god.
Technically speaking, I agree that we can’t ever be sure that no gods exist, but in a practical sense I think we can. Actually, I think we already are. Miracles don’t occur, we’ve been to the moon and we’re on the verge of controlling even the smallest pieces our universe is made up of, so I think we can safely say that if a god exists, it only does so for the express purpose of hiding beyond our capability to see, and do absolutely nothing.
Atheist about what? Agnostic about what?
Without actually defining the term “god”, we can not have an intelligent discussion about whether it exists.
Regarding the Abrahmic god — it certainly does not exist. Simply read the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran. They’re filled with nonsense. The world was not created in 6 days. The thing that supposedly performed this act does not exist, because the act never occurred. The thing that supposedly split the Red Sea doesn’t exist, because the Red Sea was never split in the way described in the bible.
The problem with having a discussion about the existence of “god” with most any religious person is that they refuse to truly define the entity they are pretending to discuss. Without actually defining the term, the idea of “god” is too amorphous to be worth discussing. The religious person’s idea of “god” isn’t actually formed and so they don’t really have an idea of anything that might actually exist.
And whenever I have a discussion with someone who actually gives real-live characteristics of god, the thing can’t logically exist.
I have had conversations with religious people who keep redefining god through the conversation. “Oh no, my God wouldn’t tell a father to kill his son just to show loyalty.” “Oh no, the world wasn’t created in 6 days.”
“Oh, yes, Jesus did rise from the dead.” Beeep! Thank you for playing. That’s impossible. It didn’t happen. Grow up.
Go ahead and actually describe the entity that’s supposedly God. Stick with the definition and we’ll discuss it. My money’s on anyone applying critical thinking determining that the thing described won’t be able to logically exist.
For instance, deists talk about an intelligence that caused the big bang. What do they mean by “an intelligence”? What other characteristics does this thing have? They don’t know? Guess what — they’re not actually describing anything. So it doesn’t exist.
And, by the way, Santa doesn’t exist. At least not the entity I’ve heard described — old guy, beard, lives at the North Pole with a bunch of little people making toys, flys with reindeer all over the world. Doesn’t freakin’ happen. There’s no potential that he exists in the way he’s generally described in American culture.
No agnosticism for Santa or any of these other mythical entities. They don’t exist.
You wrote:
“So I think there is an extremely slim chance that there is a god — about the same odds as the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Well, in the case of God, the so called slim chance should be considered seriously, because it might not be a product of human fantasy like unicorns or the spaghetti monster. The question is how God could be described. Maybe the word is too old fashioned to get through.
Richard Dawkins seems to agree that technically he’s an agnostic rather than an atheist. I commented about the relevant section in God Delusion here: http://trevorcoultart.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/the-theist-athiest-spectrum/
I actually emailed one Pastor Cheatham about this very topic after he posted a few comments saying something similar.
What it comes down to: no one else has access to your thoughts or beliefs. If you identify as an atheist, then you’re an atheist. Anyone who doesn’t agree that you’re an atheist is wrong; they don’t have access to your thoughts or beliefs, so they simply wouldn’t know.
Believers who make this accusation of agnosticism probably haven’t thought as much about the atheist being accused misrepresenting his beliefs, so they don’t see why a disbelief in deities that is firm but also subject to change could amount to atheism rather than agnosticism. However, the person determining whether one is an atheist can really only be oneself. Dictating to others the nature of their beliefs is simply arrogant. Besides that, it’s very superficial semantic argument that doesn’t get into the content of the beliefs at all. If you encounter someone whose mode of argument is to try to tell you that you aren’t an atheist, you can probably safely ignore that person.
Why does mankind feel such a strong urge to label people and their beliefs? The denotations and connotations of such labels can be extremely misleading. I mean, take this scenario: I walk into a ——– church (don’t want to pick on a denomination) in my home town on a Sunday Morning and shake hands with the preacher (each number is a different entrance):
1) I tell him I’m a Christian: “Oh, God bless ya sister! To God be the glory! Welcome!”
