Wasn’t sure what kind of responses I’d get and also not sure if this is even a good question, but I was just curious about any Atheists views on Agnosticism? …Anyone can join in maturely..
The definition for God varies from person to person. I just see it as the base that makes up all of everything and connects all forms of life. Notions of atheists, agnostics, or theist are just people putting a box and a label on their believe system. Personally not a big fan of organized religion but it bring some people happiness. I don’t use any of these words to label myself I’m just a person with a set of beliefs open to some change with the advent of new information.
I’m agnostic because I don’t understand how people can say without a doubt whether or not there is a god. Am I open to the idea of there being some kind of ”force” guiding the universe? Of course, one would be silly to assume that all this perfection is 100% pure chance. So I can’t side with the atheists. But I’m also certain the the biblical god isn’t real, so I can’t side with the fundamentalists. So now I’m right on the fence, leaning towards neither side, and laughing at the two parties that insist on ramming heads into each other even though they know no side will win. Dawkins has to be my favorite to listen to, he’s outrageous.
@shivvy, …Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I love atheists, especially Penn Jillette, and I really enjoy hearing him talk about atheism and his views on it, but I just can’t for the life of me stand or hear out Dawkins…
@soulshine, Yeah Dawkins and the other 4 Horsemen of the new atheists crowd are so arrogant that it drives me nuts. I mean sure, they wipe the floor with theists, but anyone can roll over a fundamentalist no problem. They make a sport out of it and their millions of worshippers just eat it up as if they’re doing something extraordinary.
Most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists. It’s possible to be both because atheism and agnosticism address different questions. Atheism addresses whether or not there is a god, while agnosticism addresses how certain one can be about such claim. Obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive. It’s not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
Do you need to be 100 percent certain that there is no god to be an atheist? What about being 100 percent certain that there is a god to be a theist? A big no to both. I mean, the only field of knowledge where you can have such certainty is mathematics, and that’s because it deals with abstract concepts. For everything else, evidence might lead in a certain direction. A good default stance on any given belief is to not believe to start out with and then start to accept the validity of said stance if there is legitimate evidence for it. That’s what skepticism is about. Show me the evidence. I won’t believe if you don’t.
Personally, I am an atheist because I don’t think that there is any reliable evidence for the existence of God(s). That of course, is a vacuously true statement because there isn’t really any coherent definition of what God is, and without one, it makes no sense to talk about evidence. It also leaves belief in God(s) unjustified. Now, I probably won’t believe in God ever. Once I think about an idea and determine that it’s wrong, I drop it and move on. The existence of gods isn’t really that important of a question.
At this point I seem to fall under the agnostic theist category. My wikipedia search has ascertained that “Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one’s belief in a god sufficiently for it to be considered known.”
I also found this Kierkegaard quote to be interesting:
“If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”
@stonedphysicist, You’re going to tell me that Sam Harris isn’t arrogant? He posts a bunch of stuff on his blog in which he criticizes whoever he pleases but then backs down whenever he is asked to debate. He destroyed Eben Alexander (the Dr. who had an NDE and was the author of that Heaven Is Real article) in a blog post but then didn’t give him a chance to defend himself in a debate. Furthermore, that post ha d a quote in which he said that neurosurgeons only operate on the brain, they don’t necessarily know how it works. What? Really? You can’t post this kind of stuff on your blog and then run like hell when the one you were attacking confronts you.
Harris only ever debates New-Age fools that anyone could mop the floor with; that’s like shooting fish in a barrel. However, anytime someone from the scientific community challenges him (Bernardo Kastrup comes to mind recently), Harris is no where to be found.
Don’t get me wrong Stoned, they all have very good information to transfer to their loyal followers. Heck, a lot of them have even remixed Alan Watts’ talks and give similar talks to their followers. However, the arrogance can often be seen when they simply mock others for questioning Darwinism or believing that there might actually be something behind the NDE phenomenon. They’re not even willing to give the other side a fighting chance, which in my opinion no one should do (unless it’s fundamentalists :p)
I’d like to start by stating that I am agnostic. I have been down the rabbit hole on both the theistic and atheistic sides so that I can gain perspective. Theistic and atheistic philosophies are similar in that they are both making strong claims. Theistic, for the existence of a higher power that cannot be unproven and is also unfalsifiable. And atheistic people are those taking the scientific stance, choosing to argue with logic and numbers. Agnosticism is more like theism except with too great of an understand of logic and science to accept theism, but agnostics are also not arrogant enough to deny something that is unprovable and unfalsifiable the way an atheist does. Agnostics are relativists. As agnostics, we understand that things aren’t always as they seem. We understand that each and every person’s perspective is completely different than another’s. We understand that an immovable object and an unstoppable force are really the same thing in a different frame of reference. Agnostics know that an Intelligent Designer could never be an anthropomorphic man hanging out in the clouds. We know that a higher power has to be something greater, like space-time, or whatever boson particles are believed to make up space-time. Agnostics know a lot of things, but also that all empirical knowledge is completely relative. The fact that you know something right now does not mean you will know the same fact an instant later (or know the fact in the same way) because space-time is in constant flux (and our experience of it is in constant flux). It is the idea that we can not hold anything empirical to be inherently true that keeps us from claiming that there is or isn’t an Intelligent Designer.
Ok, I consider myself an atheist. I looked at each religion out there to find my beliefs and all of them didn’t suit me. I sat around a lot thinking of possibilities of there being a God(s) then it hit me. We all are trying to find a bigger meaning. We are always trying to find a purpose of why we are here; If we have a purpose in life. All of these questions lead us to questioning ourselves and the simplicity of the universe. I believe that we are here on sheer luck. We are part of a huge universe yet we are always trying to give credit to someone or something. I have come to accept that we are insignificant to the universe yet we are something so unique that we can’t deny it. From what we know (Or what I know) there isn’t any life outside Earth. This makes us one of the most unique things in the Universe (Until we find other life, if it exists). But I look at each person I’ve met and they always ask about their purpose or our purpose as humans. When they do that, I become slightly angered because they are trying to find a bigger meaning into something that doesn’t have much more significance. We are here surviving in this huge universe. I dont see much more in that. The closest analogy to this would be a person trying to find deeper connotation from a sentence you might have said. Or over analyzing something your girlfriend or boyfriend might of said. It leads to a false conclusion that only causes harm to the situation. I feel that if we all accepted this idea of simplicity that we would give ourselves the credit and ;essentially, live happier lives. What are your guys’ thoughts?