Agnostic Atheism

[Die Hard]

This is pretty close to where I landed on the "trying to figure out how an allegedly benevolent God can exist" merry go round. Ultimately I concluded that he either doesn't exist or is incredibly incompetent and/or lacking in compassion. If it's the former my belief is irrelevant and if it's the latter, eff him. Why would I want anything to do with a "God" like that?

You used the word `competence`. I`m curious... by what measure or standard did you measure competence. Competence at what, exactly.

[Bang]

We have free will, but only as controlled by societal demands.

for example, if i want to exercise free will to not conform to society's expectation that i work and make a living, I freely can do that.

I'llbe homeless and dead soon, but I can do it.

But since that isn't appealing, I have to limit my free will choices to allow me to live within the constraints of something larger than myself.. the whole of our society.

I have free will to a point. I guess the ultimate free will is you get to choose that point.

~Bang

[PeterMP]

Commonly historically, people that are neutral with respect to a belief in god (do not believe that god exists or not exists (i.e. there is not enough information)) have been considered agnostic, while atheist has been used to describe the stronger position of asserting there is no god.

If you are going to say you are atheist, many people used to sort of general language are going to take that as you are asserting that there is no god.

I understand in more philosophical circles that isn't the case, and we've actually had this come up in a thread, and it appears that there is even talk of strong vs. weak atheism in an effort to define people's position.

Atheism has its root w/o god; not w/o belief.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

there is no higher purpose other than what we give ourselves as a species.

there is no after this.

There is no reason. there is no grand scheme.

It just is, and we are.

~Bang

What makes you believe that?

[Bang]

What makes you believe that?

i see no reason to believe otherwise.

~Bang

[Califan007 The Constipated]

i see no reason to believe otherwise.

~Bang

Fair enough :yes:...

Stating beliefs as facts gets confusing, though lol

[grego]

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

That's the catch-22, though...if there truly IS a God, there will never be "evidence" that He exists.

[The Sisko]

You used the word `competence`. I`m curious... by what measure or standard did you measure competence. Competence at what, exactly.

Theists believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's running things, he sure has screwed things up. And if he's able to prevent it and just sits back and watches as the holocaust, slavery, 9/11, Rwandan genocide, etc. happens, he's definitely not an entity I want anything to do with.

[AllWorldSkinFan]

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

The way I see it is in order to evaluate the evidence of (a) god, we must first have a definition of (a) god. The perceived effects of, anecdotes of, postulations of, speculations of, or appeals to the incredulous are not sufficient evidence (for a lot of things actually). With a definition we can make an evaluation as to the being who claims to be a god by checking against it. It is my opinion that a definition of a god cannot exist within the major world religions as they are now for obvious reasons.

THEN comes the whole can of worms as to "well, ok God, I'm convinced. So why exactly should I worship you?"

[Destino]

Theists believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's running things, he sure has screwed things up. And if he's able to prevent it and just sits back and watches as the holocaust, slavery, 9/11, Rwandan genocide, etc. happens, he's definitely not an entity I want anything to do with.

The logic at work in that argument is strange.

1- accept god did those things.

2- remove everything else like the after life, judgement, and a viewing of all those events from the perspective in mans entire history and future.

3- arrive at conclusion.

[Kosher Ham]

I have stated this several times over the years.

The sky is not absolutely "blue" if it was the language would be universal for everyone calling it "blue".

If there was an absolute to this thing...none of us would question it.

As is, I leave it to whatever you do is fine for me as long as it doesn't change me.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Theists believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's running things, he sure has screwed things up.

How so?

And if he's able to prevent it and just sits back and watches as the holocaust, slavery, 9/11, Rwandan genocide, etc. happens, he's definitely not an entity I want anything to do with.

We usually want to say that the world isn't perfect because of the types of things you listed, and then use that as an example as to why God doesn't exist.

What we don't do, though, is consider that the only way the world can be perfect is if these types of things were allowed to exist.