2) I tell him I’m a theist: “Hmm… Eh, that means you believe in God, right?… You must have been to college.”
3) I tell him I’m a fundamentalist: “Well, glad to see you this morning. Take a seat on the first row, will ya? I think you’ll really enjoy my message (with a skeptical smile).”
4) I tell him I’m Muslim: “Wow, I didn’t know we had any of those around here! Nice seeing you(with a genuine smile)! But what you doin’ in church? Shouldn’t you be wearin one of them dresses?”
5) I tell him I’m agnostic: “Have you ever seen the work of God? It’s amazing! If you like this service, you should come back next week. If you want, you could eat lunch with me and the famly.”
6) I tell him I’m an atheist: “How ya doin’? You don’t look so good… You should turn from your evil ways and admit that you’re a sinner.”
See what I mean? Some labels just have a nasty spin on them if you don’t know what they really mean. And most people don’t. They automatically make judgments without even knowing you in the least just because of a label. Maybe I should make my own label so people will ask me to explain before they jump to conclusions… Lol.
but what if, what you are saying this small possibility is, there is a huge and powerful God who is greater than the universe and time itself? then what? what happens at the end when your whole life you have spent trying to disprove this majestic existence and you find out that you have been horribly wrong? does atheism not take just as much faith as being a christian? if not more i mean, you are banking everything in the fact that there is nothing beyond you and your existence. does that not seem a bit arrogant? that we just happened to show up here on this earth and in 80 some odd years its over? it seems a bit ridiculous to me. i mean, why try then? if its never gonna be remembered and it doesnt, in the grand scheme of things, really even matter? so, this is a horrible human condition in which we find ourselves, if there really is nothing beyond this momentary life. so, if we just ended up here in this physical sense and it will be over in a blink, why not be apathetic towards everyone and everything? how do you know then what anything is? can there be absolute truth then? if at the end you vanish or just go wherever and there is no God, what are we striving for? is it happiness? love? the wanting for something bigger? since the beginning of time, eternity was written on our hearts, meaning deep down every human knows, whether suppressed or not, that there should be something else bigger than what we are hopelessly grasping for. C.S. Lewis, who btw was an atheist before he became a christian, said that if we spend all this time searsching for something to satisfy us and we come up empty handed, perhaps we weren’t made for this world.
i’m not sure at this point im making nay sense anymore but these are just thoughts, jumbled of course, hopefully to make you wonder. if not, o well, nothing to lose if theres nothing at the end of this short short life. right? i’m just saying what if there is more than just making it through life and being okay. what if there is this great world beyond what you ever thought possible? a God who is bigger than life itself, one who transcends time and one who is calling out to you, showing himself to you?
not pascals theory. just stating that in the end you could be very wrong and then what? i have a firm belief that there is a holy holy God that is very much around us is simply asking us to follow him. not asking us to do this 77 times or do this twenty times but to follow him. how many other religions do that? we simply cannot be good and so in that case we are screwed in the utmost meaning. so how do you fix this human condition we find ourselves in? i think we submit ourselves to Christ and humble ourselves before this huge God that counts our days and numbers the stars. ive thought about all these points countless nights (the ones you assume i havent thought about i promise i have) and this is the conclusion ive come to: believing in and living for God is the only thing that makes sense. simply i cannot do anything alone. there is something bigger, there has to be and this is it. God is very real and very alive. its fine if you dont agree but i feel like that takes a far greater amount of faith to believe there is nothing than to submit yourself to the almighty and be enthralled in his holiness.
You can only be 100% certain of your current experience as it happens and as “experience”. You can’t be 100% certain of what your experience implies or anything else (see You are totally incorrigible!). The atheists cannot be 100% atheist because God could be implied by their experience and anything that is implied cannot be 100% certain. Everyone, except fanatics, has to live with some degree of uncertainty in interpreting the world.
Are firm atheists fanatics? Probably, because they rely on materialism as an absolute argument against spirituality. (See Materialists should read this first)
I would classify many agnostics as heretics rather than atheists and heresy can be the beginning of new established religion.
