NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheists who have genuinely read widely should have no problem shrugging this thread off. Christians may take offense at this, but it's not intentional (unless you're the sort of Christian who's content to sit back and take faith for granted, in which case tough cheese).

Anyway, Agnosticism is the simple belief that it's pointless to devote ourself to a cause of which we are uncertain. We like the idea that only that which can be reasoned empirically is justified motivation. We can only be convinced by that which can be both shown and its explanation reasoned by supportive prediction, and therefore don't side with any particular side on the Religion issue. By and large, Atheists agree with this sentiment.

However, through reading through the immense fun that is the Question for Atheists topic, there's one interesting thing that keeps cropping up. It's this: most hardline "Atheists" are simply counter-Christians. They look at Christianity from an Agnostic viewpoint, see faults in both Christian explanations and Christian behaviour and denounce it. That's where they stop.

God as Christianity dubs it cannot exist; therefore, no God exists. To me, that sounds incredibly similar to the idea that the Christian God is the Only True God. Where is the exploration around other forms of God? What about the possibility that maybe God has just been misquoted? What about Eastern ideologies?

Has Christianity so influenced our thinking that we do indeed believe that the Christian God is the Only True God, even if we don't believe that He exists? Are Atheists just Agnostics who have been more strongly influenced by Christianity?

Amusing sentiments...

I agree, a lot of atheists just argue against the Christian god, which is more anti-Cristianity than actual atheism. Personally I have looked at all the different religions of the world and decided that they basically cancel each other out. None have any more validity than any other, and which religion a person follows is largely a matter of where they live. The conclusions I have drawn is that actually following any organised religion is absurd, that I have far more respect for religious people if they are tolerant of other religions,a nd that if there is a god it is far more complex than we can imagine.

I have to agree with you. We have been swept up in the old Theist view of God and an all-powerful, omni-benevolent, omniscent Ruler. It's very interesting that these ideas are all negative in a way. Humans have limited power, therefore God must have unlimited power, humans have limited kindness therefore God must have unlimited kindness, humans have limited knowledge, therefore God must have unlimited knowledge. It is very interesting how we deffine God as not having our shortcomings then often give Him a human personality. (God get's angry, God is sad, God is happy etc)

However, there are other deffitions of God and I think what you choose as yours is telling: Einstien chose to define God as "the sum total Laws of the Cosmos." I have a friend that says, "God is made manifest in Freedom." My favorite deffintion is that God is "the Spirit of Life and Love." I know the Hindu experience of God in and beyond everything is very different than our own and the Buddhists don't even have a creator God. I think the question should be not "Do you believe in God," but "What things do you hold most dear?" Is it love, freedom, money, kindness, knowledge, etc. Almost everyone has something they value above all else, some people choose to call that God.

I'm Atheist but an equal opportunity one.

It's not just the Christian god that I believe doesn't exist, it's ANY god. There are no such things as gods.

There very well may be life forms in the universe that are far more advanced than we... so much so that they appear to be gods to us... but that doesn't make them gods.

I'm Atheist but an equal opportunity one.

It's not just the Christian god that I believe doesn't exist, it's ANY god. There are no such things as gods.

There very well may be life forms in the universe that are far more advanced than we... so much so that they appear to be gods to us... but that doesn't make them gods.
But what is your Deffintion of God, cause I probably don't believe in it either. However, if we take Einstein's deffinition (the sum total Laws of the Cosmos) God clearly exists (it probably isn't worth praying to thought).

However, through reading through the immense fun that is the Question for Atheists topic, there's one interesting thing that keeps cropping up. It's this: most hardline "Atheists" are simply counter-Christians. They look at Christianity from an Agnostic viewpoint, see faults in both Christian explanations and Christian behaviour and denounce it. That's where they stop.

This is one reason why I find many of these so-called atheists amusing, it isn't true atheism - it's a fad. It's like examining an elephant's toe and declaring "I now understand elephants".