[Bang]

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

As an absolute atheist, i disbelieve anyone's ability to show me the evidence. evidence beyond philosophical musings.. to me evidence of this nature must be absolutely concrete, tangible, and real.

The only "evidence" that would convince me otherwise is the thing i don't believe exists, and thus, don't believe the evidence can be presented.

~Bang

[CrabR]

I was a believer until I actually read the Bible, now I am a atheist

I encourage everyone to read it without having someone tell you what it 'really means'

[Burgold]

That's the catch-22, though...if there truly IS a God, there will never be "evidence" that He exists.

Well, the evidence that he exists is that there is existance or rather it is possible that he exists because we do as does the universe itself. The fact that there is something at all means there was a starting pont and perhaps a creator/maker.

I think from a logical/scientifc point of view that agnosticism is the healthiest. We can't know and so we keep an open mind. All possibilities are on the table until they are conclusively ruled out.

That said, I don't mind atheism as a philosophy. Belief in God does not impact your worthiness, goodness, or ability to contribute. Where it gets bogged down is the same place that other philosophies and religions do... when it becomes blind to reason or hostile in its beliefs.

[alexey]

Well, the evidence that he exists is that there is existance or rather it is possible that he exists because we do as does the universe itself. The fact that there is something at all means there was a starting pont and perhaps a creator/maker.

I think from a logical/scientifc point of view that agnosticism is the healthiest. We can't know and so we keep an open mind. All possibilities are on the table until they are conclusively ruled out.

That said, I don't mind atheism as a philosophy. Belief in God does not impact your worthiness, goodness, or ability to contribute. Where it gets bogged down is the same place that other philosophies and religions do... when it becomes blind to reason or hostile in its beliefs.

The fact that there is something at all does not mean that there was a starting point. Something at all could have always been there.

I am all for keeping an open mind and having all possibilities on the table... and not believing any of them without justification. This is called atheism, the default position of not believing.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 09:55 AM ----------

Commonly historically, people that are neutral with respect to a belief in god (do not believe that god exists or not exists (i.e. there is not enough information)) have been considered agnostic, while atheist has been used to describe the stronger position of asserting there is no god.

If you are going to say you are atheist, many people used to sort of general language are going to take that as you are asserting that there is no god.

I understand in more philosophical circles that isn't the case, and we've actually had this come up in a thread, and it appears that there is even talk of strong vs. weak atheism in an effort to define people's position.

Atheism has its root w/o god; not w/o belief.

I agree that it is common for people to not realize what the term "atheism" actually means.

That is why I started this thread.

It would be ridiculous to assert that every supernatural claim is wrong. It is not surprising that people who disagree with atheism would try and assert that atheism necessarily entails this ridiculousness.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I believe there is something more than us/this. Not sure what it is and I don't need anybody to trying to tell me.

[The Sisko]

The logic at work in that argument is strange.

1- accept god those things.

2- remove everything else like the after life, judgement, and a viewing of all those events from the perspective in mans entire history and future.

3- arrive at conclusion.

Who says I removed all the things you mentioned in #2? I accept that there might be a God. It's just that if there is, based on what he's allowed to happen throughout human history, not to mention some of the things he's commanded his followers to do, I wouldn't find him worthy of respect or worship and I'd sure as hell not want to spend an eternity fawning over him in an afterlife.

How so?

We usually want to say that the world isn't perfect because of the types of things you listed, and then use that as an example as to why God doesn't exist.

What we don't do, though, is consider that the only way the world can be perfect is if these types of things were allowed to exist.

How so? Because of the examples I cited as a short list. If I accept the premise of an omniscient and omnipotent God the whole exercise is nonsensical. If God created everything with foreknowledge of what would happen, then we don't really have free will and we're merely puppets. If he just created everything and then went laissez faire, then he's not a terribly compassionate God. Either way, not someone I'd want to be associated with. Given my opinion on that, I could care less whether he exists or not.

And speaking of arriving at conclusions, who says God has to necessarily be "good"? After all, the perceptions of him are drawn by believers based on the books they say he wrote or inspired, i.e. they're inherently biased.. I think an objective reading of the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. might suggest he's not all you all say/think he is...not all bad but certainly not all good either.