@Lorena, you wrote:
“But even if there were a god, I know for sure that life is best lived when one goes about life without bothering thinking of extraterrestrial creatures.”
Good point.
The funny thing is that I do know a lot of Atheists who believe (!) that extraterrestrial creatures have visited our planet. Seems they just switched their religion.
Try making up a totally fictitious story claim that it was divinely inspired publish it and wait for a following to fall at your feet. Then ask disbelievers to disprove the existence of your made up God. They would have to concede that there is a remote possibility that you did speak to or were influenced by a divine entity even you must also accept the possibility that you were divinely inspired. Even if you did make it all up you couldn’t prove that a divine being did not put the idea in your head in the first place. This is how religions work. If you think this is daft have you ever been persuaded to buy something you didn’t really want, it wasn’t magic just good ole fashioned manipulation and salesmanship.
Thanks for getting that in early.
In a theological sense you are right, in a philosopical sense you are over simplifying, in a scientific sense you are wrong.
One hundred years ago plate tectonics were not known continental drift a preposterous idea. Geologists studying the earth did not fall into agnostic or atheistic camps.
Any fool can make absurd statements and play around with semantics be they about Gods or orbiting teapots.
I don’t think knowledge and belief are so easily separated. Some things that we think we know are really beliefs that we just have a higher degree of certainty.
For example I could say that I “know” we landed on the moon, but if some conspiracy theorist asked for definitive proof could I provide first hand “proof”? Anything that I produced would be secondary sources and could be explained away.
Another example would be that many of our intuitive beliefs are practically useful but scientifically are not true. I’m thinking specifically of our notion of time here.
In some sense we have to be somewhat agnostic about almost all our knowledge.
Wow, good answer!
That totally made me think of this.
This is essentially what Joseph Smith did when he started the Mormons. They had to revise their beliefs and sacred texts several times before they got it right enough where there wasn’t serious inconsistencies. Take the Scientologists as well. L. Ron Hubbard was going after exactly what you describe. They have a high profile following, but nobody really knows what they believe and it’s not exactly sweeping the world.
It’s not as easy as it sounds.
“This is how religions work.” This is one of the worst stereotypical generalizations atheists make. Most believers genuinely believe. Most religious leaders genuinely believe. Unfortunately, many veins of religion have outlived their usefulness and have become more concerned with their own importance than what they started out as.
Lorena – I just realized my post almost exactly matches the ideas in yours. I could have just replied and said, “Right!”
Why would I be sure about that? If I was sure, would I have asked what people think? :)
I said I thought most atheists feel similarly. That’s the feeling I get, but I could be wrong. Obviously there will always be a minority that do not fit what the majority thinks though.
“Any being wielding sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a god.”
Very cool. I certainly can imagine us, “us” being human beings, someday discovering an earth like planet inhabited by primitive beings very similar to the bronze age humans that wrote the bible. If we made a direct and calculated effort to appear as gods to them, it would be as simple as sending someone down with magnets to levitate a large metallic object on their planet. Hell just flying around in their sky would do the trick. We could even send a robot down that they would worship. They would write books about it all, establish churches and places of worship etc. Of course we would watch all this with amusement and may even smirk from time to time ;)
If there are entities which wield advanced technology, then they aren’t gods. They’re just very advanced beings.
I would have to agree here. While the distinction seems relevant to those of the agnostic or atheist camps, as a “practicing agnostic” I’m routinely frustrated by the dismissive lumping that takes place from theists – most notably from fundamentalist Christian groups. If not completely lumped together, the groups are viewed on some overly simplistic sliding scale. I remember the reaction I received once after correcting a friend who’d introduced me as an atheist. “Oh you’re agnostic,” said the man I’d just met. “Well that’s even worse…”
One wouldn’t think that theists would care but they are the only people who have ever made an issue out of it with me. I participate in a couple of online forums in which theists often challenge me when they learn I am an atheist.