Anyway, Agnosticism is the simple belief that it's pointless to devote ourself to a cause of which we are uncertain. We like the idea that only that which can be reasoned empirically is justified motivation. We can only be convinced by that which can be both shown and its explanation reasoned by supportive prediction, and therefore don't side with any particular side on the Religion issue. By and large, Atheists agree with this sentiment.
That is a very poor definition of agnosticism.

In fact, there are agnostics who are adamantly apatheic about not knowing what there is and are committed to the cause of not knowing.

To be an agnostic is to admit that you do not know whether any deity exists or not. That is all. One can be an agnostic and not give a shit, one can be an agnostic and firmly press on others that they don't know either, that they simply have beliefs as to what the truth is et c.

www.apatheticagnostic.com is a website of agnostics dedicated to being apathetic about the existance of a deity (if I got it right) their motto is "We don't know and we don't care"

Gods are comforting and convienient ways for our ess advanced ancestors to explain what they didn't understand and find some solace while facing thier mortality, nothing more.

But what is your Deffintion of God, cause I probably don't believe in it either. However, if we take Einstein's deffinition (the sum total Laws of the Cosmos) God clearly exists (it probably isn't worth praying to thought).

To me a god is an entity that exists outside of or transcends the natural laws of the universe (or multiverse).

I believe any sentient entity that can affect the universe or anything in it must also then reside in said universe and be accountable to the natural laws therein.

This is one reason why I find many of these so-called atheists amusing, it isn't true atheism - it's a fad. It's like examining an elephant's toe and declaring "I now understand elephants".

I see this kind of atheism as more of a poorly-thought-out reaction against the dominant religion. A little more thought and you'd realise you have a lot of other religions to not believe in to be an atheist.

I like the point of view of Buddhism best, they believe in all sorts of gods but don't see any point in worshipping any of them.

Would I be the only person familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologa", wherin one encounters the uncaused cause theory?

That is a very poor definition of agnosticism.

In fact, there are agnostics who are adamantly apatheic about not knowing what there is and are committed to the cause of not knowing.

To be an agnostic is to admit that you do not know whether any deity exists or not. That is all. One can be an agnostic and not give a shit, one can be an agnostic and firmly press on others that they don't know either, that they simply have beliefs as to what the truth is et c.

www.apatheticagnostic.com is a website of agnostics dedicated to being apathetic about the existance of a deity (if I got it right) their motto is "We don't know and we don't care"To be fair, if you really didn't give a hoot, you wouldn't label yourself agnostic. You'd just say "Who cares?".

You can have apathetic Christians, apathetic Buddhists and apathetic Pagans too. But that doesn't define what any of those belief structures are.

Agnosticism is being unconvinced due to lack of evidence. You can take either an active or passive approach to that, but either way the definition seems to stick.

I like the point of view of Buddhism best, they believe in all sorts of gods but don't see any point in worshipping any of them.
Depends on the buddhism. By nature, buddhism is agnostic, but that means its followers can really put whatever deity they want up there as well.

Atheists who have genuinely read widely should have no problem shrugging this thread off. Christians may take offense at this, but it's not intentional (unless you're the sort of Christian who's content to sit back and take faith for granted, in which case tough cheese).

Anyway, Agnosticism is the simple belief that it's pointless to devote ourself to a cause of which we are uncertain. We like the idea that only that which can be reasoned empirically is justified motivation. We can only be convinced by that which can be both shown and its explanation reasoned by supportive prediction, and therefore don't side with any particular side on the Religion issue. By and large, Atheists agree with this sentiment.

However, through reading through the immense fun that is the Question for Atheists topic, there's one interesting thing that keeps cropping up. It's this: most hardline "Atheists" are simply counter-Christians. They look at Christianity from an Agnostic viewpoint, see faults in both Christian explanations and Christian behaviour and denounce it. That's where they stop.

God as Christianity dubs it cannot exist; therefore, no God exists. To me, that sounds incredibly similar to the idea that the Christian God is the Only True God. Where is the exploration around other forms of God? What about the possibility that maybe God has just been misquoted? What about Eastern ideologies?