[alexey]

I believe there is something more than us/this. Not sure what it is and I don't need anybody to trying to tell me.

Do you have a reason to believe this?

As a side note, I think it it depends how you define "this". There is a better reason to believe in aliens than there is to believe in the supernatural.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 10:07 AM ----------

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

Openness to evidence depends on the person. The kind of evidence is also important. Some forms of evidence could be very hard to resist. Evidence that can be easily explained without invoking the supernatural, on the other hand, is unlikely to convince.

There is no arrogance in refusing to believe something until there is a proper justification for believing. You do it all the time about other things.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 10:53 AM ----------

That's the catch-22, though...if there truly IS a God, there will never be "evidence" that He exists.

Why not? If God exists, there are tons of very convincing ways in which that fact could be demonstrated.

[PeterMP]

I agree that it is common for people to not realize what the term "atheism" actually means.

That is why I started this thread.

It would be ridiculous to assert that every supernatural claim is wrong. It is not surprising that people who disagree with atheism would try and assert that atheism necessarily entails this ridiculousness.

But I think if you look historically (post 1700s), that is in fact what atheism has been used to describe.

What we're seeing is a redefinition of the word atheism (from without god to without belief). It might be a more useful defintion, but it also creates a hole in our terminology. I think it would be more useful to have created a new word.

The more neutral position that you seem to be claiming as reasonable has been described as agnostic. However, I also understand the problem that some people, such as yourself, have with being described as agnostic, which is why I'd support creating a new word.

And I'm pretty sure if you read this thread that the "traditional" atheist definition is pretty much exactly the position that Bang and others have outlined in this thread.

The absence of evidence that god does exist is very strong evidence that god does not exist.

I guess you might find their positions ridiculous, but in my opinion, it is a position worth having a word to describe and to take the word that traditionally means that and redefine it seems counter productive and designed to confuse large numbers of people.

Which makes me wonder why it is being done.

Sometimes people hold positions others find ridiculous. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a word to describe it.

[Burgold]

How so? Because of the examples I cited as a short list. If I accept the premise of an omniscient and omnipotent God the whole exercise is nonsensical.

I've always considered the possibility that there is a God, but that everything we've assigned or believe about him/her/it is wrong. What if God is an artist, creating something, setting it in motion and then moving on to other projects? Similarly, what if God was a scientist and we are nothing but a lab experiment set aside after funding ran out. Scientists certainly are not omniecient or omnipotent about their work and sometimes their coolest inventions are the result of accidents. It's not impossible in my mind that this is the case with creation.

I can imagine there was intent as well, but... perfection, that's beyond my ability to imagine.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

How so? Because of the examples I cited as a short list. If I accept the premise of an omniscient and omnipotent God the whole exercise is nonsensical. If God created everything with foreknowledge of what would happen, then we don't really have free will and we're merely puppets. If he just created everything and then went laissez faire, then he's not a terribly compassionate God. Either way, not someone I'd want to be associated with. Given my opinion on that, I could care less whether he exists or not.

This is a mistake many people make...they "allow" for the concept of God existing, then limit what's possible if He does indeed exist. "God can't know what's going to happen AND humans have free will"...

Well, if there really IS a God...why not? If there really is a God, then thinking in terms of what's considered "possible" in our human minds is incredibly limiting to what God is capable of doing and creating.

Because if God exists, we're talking about an entity that has the ability to exist beyond time and space, to exist before anything else ever did...to create a monstrous universe teeming with infinite lifeforms that we haven't even begun to explore or understand, with the advanced knowledge of what's going to happen every nanosecond of its existence...we're talking about taking a form, shape and existence that humans couldn't even possibly comprehend at our current state of evolution...

Yet we severely dumb down God to being nothing more than a guy with an ego problem and a lot of talent lol...

If God exists, as a human race we're collectively like 2-year olds to His great-great-great grandfather. I think it's both hilarious and arrogant for us to believe we know more than enough to announce God as non-existent...no more knowledge is needed, no more discussion. Everything must make sense to us now...or else it's flawed. Because surely we can not be.

