EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[The Hungry Atheist]

bernee51:
We are all born atheists and then the god concept is introduced to us - usually by parents.

So then how did it first get introduced if it's always passed on from one generation to the next? And why has that occurred in every culture?

I don't think it's that surprising that our innate curiosity should lead to certain ponderings about where we came from and what we're doing here. And without so much of today's modern technology, the idea of some sort of god might have made sense. Most cultures did indeed come up with such ideas, but they each had very different ideas about the god or gods in question, and the creation process, and the potential afterlifes awaiting us... they seemed to find very little to agree on, in fact.

The concept of deity is manifested through our own biology. We give birth to offspring, and so it's natural to assume that our very existence resulted from similar processes. I don't think we should be painting the argument that the concept of deity was pulled out of thin air.

It might be natural to assume it, but I don't think that necessarily leads to it being true, or even likely. To some, it was natural to assume that there must be some god dragging the sun across the sky every day in a giant chariot; similar processes are generally involved in the motion of other objects. Given the number of completely different ideas of gods and religious systems that people have come up with, I think the argument of the concept being "pulled out of thin air" seems to stand up quite well. Otherwise, if humanity's very ability of conceiving of "God" really does imply his existence, why would he choose to provide us with so many conflicting views of him?

I think some of these atheistic arguments show a sense of desperation -- lunging for ways to discredit theism that are invalid.

Probably many atheistic arguments are 'desperate', and certainly some are invalid; I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to here, but I hope you'll point out any of what you consider invalid logic as it's used.

Hungry Atheist, I think that kind of argument is a lazy one...

I won't quote the whole paragraph, but this refers to my comparison of God with such fictional creatures as unicorns. What you say is partly valid, but I disagree that there's no correlation at all, and I'm not sure quite how I'm guilty of attempting "guilt by association". I don't believe in aliens (at least the kind that are alleged to have landed on this planet) because there's insufficient evidence to suggest their existence. I don't believe in God because there's insufficient evidence to suggest his existence. Now, if both of these assertions are correct, and I'm not merely ignorant or in denial about any particular evidence, wouldn't it make sense to approach both God and the aliens in the same way, at least as far as I do here?

Green aliens and unicorns are not purported to have created anything that we've seen and there is no evidence of any handiwork they might have done.

Green aliens and unicorns created everything we see. There you go, I just purported it. Now it's up to me to back that up with evidence if I want anybody to take me seriously. You talk about the evidence such as first-hand accounts and what have you, which of course is valid, but that's not quite what I'm getting at here - if the evidence for something is insufficient to suggest that its existence is likely, then belief seems unsupported and foolish. Surely that has to be true of everything, from God to unicorns, but where the arguments diverge is that the evidence for God's existence is widespread (albeit in some eyes inconclusive) and the evidence for unicorns is practically non-existent, and where opinions differ is in what we should infer from the evidence.

I believe it is preposterous to assume that which we have not yet experienced must therefore be impossible.

Couldn't agree with you more. We certainly shouldn't dismiss anything as impossible simply because we haven't yet experienced it, but if we haven't yet experienced something in any way, what grounds do we have for any kind of belief or opinion on the matter whatsoever?

The atheistic approach is that only things observable can exist; that nothing exists beyond direct experience; or that nothing can be known outside the realm of biological processes.

I'm an atheist and that's no my approach. I don't claim that nothing exists which cannot be observed, but if something cannot be observed in any way, directly or otherwise, then once again we seem to have no basis for any kind of opinion.

There is no ultimate authority to taste, as there is in the case of a deity with religion.

But even that cannot be definitive, at least not to us. I don't mean to say that the existence or otherwise of any god is influenced by our human opinions, but any kind of evidence for any argument on this matter must always be subject to human perception. There'll always be people who interpret things differently, and so any claim to speak for the "ultimate authority" on religion is no more valid than Corvus' claim that Strauss is just better than Britney. This may no longer apply after we're dead, but that's not something that can really be considered now.

It's also possible that Christianity has flourished for reasons stated in the Bible. And just maybe it was because Jesus was one of the world's greatest teachers, and maybe it was because he was carrying the message that was meant to be carried to the earth. Those explanations are just as rational.

I wouldn't be happy with so many "just maybe"s, personally. I'd want to be pretty sure about it before I started believing this particular idea too keenly, especially given the vastly significant and controversial nature of the things it claims, and the number of things it requires one simply to take on faith.