I ask them why they even care what label they think fits me but they never respond. I sure don’t care.
That’s Erich von Däniken the other way round.
By the way, so far the proof for the existence of extraterrestial life is on a par with the proof for god. Are you an agnostic with respect to aliens, or an atheist?
But…but…but Tim! You never really were a Christian in the first place if you didn’t give the six-pound, eight ounce baby Jesus your heart!
Just kidding.
I think that the demand that you consider yourself an agnostic is a last-ditch effort to save your soul, as I think they think agnosticism means you’re on a theological fence and can be persuaded to come back to the zombie Jesus side of the fence.
I disagree. At least as long as you define one of god’s properties as ‘has created the universe’. Because then, we would have to prove the existence of arguably the most complex entity in the universe (or maybe even outside of it, if this god really is ubiquitous). Any evidence towards such a being gets beaten by Occam’s Razor, because there will always be an equally probable but less complicated explanation for any observation that would qualify as proof of god(s).
@Topic: Technically, I’m an agnostic (see above), but for all practical means, I’m an atheist. Besides, I don’t see being agnostic/atheist as mutually exclusive. In other words, I’m about as sure that god(s) do not exist, as I am that I exist.
Thanks for reading my mind and posting my thoughts. Could you please do that all the time, it save me a lot of time typing. ;-D
Besides, your English is way better than mine…
Actually, the traditional definition of knowledge incorporates three notions:
-is it justified
-is it true (different from the notion of Truth)
-is it believed
Therefore, a-gnosis is a position on knowledge (as gnosis means knowledge) while a-theism is a position on one of the components of knowledge: belief.
That’s why the terms apply to religion, not science. They are epistemological and fideistic stances, respectively, with regard to a hypothetical deity or deities.
We use the worlds metaphorically in other contexts, but that is what they mean in their native context.
Jim666: “One hundred years ago plate tectonics were not known continental drift a preposterous idea. Geologists studying the earth did not fall into agnostic or atheistic camps.”
Your may be off subject.
Plate tectonics is a theoretical description of how continental drift occurs. You can be ignorant of the concept, but cannot be agnositic to it.
However, one may be agnostic (without knoweldge) of contintental drift. In this context the term “ignorant” is more typically applied.
Agnosticism applies to meta-physical, supernatural, transcendental, or other such claims, which cannot be objectively (or perhaps directly) observed and studied.
Regarding the “belief” perspective, I don’t think anything sensible can come from debating “belief” of observed pheneomena.
True, but we can form a qualified estimation: Consider the amount of hydrogen molecules/atoms in the universe (afaik something around 10E80 particles). Next, consider the amount of organic molecules (around 19 million), species of mammals (around 5,400), brains able to generate self-awareness (maybe a few dozen), brains that can invent the internet (almost exactly one)…
You see, the more complex something gets, the less likely it gets as well. And god(s) are often considered very, extremely, or even infinitely complex, with the latter rendering the probability of existence to 1/infinity (which is zero, afaik)
There would be only one way out of this: god(s) were created themselves ;-)
Devysciple: “brains that can invent the internet (almost exactly one)”
Pretty broad statement there considering there are 70 sextillion stars in just the “visible” universe and it is estimated we can only “see” 2% of said universe.
Yes, but ONLY if we assume that it is designed. We as designers strive for simplicity in design, but nature doesn’t care about this. Nature produces complexity effortlessly via entropy. And it’s way better at it than we puny designers are. If you want complexity, look to nature and the physical laws.
Hello LRA;
This is the same JR your used to talking to, I just changed my name and have a new gravatar. I just spent the last two hours looking for the message I sent you last night. There has got to be a better way to communicate privately. I have lots of questions.
Wouldn’t a-theism address all three points in your definition of knowledge? I know many here go beyond disbelief and say that the idea of the Christian God is also unjustifiable.
Maybe I’m skewing the way agnostic is being used, but my point was that outside of tautologies all of our knowledge must be held with a certain degree of doubt.