In reality, it can VERY easily be argued that God has created the perfect world for humans to live and exist in. The flaw is thinking "perfection" means absence of anything negative or bad...but "perfection" means absence of anything unexpected.

And speaking of arriving at conclusions, who says God has to necessarily be "good"? After all, the perceptions of him are drawn by believers based on the books they say he wrote or inspired, i.e. they're inherently biased.. I think an objective reading of the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. might suggest he's not all you all say/think he is...not all bad but certainly not all good either.

When it comes to God, I don't think it's about "good" or "bad", though.

Ask yourself this question: if God exists, why did He create the human race and the entire universe in which we reside?

Because in all honesty, all questions concerning the possibility and/or reality of God existing stems from that answer.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 09:51 AM ----------

Why not? If God exists, there are tons of very convincing ways in which that fact could be demonstrated.

Because if God exists, then surely faith is a prerequisite to understanding and knowing His existence. Besides, who's to say that there already isn't "tons of very convincing ways" being demonstrated of His existence right now?...Because when we say "prove God exists", we are by default saying we have experienced no evidence of His existence yet. And what proof would honestly convince everyone on earth that God does indeed exist? Even if the skies opened up and a guy with a big grey beard poked his head through the opening and said "Hi, guys...this is God. Just checking in.", there would be an infinite number of reasons and explanations given as to what we experienced individually and collectively. Hell, even deeply religious people would not all agree that it was proof-positive of God lol...

Just as the argument can easily be made that this world--with all it's supposed "flaws" and ills and horrors--is actually the perfect world for humans to live and evolve within, the argument can also be made that God created humans to believe and have faith in His existence...not to be convinced of it.

[Jumbo]

1) I do not believe that God exists.

2) I believe that God does not exist.

These are very different statements, but both indicate atheism. On top of atheism, statement 2) also adds an affirmative belief. You seem to suggest that only statement 2) is atheism while statement 1) is not atheism. What do you base this on?

Linguistically, prefix A means absence of something. It does not mean affirmation of the opposite.

The content of this post is functionally correct in linguistic structure and logic. If you don't get it, no big deal, but it's misplaced (or "worse", depending on how you're doing it) to project that lacking onto the writer.

there is no higher purpose other than what we give ourselves as a species.

there is no after this.

<edit>

~Bang

Of course, many wise people not only believe that we are the agents than create (or "bring") the meaning in our lives (and are thus responsible to a degree for any "quality" of such), via interpretation of perceptions regarding painful and pleasurable experiences and the functionality of our associated cognitive habits/abilities and chosen behaviors.

One statement says I have no belief and another says that I do. They are not equivalent and both are atheist.

Pretty much.

<edit> In any case, since you have chosen to abandon reason here, there really is no point in continuing.

There's been zero abandonment of reason so far on alexy's side. Maybe you're choosing to do such.

I, however, do think "not continuing" in a thread like (or many sociopolitical tailgate threads) is a fine choice, and one I should make more often. :evilg: :pfft:

does a species give itself purpose or is it inherent in them?

I think, first, we are often too quick to presume too complete a knowledge of the "the level of living experience" of all other species, and by anthropomorphism of our ideas/values/views onto such that may involve a lot more than we currently know (like going by size of brain, projected levels of cognitive or perceptual "sophistication" of other species, etc.) Second, it is scientifically easy to construct a rational basis that successive use of "brain power" in creating satisfying meaning and purpose by use of cognitive (as I described earlier) would be a survival-enhancing characteristic of high desirability.

This is just one of many kinds of well-known propositions (on various matters) that are really almost of a "common-sense" or "easy to figure" type of possible explanation on a matter that I am frequently surprised to find seemingly absent in the thoughts of many people (going by what they communicate).

Dont get me started on that. I've been itching to start a thread on free will for a while now...

<edit>

I believe we recently had such a thread, and am sure there's been more than one such over the years. So the thing to do would check first and bump that one unless yours would be very distinguishable.