[dangerdan]

I’m going to see if I can stimulate this thread in a slightly different direction and to get us A’s into some meaty intellectual debates with each other…

I’m an atheist, and this is directed at agnostics – why do you consider yourself agnostic, and not atheistic? What is the best argument that makes you say you are agnostic, as opposed to atheistic?

Heheh, listen to me, I sound like an evangelical atheist trying to convert my unsaved agnostic brothers…

[Corvus]

Corvus:
I don't think those sorts of statistics are really a good indication of evidence, but more something that shows the marketableness of Christianity. Because more people like Britney Spears than, say, my favourite composer, Strauss II, it does not mean there is more evidence to suggest Britney Spears has more talented songwriters. Of course, that's a matter of opinion, but so is the question of which is the better faith. The point is that the bible appeals to more opinions.

I don't know if that type of analogy works here. Actually, I'm certain that it doesn't. Devoted followers don't have "tastes" in religion as they would with art. People don't devote their lives to something because they like it -- it has to do with becoming a part of them.

Yet the only reason they become a part of them is because it appealed to them in the first place. I really can't imagine anyone joining a religion that does not appeal them, whether it is an appeal to logic, compassion or by manipulating their insecurities so the appeal is one induced by despair..

I think you're lumping all religion in with the type of religion that is constructed to be marketed and socially engineered. Surely there are religions that have the sole purpose to sell to the public. But it would be a mistaken generalization to group all religions in such a category.

Not at all. Religions survive because of appeal. There is no other measure of the success of a religion except its popularity. Whether this is due to intentional marketing or simply because it incidentally falls in with what a lot of people expect from a religion is irrelevant. I am not saying Christianity was engineered to appeal. I am simply saying that it has not survived because it is exceptional, it is exceptional from the mere fact of having survived, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc.

And besides, tastes are not necessarily right or wrong. There is no ultimate authority to taste, as there is in the case of a deity with religion.

But there is no ultimate authority on religion as there is no ultimate authority on taste.

For some people, Britney Spears is better music than Strauss. You're right in the sense that popularity is not a clear indication of good taste. But how do you then define good taste, and how do you determine when the masses are correct and when they're not? For example, is Strauss better than Mozart? Or better than Bach? Or better than Chopin, or Beethoven? How do you make such a determination?

You are asking for a value judgment on a thing I have already stated is an opinion. I do not define good taste. I can attempt to claim that Strauss is better than Britney for a number of reasons and thereby justify my opinion, but I don't expect these arguments to be accepted by everyone. Note that I did not claim Strauss is the better composer, I claimed that taste or popularity is no good indication of truth.

According to your reasoning, whichever composer has been marketed the best will be the most revered.

Yes. Is there a problem here? I think Britney Spears albums are bought more often than Strauss albums at this current point in time. People go crazy for her, their behaviour perhaps reaching the heights of religious fervour. Will people still be listening to Britney Spears in 50 years time? Probably not. Strauss will probably outlast her because his appeal endures over and above the current popular taste. Most classical musicians also layed the foundations of what was to be considered good music, just as Judaism, which still exists, lay the foundations for Christianity. For that reason, the composer may appeal simply by the virtue of being a forerunner or pioneer, even if in technical sophistication, there is far better.

I should clarify that I do not believe Christianity has been "marketed" except by its missionaries. The book itself has a message that appeals and has appealed for 2 millennia, but so has Plato's Republic, even if many people consider Plato a boring old fart.

It's also possible that Christianity has flourished for reasons stated in the Bible. And just maybe it was because Jesus was one of the world's greatest teachers, and maybe it was because he was carrying the message that was meant to be carried to the earth. Those explanations are just as rational.

They were also what was originally challenged*. If you think my explanations are equally rational, then there is no point debating this further. The fact that the Abrahamic religions are all quite popular even though only one of them can be "the way" says more to me about their appeal to people throughout the ages than any inherent truth to their claims, and leads me to make these hypotheses. The point is still clear; taste is no indication of truth, and popularity is not a proof of anything at all.

Considering there are so many Christians, I have to wonder what Jesus was talking about when he said, "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those that find it." Matthew 7:14


*Edit: Actually, what was originally challenged was the statement that the widespread belief in a god or gods of some kind suggested there might be one. Apologies here.