Well, do you know how to email Daniel? If so then tell him your email and he’ll send it to me!
:)
Or do you have a facebook or myspace account?
Done and done. Check your email.
I’ll give you that, I should have written “known/obervable universe”, but I actually cannot see how that changes my argument. You can still make an educated guess about the existence of god(s).
Besides, that’s why I wrote “almost exactly” ;-)
Well I guess it depends on the definition of God being used, then. Classical Theists would reject the idea that God is more complicated than the universe because he is supposed to be divinely simple (in fact, a number of the divine attributes follow from this, so it’s a linchpin for their whole philosophy). Therefore Occam’s Razor wouldn’t apply, at least based on the classic monotheistic tradition of thought (in the case of an anthropomorphic God, it might).
Prefer the following definitions of God:
1. A phenomenal illusion created for the control of humans via a doctrine of fear, self hate and guilt.
2. The temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things.
3. A vast, amoral, impersonal power, which nevertheless is Love.
@Amanda: You are right, but my very next question to our hypothetical classical theist would be “Could you please define ‘divinely simple’?”
Besides, who wants to argue with a classical theist at all?! ;)
@VidLord: I most like definition 1, number 3 isn’t bad either, but number 2?!?! *puzzled*
Ah, but the probability of the existence of alien life is far, far higher than that of the existence of god.
That was funny. And using the term “balls” figuratively makes it almost meaningless. Does it mean courage, as if courage were a masculine-only trait? Does it mean the agnostic isn’t masculine? That it’s wimpy – which again probably means cowardly – to say you don’t know and are holding the belief in abeyance rather than being dead certain? The saying gave me a laugh, but then sometimes things do, which are meaningless upon further examination.
“An agnostic is an atheist who refuses to come out of the closet.”
That usually gets things going.
So, you say you wear your scarlet letter? How “out” are you (all)? This is something that has become a bit of an issue for me in my recent de-conversion. I live in a rural, isolated mountain town of 1,700 people, which somehow manages to support 42 churches, one of which I used to be heavily involved with. I am also a small business owner who relies heavily upon word-of-mouth referrals. I frequently run into members of my former congregation around town who mention that they haven’t seen me at church lately, invite me to Bible study or ask which small groups I’m involved in. This isn’t an outright assumption on their parts, as I was once involved in all those things. I usually squirm a little bit and try to find a way to vaguely and politely decline.
I have “come out” to my husband and a few close friends, but I am a little concerned that if I start being a little more public about my atheism / agnosticism, that I will lose business (the only other competing business in town is owned by a devoted Christian & youth group leader who ostentatiously donates a percentage of her income to a Christian charity – it’s plastered all over her business website). Since I no longer have church and church-related activities to network in, I’m losing business opportunities on that end, as well. I know that many Christians, who happen to dominate this town, view atheists as immoral / amoral / untrustworthy, especially when compared to their Christian brothers and sisters. I don’t want to lose an impression of trust with my clients, but at the same time, my de-conversion has changed my life in many positive ways.
This was probably better-suited for another post. Sorry – I’d love to hear all your feedback.
I wouldn’t like to be in your shoes. It really sucks hard when, while living in a country that grants freedom of religion, you are harrassed based on exactly that (or lack thereof)
My advice would be: If you can afford it, if you are not emotionally bound to your place, if you see a realistic chance that your business will run elsewhere, then for non-existing god’s sake, move. Find a decent place (usually a little bigger that 1,700 people), and start all over again, perhaps in Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine.
If you can’t or don’t want to move, become a lip service christian. You know all the correct answers, you know how to pray devoutly, and only your husband knows your little secret. Yes, technically it’s lying, but I would classify that as self-defence. Think of it as ‘survival of the fittest’. If you need to be a “good” christian to survive, than be one. I had to do that for a few years, and what can I say, after a few months I almost enjoyed fooling my fellow believers. Almost…
Hi, Molly,
I agree with Devysciple. I’m not in your position; only mildly uncomfortable instead of threatened livelihood. Because of social and family events I still go to the necessary services, and it was uncomfortable at first, I think mainly because I was still a little defensive because it was all new. Now I just pretend I’m at an interesting ethnic cultural event, like if I went to a service at a temple or mosque. I wouldn’t be upset or offended; I might be bored, but nothing else because it doesn’t mean anything to me. So I go to what I must to have other areas of my life work, ditch the rest, and think what I want. I find it very interesting how little I actually have to attend to fulfill the obligations.