Commonly historically, people that are neutral with respect to a belief in god (do not believe that god exists or not exists (i.e. there is not enough information)) have been considered agnostic, while atheist has been used to describe the stronger position of asserting there is no god.

If you are going to say you are atheist, many people used to sort of general language are going to take that as you are asserting that there is no god.

I understand in more philosophical circles that isn't the case, and we've actually had this come up in a thread, and it appears that there is even talk of strong vs. weak atheism in an effort to define people's position.

Atheism has its root w/o god; not w/o belief.

Good post, with worthy thoughts inviting worthy exploration.

isnt there a certain amount of arrogance in taking the opinion of atheism? (i realize one answer is 'isnt is arrogant to believe you know the truth'? but it doesnt really answer my question).

or are some atheists of the opinion that they havent seen evidence of a god yet --but if some evidence did arise, they would be open to it?

IME, often it's "yes" to the latter (which invites an exhnage of "well, isn't that being 'agnostic' then --and the answer would be "not necessarily" ) and (to use a term) a "strong atheist" (I'd suggest there are also "strong" and "weak" theists in a similar sense, btw) might be slow to accept even apparently dramatic evidence. One such might even actively seek, and more easily believe, an alternative explanation of such claimed evidence even if the preferred explanation is "outlandish" in and of itself.

To your first question, I think it's fair to question arrogance there--to at least examine the matter. I don't think being an atheist means inherently having a high level of arrogance in the matter.

Relatedly, there is certainly a commonly found (but not inherent) high level of arrogance IME among many members of some particular religions (Notably Islam and Christianity for me). Such folk can frequently be quite arrogant in the fervor, finality, and assuredness of their claims. And it's worth noting, in this regard, the sheer number of claims made about God and His Nature (the male again ) and His Ways and the actions he's taken, will take, would take etc.

A ton of "arrogance potential" there (often manifested). One of my favorite spiritual principles is humility.

I was a believer until I actually read the Bible, now I am a atheist

I encourage everyone to read it without having someone tell you what it 'really means'

I have studied it (and the Koran), including in church-originated Bible study groups, and have read it cover to cover a few times over the decades---hard reading in places,, worse by far than Shakespeare or some poetry :pfft: and requires some "belief" just in accepting validity-claims for translations in those incidents when you are told about such is taking place.

I continue to read it occasionally, more often to check on a matter.

It remains quite an experience for me for see how differently it's different passages or sections (or sentences) perceived by we people, of all different views and developmental/personal characteristics---including various clergy. The study of related demographics in the matter is of interest to me too and I have worked in researching that area when luxuries.

I believe there is something more than us/this. Not sure what it is and I don't need anybody to trying to tell me.

I can go along with that, and love the attitude.

But keep in mind that you can (sometimes anyway) benefit from exploring the information and thinking presented by separating it from the "telling you" behaviors. But you know that.

I do find "out loud" atheism (not even "militant" atheism--just simply being assertive in the position, not being aggressive or "personally attacking" in discussion over it) regularly draws quite prickly (sometimes extremely so) reactions from many Christians. Moreso than someone in such a conversation claiming a differing religion.

I'm not surprised when I see it. It fits, human-behavior wise, to me.

Now, obnoxious behavior of any stripe (believer or non believer), is of course, obnoxious. But some people often seem to add "strongly disagreeing with me on "x" " into their "obnoxious" ratings as a default.

[Die Hard]

Theists believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's running things, he sure has screwed things up. And if he's able to prevent it and just sits back and watches as the holocaust, slavery, 9/11, Rwandan genocide, etc. happens, he's definitely not an entity I want anything to do with.

Given your statement... it appears that your belief values `human life` above all else... and only the absense of human misery/suffering is the condition necessary as proof of an omnipotent omniscient being? Or only a condition necessary for you to `worship` such an entity? In which case, you recognize the possibility of its existence... even if you don`t find it has any redeeming qualities?! :-) Am I on the right track? :-)