Why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

Post #1

Post by QED »

In the topic titled Why would God be interested in free lunches?
Harvey asks us:
harvey1 wrote:What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution? Folks, it's not as if everyone on earth is saying you must believe God exists. Rather, the issue is why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?
This is easy for me to answer; I see too much Irony and Pathos in the world for it to be under the direction of the entity worshipped by the faithful. Their very faith is testimony to the unequivocal existence of such a being who's existence is thoroughly ambiguous when all attempts to reason his existence are carefully considered. Now I agree that this much might indeed lead us to agnosticism but then there is plenty to tip this extremely fine balance in my view.

Principally I understand evolution by natural selection to be the force for the apparent design of all known life. Within this mechanism there is no latitude for divine whim or fancy, the "products" will be restricted to what is practical in the widest possible context taking into account a near infinite number of contingent events spanning billions of years. While some might suggest that God enjoys a challenge, it strikes me as absurd to imagine that everything could be rigged so as to eventually result in a nice race of people who perfectly reflect God's image. The methods and imperatives for reaching this exalted state are just too bloody for the ends to be justified by the means in my opinion.

This is why I mention Irony and Pathos because the ungodly ordeals faced by all living things including man are often too awful to permit the kind of God commonly posited. After all, if I were looking for somewhere peaceful to go on holiday shouldn't I be safe going to the "Holy Lands"? If we look at the predictions of a universe under God's direction versus those of a universe which is self-extracting then I can see a clear indication that it is of the latter in nature.

= Atheism.

User avatar
Galphanore
Site Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Post #61

Post by Galphanore »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:
As I said, you are unwilling to admit the reality that implicit atheism, whether being the dictionary definition or not, is the majority. Feel free to deny it more if you like though. Don't you find it slightly odd that the majority of self-identifying atheists don't actually believe what you think we do? That, in fact, what you are arguing against is something we also agree is based on a leap of faith?
I'm having a hard time following.

"Implicit" atheism? What is that supposed to mean? If I ask an atheist what he believes, he will answer "I believe that there is no God", will he not?

Atheism= the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

What am I getting wrong?
Doubtful. If you ask me what I believe I'll tell you a lot of things that sound like humanism, if you ask me if I believe in god I'll answer No. Implicit atheism is the belief that we can't prove there is no god, but none of the evidence supports his existance so I will live my life as if there is not one.
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

User avatar
The Persnickety Platypus
Guru
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm

Post #62

Post by The Persnickety Platypus »

SkepticFromTX,
By my reckoning, the circumstantial evidence that God exists is far outweighed by the circumstantial evidence that God does not exist.
What evidence is that?

Galphanore,
Doubtful. If you ask me what I believe I'll tell you a lot of things that sound like humanism, if you ask me if I believe in god I'll answer No. Implicit atheism is the belief that we can't prove there is no god, but none of the evidence supports his existance so I will live my life as if there is not one.
I too live my life with no regard to any theoretical higher being.

I just do not openly deny such a being's existence, given that it is an opinion I cannot support.

User avatar
Galphanore
Site Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Post #63

Post by Galphanore »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:SkepticFromTX,
By my reckoning, the circumstantial evidence that God exists is far outweighed by the circumstantial evidence that God does not exist.
What evidence is that?

Galphanore,
Doubtful. If you ask me what I believe I'll tell you a lot of things that sound like humanism, if you ask me if I believe in god I'll answer No. Implicit atheism is the belief that we can't prove there is no god, but none of the evidence supports his existance so I will live my life as if there is not one.
I too live my life with no regard to any theoretical higher being.

I just do not openly deny such a being's existence, given that it is an opinion I cannot support.
And you're welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine.
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

User avatar
The Persnickety Platypus
Guru
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm

Post #64

Post by The Persnickety Platypus »

Of course. At the end of the day, we are going to believe what we want regardless.

I am just curious as to why you would ever want to believe something on the mere basis of faith.

Faith is for the religious. The non-religious, I'd like to think, are more reasonable than that. On what grounds can an atheist claim logical superiority over a Christian if he himself is making claims beyond that which can be empirically supported?

User avatar
Galphanore
Site Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Post #65

Post by Galphanore »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Of course. At the end of the day, we are going to believe what we want regardless.

I am just curious as to why you would ever want to believe something on the mere basis of faith.

Faith is for the religious. The non-religious, I'd like to think, are more reasonable than that. On what grounds can an atheist claim logical superiority over a Christian if he himself is making claims beyond that which can be empirically supported?
Don't get this started again. We essentially believe the same thing, I just call it one thing while you call it another. I think you're hiding from the decisive history of the word "atheist" because you don't want to deal with it and you think I'm relying on "faith".
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

User avatar
The Persnickety Platypus
Guru
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm

Post #66

Post by The Persnickety Platypus »

Don't get this started again. We essentially believe the same thing, I just call it one thing while you call it another.
You believe that there is no God. This is most certainly not a viewpoint that I subscribe to.
I think you're hiding from the decisive history of the word "atheist" because you don't want to deal with it and you think I'm relying on "faith".
Atheism does not rely on faith?

So when you make the statement "I do not believe in God", what evidence do you use to support this perspective?

User avatar
Galphanore
Site Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Post #67

Post by Galphanore »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:
Don't get this started again. We essentially believe the same thing, I just call it one thing while you call it another.
You believe that there is no God. This is most certainly not a viewpoint that I subscribe to.
I think you're hiding from the decisive history of the word "atheist" because you don't want to deal with it and you think I'm relying on "faith".
Atheism does not rely on faith?

So when you make the statement "I do not believe in God", what evidence do you use to support this perspective?
As I said, you refuse to accept that I believe what I have said numerous times and insist on using the explicit definition. Goodbye.
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

skepticFromTX
Student
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:07 pm
Location: Houston TX

Post #68

Post by skepticFromTX »

McCulloch: "Atheism could be called a doctrine."

I suppose you could say: "Athiesm was a central doctrine of Communism".

But can't you also say: "Athiesm is a conclusion people reach about the world."?

User avatar
Galphanore
Site Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Georgia

Post #69

Post by Galphanore »

skepticFromTX wrote:McCulloch: "Atheism could be called a doctrine."

I suppose you could say: "Athiesm was a central doctrine of Communism".

But can't you also say: "Athiesm is a conclusion people reach about the world."?
No, it is the starting point. If you consider Atheism the conclusion then you literally have nothing.
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #70

Post by McCulloch »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:So when you make the statement "I do not believe in God", what evidence do you use to support this perspective?
Did he say that he does not believe in God or that he believes there is no God?

There is quite a difference.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Post Reply