NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I thought I would start a discussion about atheism and agnosticism, and your view of them. I put up a poll also. But also for those of us who aren't atheists or agnostics, I would like to hear your stories or reasoning for why you decided religion or spiritual belief is not for you.

I personally went to Catholic schools from primary to secondary and then finally college, and although my parents are Anglican (and lean to the Evangelical type thinking), I believe the reasoning was more that private schools give better education. But anyways when younger I did go to church every sunday, and was highly encourage to join into Christian youth activities and that young Christian scene going on which is so big today.

From the earliest I can remember I also felt incredibly uncomfortable with everything the Christian groups did, their also unwavering devotion/singing and open attitude which made me extremely uncomfortable, the whole speaking in tongues stuff gave me the creeps. Anyways I was constantly told about the whole 'born again' experience the Christians had, and how great it was, and to be completely honest I would sometimes close my eyes and ask for a sign, but I honestly felt nothing, and sometimes wished for anything that I would feel that meant 'I am now a Christian'.

Long story short, this never happened, I starting finding excuses to not go to church on Sundays, and drop out of Christian youth activities not because I disliked religion or whatever, but more because the people made my grit my teeth to try and take it. This was about high school time, and I don't think you'd call it rebellion because I was never like that. Anyways in college it was much more to me taste, the school was 'catholic' but the only thing religious about it were some old buildings that looked religious, I did spirituality classes in which I studied Judaism and Shinto, and my economics teacher sparked my interest, and eventually lent my Marx to read. And so yeah I came out as far from the conservatism that my parents stick to today.

I happen to believe there is something, but we cannot ever come close to defining it. Plus, man corrupts all religion.

I think it's more likely that something created the universe than that we just exist.
Not so sure about anything else.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7f/Atheist_cat.jpg/542px-Atheist_cat.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/graphics/heartkun1_small.jpg

In before the trolls. (I mean, come on, it's inevitable)

In before the trolls. (I mean, come on, it's inevitable)

Well I never intended that, I just wanted to post how I became an atheist and hear others stories and views of atheism/agnosticism.

Well I never intended that, I just wanted to post how I became an atheist and hear others stories and views of atheism/agnosticism.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I like the idea, but you know that it won't be long before trolls on both sides show up and ruin it all. It's a topic to do with religion.

What the hell, I'll chip in.


I'm an atheist because all 'evidence' presented that deducts the existence of any/all gods or goddesses I find fallacious at best and almost pitiful at worst. Pair that with the hatred of anyone who doesn't believe in the same superstition as you.

Of course, I realize not everyone expresses outright hate, but it's disappointing and annoying to have everyone around you presume you to be christian of some sort, simply because of where you live or what your projected values may be.


Edit: Oh yay, in before the trolls! *gets a lawnchair and popcorn, then waits for the fighting to start*

Actually at an intellectual level I should really credit authors like Hitchens, Dawkins, Hedges for their work.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7f/Atheist_cat.jpg/542px-Atheist_cat.jpg
Because I am not a pussy!! :p Sorry.......I couldn't resist!!

I happen to believe there is something, but we cannot ever come close to defining it. Perhaps living it *is* the definition.
Plus, man corrupts all religion.Uhm, it's more that mankind *is* religion, and inherently corrupt. I mean, think of the term "dancing about architecture".
Just because we're good at labeling things so people can relate to them in the conceptual form doesn't mean that if we begin to dress in bizarre fashion and do strange and humiliating things to ourself is going to actualize anything other than us dressing in bizarre fashion and doing humiliating things.
No matter what we end up calling god or gods or nothing, it/they continue their existence/nonexistence relatively unabated.

Currently reading:
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf
A few interesting parts in there, to be sure.
:)

As to the OP and the poll options ... as Anselmo so succintly put it ... "I serve too many fucking masters."

My spiritual growth has been much tempered by reason, circumstance, sense, and hope, which as anyone who has had enough long dark tea-times of the soul, is not a happy and congruent mix.
Suffice to say, i came to the conclusion i should have. I don't envy anyone who has to lose what they deem to be god to become more responsible for their own actions and souls, but i do deem it necessary.
Religion became, clearly, antithetical to personal spiritual growth (by responsibility, not opportunity), imnsho.
I am very anti-religious but very pro-spiritual. And i've been blessed to find quite a few other people, especially here, are coming to the same conclusion.
I wasn't raised in a religious backdrop - i merely took note of the casualties. I also took note of the most sincere and uncovoluted (as far as i could tell) spiritual journeys (and how they were often solitary and prominently self-sacrificial), and concluded i could find myself not chagrined by them in any way, even supportive of such endeavours.
At this point, all i can say in the most non-belligerent way to people who know what i'm talking about, is that we are past the ages of darkness, and it is time for the age of reason. Long overdue.