[Arch]

I’m going to see if I can stimulate this thread in a slightly different direction and to get us A’s into some meaty intellectual debates with each other…

I’m an atheist, and this is directed at agnostics – why do you consider yourself agnostic, and not atheistic? What is the best argument that makes you say you are agnostic, as opposed to atheistic?

Heheh, listen to me, I sound like an evangelical atheist trying to convert my unsaved agnostic brothers…

Though I don't believe in the Christian, Jewish or Muslims concept of God. I find it hard to believe that there is no matter of inteligence behind the creation of what we call life and universe.

But at the same time I don't believe that that creator or those creators could anymore be viewed in the terms of GODS than my Mother was to me when I was a Baby.

But the offical stance I take is I don't know whether or not there is a GOD. And at this time I feel there is no proofs as to whther or not a GOD exists.

I can understand a person Believing either way. What I can't understand is someone saying they KNOW one way or the other.

In a sense I see agnosticism as having enough humility to admit that I don't know. A agnostic could be a deist, or an atheist, hell even a born again christian by belief, as long as he or she admits when it all boils down they don't KNOW for sure.

Is that not what faith is believing even though you have no proof. So those saying they know for sure are negating their faith in the same. Because if you Know you don't need faith.

For example I know I have a mother, I don't have faith in the idea that I have a mother. I know for a fact that I would not exist without having a mother. However, I have faith that my mother is my mother because we have never had a blood test done to prove it and I could have been switched at birth.

[ST88]

I’m an atheist, and this is directed at agnostics – why do you consider yourself agnostic, and not atheistic? What is the best argument that makes you say you are agnostic, as opposed to atheistic?

Heheh, listen to me, I sound like an evangelical atheist trying to convert my unsaved agnostic brothers…

There are a number of different ways to define "Atheism." There are commentaries on this board here [Agnosticism vs. Atheism] and here [Defining atheism and agnosticism].

As I see the definition of Atheism, it is to examine the idea of God or the idea of a god or gods, and to reject these ideas. The type or motivations behind the rejection do not matter in this case. My own problem with this view is that the existence of such supernatural beings is, in most if not all cases, unprovable, and so there will never be any proof and there will never be any disproof.

And I don't mean this exclusively in the sense that there will never be evidence for or against the various ideas of deities -- although that's true also -- it's that ideas for existence of deities demand that this be the case. Unprovability is a central idea, and is necessary for belief. Essentially, it boils down to a few people saying "trust me" when they talk about belief. This is the only reason that these ideas have survived from the Dark Ages to modern times. It gives credence to the Hollywood version of heart vs. head, and it says that it's OK to follow your heart even if your head says the opposite.

And while the believers can ask me the question "Do you believe?" and I can answer with a "no," the philosophical question of "Is there a God?" can be answered with an "I Don't Know." I see no reason to take a position on such an unprovable hypothesis. The question "Is there a God?" has no more meaning than "Is there a Don Quixote?" or "Is there a race of elves living in a giant boulder on the hill?" They present as fictional characters who sprang from the unconscious minds of humans, but though they do not have the "ring of truth" we might be able to detect rationally, our minds are hard-wired to accept the irrational.

Atheist Madolyn Murray O'Hair called agnostics "gutless" because they refuse to take a stand on the issue and wish to have a "foot in both camps." She claimed it was fear that drove agnostics to refuse an outright rejection of God because they wanted to leave the door open to accept God, should he exist. But I think she was thinking about it incorrectly. For her, the question was a partisan one -- either you believe or you don't. I don't understand why I need to take a position either for or against a proposition that has no inherent meaning.

My agnosticism has nothing to do with a fear or wish that God existed. It is not a religious position, it is a philosophical one. In some sense, I have sought to eliminate personal opinion in my stance because I wish to leave no room for what I "would like" to be true -- I don't think that what I would like to be true must necessarily be true or that what I would not like to be true must not necessarily be untrue. Similarly, I don't think it would be either rational or productive to act as if either of these situations were the case.

Atheists and Theists can pelt each other with rhetoric about yes and no all they like, but at the end of the day, the existence of deities is an irrational concept, and the denial of the existence of theses deities is also an irrational concept. Both sides are following their hearts exclusive of their heads. Though I do not wish to deny them their rights to be irrational, this is something I am not able to do on a basic level.

[bernee51]

There are a number of different ways to define "Atheism."

I beg to differ - there is only one way to define atheism - lack of a belief in god(s).