Hi Molly, I always lived in large cities on the west coast. California, Washington. In a fairly large city like Anchorage, with the highest percent of unmarried cohabitants, I was shocked that every other person said something like, “She goes to my church.” Sheesh! I hope some of them were at least Unitarians. I think if I lived in a small churchy (!) town, or were a business owner, I’d be afraid of discussing beliefs.
When I was a management trainee at Bank of America, and trained with someone in every non-lending position in the bank, a teller asked me, “Are you a christian?” I said “No”, and although she wasn’t liked anyway, someone said that’s why she treated me so rottenly while she was training me. My landlady and friend recommended saying, “My beliefs are private and I don’t wish to discuss them.”
Too late, and that was in the 80s in a smaller town in Humboldt County, California. I was young, and many of the employees were mean old biddies, but today that teller seems particularly gauche. I bet in your town she could still get away with it. As it was, I had no support that I know of. That answer recommended to me seems the best.
I only bought the pin last month, and posted it on Facebook, and wondered if some friends cooled off to me because of that. As if I weren’t a strong Jewish sympathizer (I am one), and possibly ate babies or something. I don’t know. I would love to keep you posted on further developments.
You definitely don’t want to argue with a classical theist. It’s not fun because everything they say always goes back to “we can only understand the nature of God analogically, because he is too vastly different from creatures”. It all ends in undefinable mysteries :P This is why I get fed up with my philosophy of religion teacher. Although he is forever asking me to explain more about evolution to him, which I find admirable in somebody so devout. At least he hasn’t totally closed his mind.
VidLord, definition #1 is my personal favourite, but it doesn’t get you very far in a debate with a religious person.
Well, my approach to arguing with a classical theist would be two-fold:
1) head -> desk/door frame/wall/whatever, several times in a row, and
2) there’s always the option of punching them on the nose ;-) (Yeah, I know, violence is never a solution, but sometimes it’s just sooo satisfying)
The Abrahamic God is claimed to the creater of all, and trancendent.
I think that disqualifies all life froms.
Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge of God(s).
Atheism: Lack of belief in God(s); or disbelief in God(s).
We have knowledge of Santa stories, but no knowedge of an actual Santa. We are all agnostics.
Regarding evidence against, I agree there is a lot of evidence against the many claims associated with Abrahimic theology.
However, with regards to claims of a creater God with no specific characteristics; it is like arguing over nothing … and nothing is exaclty what I think it is ;-)
I have to disagree again… To my understanding, neither organic molecules, nor species of mammals, do qualify for being designed.
Honestly, to me the laws of physics are a paramount example of simplicity, and especially beauty. But that’s just me… ;-)
To sum it all up, your assumption that my objections only hold up “if we assume that it is designed” are, from my point of view, wrong, because there is absoltely no evidence for design, while there is a plethora of evidence that everything that is has come into being has evolved from some state of ‘not-being’.
But that’s just me…
Russell also wrote more directly on this topic:
As for myself, without getting too tied up in formal definitions, I could point out that the term “agnostic” was only coined in the 19th century, whereas “atheist” dates back as far as Classical Greece.
IMHO, “agnostic” was coined to avoid the stigma attached to the term atheist. I would rather take the bold approach and try to reclaim “atheist” rather than attempt to outrun the stigma.
As a comparison, I will point out that in my lifetime, “Negros” became “Blacks” became “African-Americans,” (even though only a small minority have actually been to the continent of Africa) and they might eventually figure out that it not the label attached to them that is the subject of bigotry, it is their skin color, which is not changed with a new label.