Because I am not a pussy!! :p Sorry.......I couldn't resist!!

Hehe. Saw that one coming a mile away.

I used to go to church every Sunday when I was growing up. Around grade 8 I kinda hardly showed up, but that was because I bought a tv at a garage sale and would watch late night television on Saturday nights (plus teens need more sleep and all) but was convinced to go more. When I got to highschool I was involved with the youth group and I went to church for the social experience basically. I never really cared for the christian rock that everyone seemed to like and I would usually roll my eyes when someone in the group would give a talk along the lines of "most people have never seen the north pole, but they believe it exists, why not the same with god?" crap, even though I believed at the time, the argument was just pathetic.

Anyways, one weekend we went away to this youth thing and they peer pressured us into signing this form promising not to fall in love, have sex before marriage or drink (haha) and they did this altar call thing. When I went up for the altar call, I felt absolutely nothing. After this I really stopped believing, but I still went to church to hang out with everyone... until I went to Italy for two weeks and came back and nobody seemed to notice that I was gone. Then I was kinda like "fuck this shit" and never went back. I still read the Bible on my own for a bit, but then I found that it didn't seem right. I tried out/looked into a couple of other religions, decided that nobody had a good idea of anything and that we would never know whether or not there's a god or an afterlife, at least not during this lifetime, so I should just roll with this.

More recently I've figured that nobody even really has a good idea of what god is and the whole thing seems silly and pointless to me.

I'm an atheist because I find scientific reasoning much more believable in comparison with 'He said let there be light and there was'. In reality, the theory of creationism is actually more absurd than the theories like big bang or string.

I would say that I could classify as agnostic. I don't really believe in any sort of god, but I also think that it is foolish to simply say nothing exists. I don't hold myself to enough moral and intellectual authority to say to anybody else what to believe or how to live, and i think that atheists and agnostics should stop having such a stuck up attitude towards people of faith. Remember that believing in god has nothing to do with intelligence, and religion isn't necessarily a bad thing. Religion is a way of life for some people and you should never knock them for it.

Well I actually believe the Christian gospel is an active advocation of social equality and economic justice, and is that's how people viewed it then I most certainly would be a Christian, but unfortunately it's used it's a shield for the warped and twisted 'morality' of the fascist crowd these days, it's become a regressive, reactionary and violence defense of capitalist economy for the elite oligarchy against socialism. Moreover I pity Christians for being such unwitting pawns.

I'm agnostic because I don't believe there is enough proof either way for anything pre-big bang, so I choose not to even think about it, really. I can't understand how Dawkins can be so harsh on agnostics. Russell's teapot in this case doesn't cut it.

Oh, and as for how I became agnostic. In Australia lots of people call themselves and their families Christian on the census but rarely if ever set foot in church. That was my family. We never said a prayer or went to church, not once, though I believe my parents do believe in God. At any rate, went to a half-assed Christian high school where most kids didn't have any interest or belief in God anyway. But I just never saw any reason to believe, as none of the stories of the bible or God make any sense scientifically, and I've always had a very logical and rational way of thinking.

I'm an atheist because I find scientific reasoning much more believable in comparison with 'He said let there be light and there was'. In reality, the theory of creationism is actually more absurd than the theories like big bang or string.

That could be how much more evidence is involved with scientific reasoning ... and how the fulcrum for religion is "faith", which blah blah blahdee blaboo ....
i think you get my point.

I chose Atheist, though I'm not sure how correct that would be.

Basically I don't believe in a any kind of deity, or creation stories, so that makes me an Atheist.
I do think it's possible there is some kind of scientific version of continual existence though I'm an agnostic on that part.


Anyways, as to why I am.
I was raised in an environment where religion was'nt really a big thing, though it was'nt totally absent, and as I started getting older (around 10) I started questioning things, like what shape is the universe etc., and that lead me into being interested in science, and over the next few years I became less (I never really was in the first place) religious.

I actually became Buddhist for five years, and I still do believe in enlightenment, just not with as much importance on spirituality and such.


In short, I was never very religious, and as I got older I stopped believing in god and such, just like I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

My faith was wavering, so I decided to read the Bible. By the time I finished the book of Job, I was laughing too hard to keep reading.

I believe in an underlying force that is the source of all creation and intelligence, infinite reincarnation, and moral principles based on moderation, respect for nature, and balance. Make of that what you will.