There are however a number of ways to define god which affects whether I consider myself atheist or agnostic.

As to there being no gods whatsoever in any way shape or form I would consider myself agnostic. There may very well be a god in a form yet to be defined in a way I accept.

As to the magical and mythical gods e.g. the JCI god, it is very easy, for me at least, to be an atheist. This particular god rules himself out of existence by his own words in his human written, supposedly self inspired, book of myth (aka the bible).

I don't agree that the denial of the existence of a specific god (JCI for instance) is an irrational concept, just the opposite. It is rationality that brings the doubt and eventually the disbelief. It is irrationality that keeps humanity in the dark.

[dangerdan]

Allrighty, here we go!

Though I don't believe in the Christian, Jewish or Muslims concept of God.

Sounds like atheism to me.

I find it hard to believe that there is no matter of inteligence behind the creation of what we call life and universe.

I personally feel that (introducing some other type of intelligent being) raises more problems than it solves. If one introduces this intelligent being, the world just got a whole lot harder to explain, in my opinion. Further, it’s interesting to think whether this vague spiritual thingy would be fit to be called God.

But the offical stance I take is I don't know whether or not there is a GOD. And at this time I feel there is no proofs as to whther or not a GOD exists.

Which again sounds like atheism to me. If one is not sufficiently swayed by arguments of something’s existence, then I would think that one would quite naturally assume that this thing doesn’t exist, until shown otherwise. One doesn’t have to be 100% certain though.

I can understand a person Believing either way. What I can't understand is someone saying they KNOW one way or the other.

But this knowledge doesn’t have to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Santa doesn’t exist, or even my brother does exist, as the extreme skeptic would soon remind us. This doesn’t stop us from making judgments on the existence of these entities.

In a sense I see agnosticism as having enough humility to admit that I don't know. A agnostic could be a deist, or an atheist, hell even a born again christian by belief, as long as he or she admits when it all boils down they don't KNOW for sure.

But we don’t know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything outside the clean mathematical world. As soon as we make any induction, absolute certainty goes out the window. That’s ok. It seems odd to highlight this fact singularly when it comes to the existence of God, and not the existence of anything else. If this is the definition, then one would be agnostic of everything outside mathematics, which doesn’t seem to be implied when most people talk about agnosticism.

Is that not what faith is believing even though you have no proof. So those saying they know for sure are negating their faith in the same. Because if you Know you don't need faith.

Again, I think you are talking about an extreme proof. I don’t think uncertainty has the same nuances as faith, the way people usually use the term faith anyway. Faith seems to imply that the evidence seems to say the opposite, though you still believe it anyway. Wouldn’t you say?

For example I know I have a mother, I don't have faith in the idea that I have a mother. I know for a fact that I would not exist without having a mother.

Not in a 100%-certain-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt way. You could be the victim of an elaborate hoax and are made from a test tube embryo, or you even could be an alien. Of course this is so improbable that any healthy person naturally dismisses this, but the point is it’s possible. We always are working with probability here, as the nature of our knowledge is based around inductive reasoning.

It seems odd to suspend judgment on God because you are lacking total certainty. Do you also suspend judgment on a supernatural Santa because you are lacking total certainty? Of course not.

[Arch]

Sounds like atheism to me.

To me and I could be wrong an athiest believes there is no intelligent creative force behind creation. I don't Believe that. I just don't Believe in the Islamic, Jewish and Christians CONCEPT of this creative intelligence.

I might say believe in the egyptian concepts of GODS, unfortunately I don't know enough about that to make a judgement.

But we don’t know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything outside the clean mathematical world. As soon as we make any induction, absolute certainty goes out the window. That’s ok. It seems odd to highlight this fact singularly when it comes to the existence of God, and not the existence of anything else. If this is the definition, then one would be agnostic of everything outside mathematics, which doesn’t seem to be implied when most people talk about agnosticism.

To me making a judgement doesn't absolve the fact that you don't know. Belief for me can be very close to confirmation when based upon what people call known facts. For example I believe that if you jump from the Sears tower you will fall hit the ground and die. This beliefs is based upon my knowledge of a force that cause items to fall toward the ground when not sustained by something else. IE if you throw something else, with nothing to stop it it wll ht the ground. But since I myself have never seen a person actually jump from the Sear Towers, I might say I believe this.

I think a person that knows anything KNOWS that they don't KNOW much at all.