Another comparison, as a more successful model, is the gay rights movement. They eventually settled on one term of identification, “gay,” and then they were in-your-face to demand that they be recognised with the rights due to any other citizens. Some even wear the label “queer” as a badge of honour.
In practical terms, it seems to me that most agnostics I have met (not counting philosophers who get hung up on the formal definitions, as discussed above) have a desire to believe, but are unwilling to go against the evidence and rational arguments.
ROFLMAO – I agree with you and love the way you expressed it!
Wow! Cool! Thanks! I honestly was not expecting anyone to have a positive reply to my post (but it’s only been a few minutes, hahaha). I always thought I was the only one (at least that I’ve seen) with this viewpoint. So many people follow Carl Sagan (and for good reason), but just because he was able to very nicely define his agnosticism, does not mean it applies to everyone else that just accepts his views and then decides to label themselves agnostic and reject their inherent atheism.
Although, I must say, I did write that as nice as I could. This issue still bothers the fuck out of me.
The only “convincing evidence” you will ever really believe will not be of the objective, rational kind nor will it be received from a position of logic, from a point of reasoning or deduction in the normal, mental fashion.
But rather, it would come from a deep place within, formerly unknown to you thru an awakening, a knowing in the deepest aspect of your being. It comes in the form of light grafted in, not information (head knowledge) but truth inwardly that reveals Itself…in you.
In that day you will do more than just believe, you will hunger, you will see that you were formerly “in the dark” and will now long for more or this inward light to “shine” in the deep recesses of your being until the whole is lit and the Daystar arises in your heart (spirit) man.
It seems so simple in my feeble mind… do I KNOW for an absolute fact that no god(s) exist? Of course not!
Do I BELIEVE any god(s) exist? NOT HARDLY!
Does that mean I’m an atheist? Duh! … it’s not rocket science folks.
Ha! I knew you couldn’t stay away too long… ;)
I do not believe YOU.
And that is the crux of the matter isn’t it? Without objective evidence there is only YOUR story and subjective world. So far, you have done nothing to convince me that you are right.
Therefore, I am still an atheist. You have failed.
I was just curious if anyone would notice…lol.
Hi…Bye…Again!
Thanks, everyone, for your responses. I’m relatively new to this (2 years or so) and I’m always curious to see how others are handling the lifestyle changes that accompany the de-conversion process. To clarify, Devysciple and MaryLynne, are you saying that you regularly go to church services? I’m not offended by the services themselves, or even the church “experience”. I can definitely view it as a cultural event, much as I would view attending Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist services.
But to pretend to be a Christian again, only for the sake of my business? To exchange fake greetings and smarmy smiles and drink god-awful coffee and relentlessly gossip under the pretense of prayer? I don’t know if I want to go back to that. I left it for a reason, and oddly (or not) I am so much happier now than I ever was as a Christian. I am so much more “myself” and brimming with life and excitement, and that’s entirely due to me leaving the church. I almost want to celebrate that publicly.
Congratulations!
Somehow that doesn’t sound like enough.
But it’s sincere.
Before I answer your second question, I need to clarify something: I live in Europe, in Germany, to be more precise, and over here it seldom is a problem if you don’t regularly go to church (used to be different some 50 years ago). So the “drawbacks” from being an atheist are small compared to what you are facing.
On your question whether I still attend church, the answer is, not anymore. I lost my faith around the time of my confirmation, but for the sake of family peace, and because I was quite entangeled in the church community, I thought I still had to attend services. Only later did I find out that while my family was not exactly happy or comfortable with my godlessness, they were at least not bothered when one christmas they asked me if I joined them for the nativity play (something I had done myself a few times while I was pretty young), and I flatly refused. Since that day, I haven’t set foot in a church anymore.