I am atheist because I don't have a particular belief in any god, there does not seem to be a reason to do so, no evidence to do so, hardly any peer-pressure to do so[1] and the latter never made me think I had any such thoughts.

And I am agnostic because I am firmly of the opinion that you can't really prove it either way, leaving the onus entirely upon those who believe to convince those of us who don't[2].

I am apatheist because if there's a Supreme Being somewhere/everywhere, He's going to judge me on the contents of my 'heart' and what I do on my own tod, not by keeping score of how often I said some words or other (in whatever language you fancy), confessed to sins, refrained from having fun on the sabbath and/or sacrificed black cockerels[3].

I'm also, from a scientific POV, a fatalist. To whit: The universe is essentially deterministic[4], free-will (even consciousness itself) is an illusion brought upon by emergent behaviour from the complex interactions of environment within which 'we' are submerged and from which 'we' were created.

[1] The prayers and observances required of me in cubs/scouts and the vague acts of worship in school were always social activities, to me, not theological.

[2] Unfortunately, they have an impossible task when nothing so far observed needs the Hand Of A Creator to be explained.

[3] Any He that there might be isn't going to be fooled by any of that (whatever 'that' He is purported to required) if I'm 'just covering the odds', and would know me for what I am regardless, warts and all, so Being Good To My Fellow Man (which should be beneficial to humanity and its future regardless of the existence of a deity, a good enough a reason without even bothering looking into the issue of any higher being) is what I shall do, and that's my homage to Him, if any homage shall ever be called into account.

[4] That this is apparently at odds with the Bell Theorem and experiments arising from that is obvious. Which is probably why this aspect of my 'beliefs' is the part I personally consider the most credulous and non-logical aspect. But then I would believe that, wouldn't I..? :)

I put theism because it's the closer to deism than agnosticism is, really. It makes logical sense to me that there is some kind of creative entity that begot the universe, a la First Cause argument, but that entails nothing else other than a capacity to create at least a single universe. Either way, it's a creative force.

Oh, I should also note that the closest I'd be willing to get to making any assertion as to the character of a higher being (a.k.a. "god") is pantheism. But my pantheism would be for different reasons than Spinoza's, though I'll give him that he has a cool last name so he auto-wins debates. ;)

My faith was wavering, so I decided to read the Bible. By the time I finished the book of Job, I was laughing too hard to keep reading.

Then i got out my Legos! :D
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

Nothing on Job yet, though.

When you listen to a mystic's harangue on the impotence of the human mind and begin to doubt your consciousness, not his, when you permit your precariously semi-rational state to be shaken by any assertion and decide that it's safer to trust his superior certainty and knowledge, the joke is on both of you: your sanction is the only source of certainty he has. The supernatural power that a mystic dreads, the unknowable spirit he worships, the consciousness that he considers omnipotent is - yours.

A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty. At the crossroad between "I know" and "They say", he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think. Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others. His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him.

From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness - and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feeling is terror.

When a mystic declares that he feels the existence of a power superior to reason, he feels it allright, but that power is not an omniscient super-spirit of the universe, it is the consciousness of any passer-by to whom he has surrendered his own. A mystic is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force that omnipotent consciousness of others. "They" are his only key to reality, he feels that he cannot exist save by harnessing their mysterious power and extorting their unaccountable consent. "They" are his only means of perception and, like a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash them in order to live. To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the lot of an abandoned mind.

~ Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged

Sorry about the harsh language, but in so far as theists claim to believe not by means of reason but some other means that I don't possess and neither do they, and derive their faith only to the degree that they don't look like the lone sucker deceiving themselves (so to the degree that others believe it, too), I think it might just hit the nail on the head.

Which is not to say that I don't tolerate people's choice to be religious. It's just that I think it's a dangerous, foolish choice.

The Bible: The Greatest Action Story Ever Told (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t21jJ1Wdsw&mode=related&search=)

When you listen to a mystic's harangue on the impotence of the human mind and begin to doubt your consciousness, not his, when you permit your precariously semi-rational state to be shaken by any assertion and decide that it's safer to trust his superior certainty and knowledge, the joke is on both of you: your sanction is the only source of certainty he has. The supernatural power that a mystic dreads, the unknowable spirit he worships, the consciousness that he considers omnipotent is - yours.

A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty. At the crossroad between "I know" and "They say", he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to understand, to believe rather than to think. Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others. His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him.

From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness - and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feeling is terror.