Has Christianity so influenced our thinking that we do indeed believe that the Christian God is the Only True God, even if we don't believe that He exists? Are Atheists just Agnostics who have been more strongly influenced by Christianity?


I'm thinking, as an atheist, that this is more of a representation question. I had a thread a few weeks ago about Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists but mostly the response was Christian.

There is little understanding in the American world, at least, of other mainstream religions, such as Judaism and Islam. As far as other Eastern religions, it's tough to say.

The Buddhist philosophy (never represented here) and the Taoist philosophy both are atheist philosophies called religion (why I don't know). Hinduism is not really represented, nor is any form of animisim or polytheism.

I suppose in the debates it seems Christian vs. anti-Christian because the Christians are the only participants touting religion.

It's hard to say how it would be were this not the case.

Would I be the only person familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologa", wherin one encounters the uncaused cause theory?


Oh! Mememe!!

Would I be the only person familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologa", wherin one encounters the uncaused cause theory?Guess there are one or two... care to enlighten the rest of us?

From another point of view, it might appear that all gods are the same God, that all religions are paths to the same place. Prove one wrong, and it could be said that all are suspect by relation.

I think, based mostly on what I've observed in my friends, that many (especially younger) atheists reject Christianity because they do not trust organized religion. It's the same logic behind being an anarchist teenager: Screw the machine.

The thread does bring up an interesting point, which is that so long as Atheists are viewed as counter-Christians they will always be considered as part of the western world. This is why the middle east is having problems secularizing: they think secularism is a western concept as opposed to a universal concept. Same thing with women's rights.

God as Christianity dubs it cannot exist; therefore, no God exists.

One of the main ideas of Cristianity is that you cannot prove God, you can only believe in him/her/it.

One of the main ideas of Cristianity is that you cannot prove God, you can only believe in him/her/it.

Er, IIRC, that's debateable, various Christian thinkers have espoused ideas that swing either way.

One of the main ideas of Cristianity is that you cannot prove God, you can only believe in him/her/it.

Tell that to people that wish to teach ID in science class...

The point of the original poster is interesting. Perhaps we should have a seperate word for people who believe in the possibility of supreme beings, just not in the way as they are described by the various holy books.

To be fair, if you really didn't give a hoot, you wouldn't label yourself agnostic. You'd just say "Who cares?".

You can have apathetic Christians, apathetic Buddhists and apathetic Pagans too. But that doesn't define what any of those belief structures are.

Agnosticism is being unconvinced due to lack of evidence. You can take either an active or passive approach to that, but either way the definition seems to stick.
I wouldn't even mentioned not giving a shit if you hadn't defined agnosticism like this:

Anyway, Agnosticism is the simple belief that it's pointless to devote ourself to a cause of which we are uncertain.

When agnosticism is simply the admission that you don't know whether any deities exist.

And also, people who don't give a fuck are more likely to refer to themselves as atheists.

From another point of view, it might appear that all gods are the same God, that all religions are paths to the same place. Prove one wrong, and it could be said that all are suspect by relation.

I think, based mostly on what I've observed in my friends, that many (especially younger) atheists reject Christianity because they do not trust organized religion. It's the same logic behind being an anarchist teenager: Screw the machine. I reckon many reject it because they're apathetic about religion (which annoys me; I hate apathy), and some actually take a good long think using the faulty thing known as the human mind, and decide that God does not exist/God is not worthy of worship/whatever.
I know some people (replying to OP) who do not reject the possibility of the "divine" (in quotation marks because it can mean several things), as in they're not fixated on the Yahweh God.

[QUOTE=Balipo]

The Buddhist philosophy (never represented here) and the Taoist philosophy both are atheist philosophies called religion (why I don't know).
[QUOTE]

It depends how you define religion, if religioun is depended on a Creator Deity, then Taoism and Buddhism are not religion. However, if you define religion as the response to the knowledge that 1) We are alive, 2) We eventually die, then they are religions.