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.

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

Post #101

Post by skepticFromTX »

Galphanore: "Most of that [an Atheists' Synod] is pretty much what this thread has turned into, but an Atheist's Creed wouldn't really be possible because there are so many different kinds..

I find it interesting to read over the thread. I think it gives a little insight into how the various religious sects came about (of course there were political and economic factors at work there that we don't have here). Still, it's a revealing glimpse into the workings of human nature.

If I claim Implicit atheism, then I deny even considering the existence of a God. ... I think the more you break it down, the more confusing it becomes.
Yes. And the human penchant for breaking things down is what leads to the "multiplication of entities". I have this picture of the Agnostics being branded by the Orthodox Atheists as heretics for deviating from True Atheism for claiming that the existence of god is unknowable.

"An Atheist is really just anyone who doesn't believe in god"
Would it be a heresy within Atheism to not care whether god exists or not? To just find the whole question, like the question of Santa Claus' existence, tiresome?

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

Post #102

Post by skepticFromTX »

Confused: "..I don't mean to offend anyone here but a religous atheist and terms similar to them are oxymorons in my opinion ... They appear to be more like saying "well there is no God, but just in case there is then I have covered all bases". I know it isn't what is meant, but that appearance can be quite confusing."

That's similar to "Pascal's Wager" which recommends believing in God because if he doesn't exist they you lose nothing, but if he does exist then you gain eternity (I paraphrase).

I've always thought that it was a really morally stunted way to reason. I can imagine someone who just died standing before god saying "I always believed in you so now you've got to let me into heaven", and god saying "Oh, go to hell".

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #103

Post by Confused »

skepticFromTX wrote:Confused: "..I don't mean to offend anyone here but a religous atheist and terms similar to them are oxymorons in my opinion ... They appear to be more like saying "well there is no God, but just in case there is then I have covered all bases". I know it isn't what is meant, but that appearance can be quite confusing."

That's similar to "Pascal's Wager" which recommends believing in God because if he doesn't exist they you lose nothing, but if he does exist then you gain eternity (I paraphrase).

I've always thought that it was a really morally stunted way to reason. I can imagine someone who just died standing before god saying "I always believed in you so now you've got to let me into heaven", and god saying "Oh, go to hell".
I know what your saying. I have heard what some classify as a religious atheist and while I don't understand it, if this is the path they have come to, the great, but the more terms get skewed, the more vague the line becomes between what atheism is. I admit, I am not the best person to make this arguement because I can't even seem to find comfort in being defined as agnostic. But when atheism starts to branch out as Christianity has by defining different characteristics to different sects of atheism, we set up a structure the is subject to more flaws and greater scrutiny and eventually we will in effect become the same fallacies that Religion offers. Yes, I know this is the slippery slope arguement, but it is still a very distinct possiblity.

Aside from all that, it just irritates me that I am once again confused as to what category I fall under. I can't claim theist, but I don't fit neatly into the criterial for nontheists either. I guess I will just have to remain content in not qualifying for a label.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

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

Post #104

Post by Galphanore »

skepticFromTX wrote:Galphanore: "Most of that [an Atheists' Synod] is pretty much what this thread has turned into, but an Atheist's Creed wouldn't really be possible because there are so many different kinds..

I find it interesting to read over the thread. I think it gives a little insight into how the various religious sects came about (of course there were political and economic factors at work there that we don't have here). Still, it's a revealing glimpse into the workings of human nature.

If I claim Implicit atheism, then I deny even considering the existence of a God. ... I think the more you break it down, the more confusing it becomes.
Yes. And the human penchant for breaking things down is what leads to the "multiplication of entities". I have this picture of the Agnostics being branded by the Orthodox Atheists as heretics for deviating from True Atheism for claiming that the existence of god is unknowable.

"An Atheist is really just anyone who doesn't believe in god"
Would it be a heresy within Atheism to not care whether god exists or not? To just find the whole question, like the question of Santa Claus' existence, tiresome?
No, because they still do not have the positive belief in a god.
  • 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 #105

Post by skepticFromTX »

Confused: "I can't claim theist, but I don't fit neatly into the criterial for nontheists either. I guess I will just have to remain content in not qualifying for a label."

Way to go.

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

Post #106

Post by skepticFromTX »

Galphanore wrote:
skepticFromTX wrote:Galphanore: "An Atheist is really just anyone who doesn't believe in god"

Would it be a heresy within Atheism to not care whether god exists or not? To just find the whole question, like the question of Santa Claus' existence, tiresome?
No, because they still do not have the positive belief in a god.
Ok. So then I'm just some kind of atheist.

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

Post #107

Post by Galphanore »

skepticFromTX wrote:
Galphanore wrote:
skepticFromTX wrote:Galphanore: "An Atheist is really just anyone who doesn't believe in god"

Would it be a heresy within Atheism to not care whether god exists or not? To just find the whole question, like the question of Santa Claus' existence, tiresome?
No, because they still do not have the positive belief in a god.
Ok. So then I'm just some kind of atheist.
Yep, now you just have to figure out what, if any, atheistic label you want to use.
  • 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 #108

Post by The Persnickety Platypus »

Which of us is denying the dictionary definition again? Maybe you just need to buy updated dictionaries. Embrace your atheism my Monotreme friend.
Okay. But only if you embrace your Agnosticism.

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

Post #109

Post by Galphanore »

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:
Which of us is denying the dictionary definition again? Maybe you just need to buy updated dictionaries. Embrace your atheism my Monotreme friend.
Okay. But only if you embrace your Agnosticism.
Ok
  • You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

User avatar
AClockWorkOrange
Scholar
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #110

Post by AClockWorkOrange »

an agnostic places God outside of human comprehnsion.

Thus, they remove God from the Natural world. Then, to define God in anyway is to attach God to the natural world, so God must remain undefined and without a quality to remain supernatural.

So if God has no qualities, is undefined, and is completely outside of the natural world or natural definition, then God really doesnt matter...

Thus, Agnostisism really doesnt matter, or all agnostics are rationally atheists if they care about relivency.

Post Reply