And for pretending to be a christian, my advice would be: take the actual liturgy as lip service, be nice and kind to your “fellow” christians, like you would be to any customer, regardless of what you think of them, hold shallow conversations with them, just like you would do small talk to obnoxious people at a social event, and for all the rest, excuse yourself, don’t get drawn into it that much anymore. I know it’s much easier said than done, but I think you can do it. If you have children, take them as an excuse, be creative. You know these people, you’ll have (hopefully) an easy guess as to which bait they will fall for. I think it should be easier to pull off that stunt than to come up with a new excuse why you didn’t attend service every other day.
And if all else fails, you can always come to this blog and ask people what to tell your christian friends this time, some here are really good at making up woo-woo… ;-)
Hm, upon re-reading your comment I see that we’re actually in agreement. It appeared to me as if you were making an argument from design, but you weren’t.
Perhaps belief in God may be propped up with justification, but it is still missing the verification component. Add to that that the justifications themselves may be missing the verification component.
Trevor,
I think you are misunderstanding Dawkins’ position. One does not have to positively assert that there cannot be any gods anywhere to be an atheist. This is a popular and misguided misconception. Atheism refers to a state about belief in the existence of gods. It does not refer to certainty.
Tevor,
As agnositicism indicates a lack of knowledge, and atheism a lack of belief, they are not exclusive of eachother.
In the sense there is no objective knowledge of God, we are all agnostics.
A lack of knowledge does not prohibit theists from their belief.
Regarding atheists, the lack of belief does not require an assertion be made. The statements below all qualify as atheism.
(1) I have no belief in a God.
(2) I do not believe in the existence of God.
(3) I believe that God does not exist.
(4) I reject all claims regarding the existence of transcendental beings.
Peter,
I would say that there is a greater chance that a unicorn exists, because we know animals exist. We don’t even know whether supernatural entities even exist. Also, we have a consistent description of what a unicorn would be. The same is not true for gods or even any one particular god, in most cases.
Well, in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the so called slim chance should be considered seriously, because it might not be a product of human fantasy like the christians’ mythological god. The question is how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be described. Maybe the word is too innovative and untried to get through.
FSM: Praise Him; rAmen!
Are you incapable of perceiving your unsupported nonsense?
I understand your point. Creating things is rather human. Our fantasy is quite astonishing. We make things up like no other. Elves, Saints, Gods, UFO’s, etc …
My argument relating to God does not refer to forms of religious delusion but to reason. You might call it a naturalistic point of view. Of course, it’s still a metaphysical issue. I’m aware of that.
The argument seems to be logical, but – I do insist – we are talking about two different things.
Well said. It’s a strong point of view based on arguments.
Well said, Kevin.
Good job!
‘“This is how religions work.” This is one of the worst stereotypical generalizations atheists make. Most believers genuinely believe. Most religious leaders genuinely believe.’
What is the stereotype here?
Nothing in the description of how religions work implies that believers don’t genuinely believe.
All he is saying is that magigical answers are invoked by religion to answer requests for evidence. If such claims are believed, the claims of the religion are untestable and inistiguishable from false claims.
The fact that believers really believe is actually one of the scarier things about religion.
It sounds like you’re basically getting at Pascal’s wager – better to be safe than sorry. If you’re just playing the odds, though, believing in a Christian-only God, considering how many thousands of other religions there are and how many billions of otherwise religious people don’t agree with you, then you’re not doing much better than an atheist.
but in general, no, your post isn’t going to “make us wonder.” Believe it or not, most atheists, especially those who used to be Christians, have spent more time thinking about all the points you listed than religious people have.
How is this not a twist on Pascal’s wager?
Regarding your question — that in the end you could be very wrong and then what? — this is the reality that every human faces. The question has no more meaning or validity when asked of an atheist than when asked of a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anyone else.
If there is a god (the Christian version or otherwise) it is doubtful that he could be fooled by someone saying they believe when they do not. And if there is a god who desires only a certain level of goodness from mankind then all are on a level playing field, so to speak.
My point is that “belief” cannot be manufactured out of nothingness. I can no more decide to believe in your god than you might be able to decide to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. For many people, a certain amount/level of evidence is required in order to believe that which is…. well, unbelievable!