When a mystic declares that he feels the existence of a power superior to reason, he feels it allright, but that power is not an omniscient super-spirit of the universe, it is the consciousness of any passer-by to whom he has surrendered his own. A mystic is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force that omnipotent consciousness of others. "They" are his only key to reality, he feels that he cannot exist save by harnessing their mysterious power and extorting their unaccountable consent. "They" are his only means of perception and, like a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash them in order to live. To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the lot of an abandoned mind.

~ Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged

Sorry about the harsh language, but in so far as theists claim to believe not by means of reason but some other means that I don't possess and neither do they, and derive their faith only to the degree that they don't look like the lone sucker deceiving themselves (so to the degree that others believe it, too), I think it might just hit the nail on the head.

Which is not to say that I don't tolerate people's choice to be religious. It's just that I think it's a dangerous, foolish choice.

Nicely, nicely put. *bows*

An agnostic is someone who cannot make up their mind about whether G-d exists, while

A deist is someone who believes in a higher power (whether G-d, or the "Force," or anything of the sort) but without any particular religion.

Most people here are actually deists.

An agnostic is someone who cannot make up their mind about whether G-d exists, while

A deist is someone who believes in a higher power (whether G-d, or the "Force," or anything of the sort) but without any particular religion.

Most people here are actually deists.

Really? Seems to me most people here understand the difference...

Really? Seems to me most people here understand the difference...

I thought I did... but the large font and bolding really helped me understand it fully.

Thanks Congressional Dimwits!

I thought I did... but the large font and bolding really helped me understand it fully.

Thanks Congressional Dimwits!

What exactly did you think it meant?

What exactly did you think it meant?

Pretty much the same as now, but smaller and lighter.

I would describe myself as a rational agnostic/atheist.

I think that logics is the only brain process that allows us to reach objective knowledge: since there is no objective proof of the existance or of the non-existance of deity/ies, and it has been shown that logics cannot prove or disprove the existance of deity/ies, I think that we'll never know the answer for sure. This makes me a rational agnostic, I think.

Also, totally subjectively, I dismiss the existance of deity/ies as a far too complicated hypotesis. This makes me a rational atheist, I believe.

(rational here is used as opposed to believer: I don't have trust in belief as a way to know things, I trust logics but I recognise its limitations)

the thing with rationality and religion is, that religion has no factual rationals behind it. there is a reason that "belief" is synomymous with "religion." This is because the rationals behind religion are purly what you belive. It isnt what you can prove, its what you have faith in.

I am the presisnt of debate club at my high school, as well as a theist. However, i find atheism arguments to be the strongest. This is because athiest arguments use facts, and facts always win arguments.

I actually find that argunig for the atheist's point of view is much more fun, and more interesting.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7f/Atheist_cat.jpg/542px-Atheist_cat.jpg

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

This is because athiest arguments use facts, and facts always win arguments.I noticed that your postcount is extremely low for NS, after reading this sentence. Hmmm.
:p


I actually find that argunig for the atheist's point of view is much more fun, and more interesting.
The absolute position? At times.
Near trollhood though at times as well.

An agnostic is NOT someone who cannot make up their mind about whether G-d exists, an agnostic is someone who thinks that their is no evidence either way to prove G-d exists or does not exist, please quit the distortions...

Agnostic.

Because the possible existence of a supernatural G/god(s) is utterly irrelevant.

Hrrmmmm.....well, it all stawted when I was about five. I had a hellfire-breathin', hypochondriac grandmother who abused laxatives and suppositories like they were.......ummmm....highly addictive painkillers? Well anyway, that "scared to faith" thing really turned me off, and I became a militant atheist and stayed that way up until the age of....oh, let's say 20 or so. It was then that I realized I had become just as dogmatic as those I opposed and, with the help of a deeply religious friend, came to actually, you know, 'respect' their beliefs, even though I didn't agree with them. So write me down as agnostic. I don't know if god exists, I don't know if god doesn't exist, and---though I would prefer god doesn't exist (my country gives me enough 'Big Brother' bullshit for me to take anyone else's)---I really don't care all that much. Either way, it doesn't affect me (or at least I am not aware of its effects), so there's usually no point in me even discussing it.

An agnostic is NOT someone who cannot make up their mind about whether G-d exists, an agnostic is someone who thinks that their is no evidence either way to prove G-d exists or does not exist, please quit the distortions...

I second that. But what's with the "G-d" thing? I just don't capitalize the 'g.' And I DEFINITELY do not capitalize the 'h' when referring to "Him." GAWD, that drives me crazy!

I second that. But what's with the "G-d" thing? I just don't capitalize the 'g.' And I DEFINITELY do not capitalize the 'h' when referring to "Him." GAWD, that drives me crazy!