Again, I think you are talking about an extreme proof. I don’t think uncertainty has the same nuances as faith, the way people usually use the term faith anyway. Faith seems to imply that the evidence seems to say the opposite, though you still believe it anyway. Wouldn’t you say?

Faith could be said it that way as well, if a person has all evidence that something is one way but still believes it to be another way. Some may call that faith. I might call that insanity.

Not in a 100%-certain-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt way. You could be the victim of an elaborate hoax and are made from a test tube embryo, or you even could be an alien. Of course this is so improbable that any healthy person naturally dismisses this, but the point is it’s possible. We always are working with probability here, as the nature of our knowledge is based around inductive reasoning.

Even if I was a test tube embryo, I would still have to have a woman from whence I came. Even if I were an alien how every they reproduce I would still have something that sires me. That could be called a mother as well. Better yet a parent.

It seems odd to suspend judgment on God because you are lacking total certainty. Do you also suspend judgment on a supernatural Santa because you are lacking total certainty? Of course not.

I think Santa existed. I just don't think he existed in the form or concept that we teach Santa today. I believe some intelligent being was the beginning of the myth we now call Santa. However, I don't know that for sure.

In the end, like I said being an agnostic to me isn't suspending judgement, or coming up with some thought on the subject. It simply admiting that one doesn't know that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think it is unreasonable to think that some intelligent being started this whole creation experiment. No more than it is unreasonable to think that a BIG BANG did it. After all the hoopla of all the theories, we are all left with a big fact I don't know based upon reasonable doubt.

One can reasonable question whether or not the GOD of religions exists they way they present it.

At the same time one can reasonable question who created the matter that came together to create the BIG Bang if in fact a big bang even happened.

[Colter]

Self-contemplation is most disastrous, even to the exalted personalities of the celestial world. Of Lucifer it was said: "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your brightness." Your olden prophet saw his sad estate when he wrote: "How are you fallen from heaven, OH Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds!"


Atheism is the practice and promotion of the doctrines of doubt. These ideas were first promoted by Lucifer long ago. Genuine doubts and sceptism are natural for evolving men and women but to "religiously" practice the non existence of God is quite another story.

[dangerdan]

To me and I could be wrong an athiest believes there is no intelligent creative force behind creation.

Hmmm, I would think the issue is God. If this intelligent creative force is not fit to be called God, then, in my opinion, this view would be more accurately described as atheism.

I might say believe in the egyptian concepts of GODS, unfortunately I don't know enough about that to make a judgement.

Interesting. But if someone did not know anything to do with these Egyptian Gods, or even Egypt, it would be reasonable to say that they did not believe in the existence of these Egyptian gods, as they didn’t even know what they were!

This beliefs is based upon my knowledge of a force that cause items to fall toward the ground when not sustained by something else. IE if you throw something else, with nothing to stop it it wll ht the ground. But since I myself have never seen a person actually jump from the Sear Towers, I might say I believe this.

Yes, but the skeptic would soon remind us that we don’t know - with absolute certainty - that gravity will work tomorrow. It may not. But obviously it has hitherto so we presume that it does tomorrow, quite naturally. That’s just something we have to live with.

I think a person that knows anything KNOWS that they don't KNOW much at all.

Umm, I think I agree with you here. Supposing you are talking about a “total certainty” type of knowledge.

Even if I was a test tube embryo, I would still have to have a woman from whence I came. Even if I were an alien how every they reproduce I would still have something that sires me. That could be called a mother as well. Better yet a parent.

I disagree. “Parent” or “mother”? No. “Origin”? Maybe...actually no. Suppose the matter that made up your embryo was constructed using a stockpile of electrons and such? This is of course rather ridiculous, but the point is it is possible, and with your definition of knowledge, we don’t “know” this didn’t happen either.

It simply admiting that one doesn't know that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok, I think the term “reasonable doubt” now is talking about a very different type of knowledge than previously discussed.

I don’t know – with total certainty – that God doesn’t exist. He may always appear to me when I have a video camera or something like that and I will happily reconsider the issue in light of this new evidence. My opinion is tentative. There are, though, many arguments which makes me think it’s more likely than not that this God type character doesn’t exist, and I would actually call this atheism, not agnosticism.

I don’t think atheists and agnostics have terribly different world views, it’s just a rather insignificant question of how we with to classify this world view. But hey, it’s interesting to discuss, wouldn’t you say?