Ahh well I just do it out of habit really, not respect - I have none for people who intentionally delude themselves.

Ahh well I just do it out of habit really, not respect - I have none for people who intentionally delude themselves.

That's because you're making the same mistake people like Ken Hovind turn into a career: you're not separating faith and reason. You believe reason can be applied to matters of faith, but you don't seem to see that this commits you to accept that faith can be applied to matters of reason, as well.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

SEPERATE BUT EQUAL! kinda

I'm a spider dreaming I'm a man. As soon as the wasp eggs in my belly hatches and the wee ones are done eating me alive, I'll regret my life wasn't a pointless waste of time, and no nice little deity will scoop me up and spank my ass for dreaming I was poking fun at irrational people. After all, my life has been a rather miserable one. Or at least my death has. Or it would, if I had enough of a nervous system to worry about being eaten inside out by fucking huge larva.

Hmm.. I need a less boring delusion. Any good religion on sale?

I'm the first two, but since I couldn't vote for both of them, I went with Myrth.

I'm the first two, but since I couldn't vote for both of them, I went with Myrth.

No you're not. You're one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.

No you're not. You're one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.

Yes, I am, no, I'm not, and no, they aren't, respectively. Agnostic is not a middle point between atheist and theist, it's on a whole different scale.

No you're not. You're one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.

My head is Agnostic. My gut is Atheist.

My belief is that there is no god, but my reason tells me there is no way to prove this, so doubt must exist.

Yes, I am, no, I'm not, and no, they aren't, respectively. Agnostic is not a middle point between atheist and theist, it's on a whole different scale.

I know it is. In fact its very definition means somebody cannot be atheist and agnostic at the same time. An agnostic believes, in this context, that it is not currently (or will ever be) possible to know if God exists. An atheist believes God does not exist. What don't I understand?

My head is Agnostic. My gut is Atheist.

My belief is that there is no god, but my reason tells me there is no way to prove this, so doubt must exist.

Same here.

No you're not. You're one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.Why?

I'm fairly certain you're of the opinion you're a human being, or at least not a jar of Marmite, despite your inability to demonstrate as much. So why, when you can have an opinion as to your own nature, can Ifreann not have an opinion about divinity?

Oh and.. They are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance, and thus in no way incompatible with neither theism nor the lack of it.

I know it is. In fact its very definition means somebody cannot be atheist and agnostic at the same time. An agnostic believes, in this context, that it is not currently (or will ever be) possible to know if God exists. An atheist believes God does not exist. What don't I understand?

You haven't shown them to be mutually exclusive, and they aren't.
Same here.
Then you are an agnostic atheist too.

If religions weren't so culturally charged, even theists would laugh at them.

Take ancient Greek myth, for example. I think most modern theists would dismiss those stories as false out of hand. "How silly the stories are. No-one believes in those gods anymore. Those stories are obviously made-up."

Yet, the modern theist's religious stories are no different. They are accepted as the truth simply because a living theist wills to believe.

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” Bertrand Russell

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts

Take ancient Greek myth, for example. I think most modern theists would dismiss those stories as false out of hand. "How silly the stories are. No-one believes in those gods anymore. Those stories are obviously made-up."As a matter of fact those stories are far less obviously made up than the biblical theology is.

What don't I understand?That it is an epistemological stance, unlike theism or atheism. If you were correct, agnosticism would be atheism, as it would preclude belief in divinity, which, shockingly, is the definition of atheism. But instead of mincing words, why don't you simply look them up in a free online dictionary? - It's quicker than writing posts about it ;)

As a matter of fact those stories are far less obviously made up than the biblical theology is.

Stories about Zeus turning into a random animal and getting some woman pregnant is less obviously false than there being a huge flood that submerged the whole world?

Stories about Zeus turning into a random animal and getting some woman pregnant is less obviously false than there being a huge flood that submerged the whole world?One might not leave any evidence to be found today. The other most certainly would.

At the very least that makes the former a less obvious fiction, though "easier to believe" aren't the words I'd use.

You haven't shown them to be mutually exclusive, and they aren't.

Then you are an agnostic atheist too.

That it is an epistemological stance, unlike theism or atheism. If you were correct, agnosticism would be atheism, as it would preclude belief in divinity, which, shockingly, is the definition of atheism. But instead of mincing words, why don't you simply look them up in a free online dictionary? - It's quicker than writing posts about it ;)

Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic:
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Explain how you can believe there is no God and believe that whether God exists is unknowable at the same time?

It's basically just always been my view that there probably isn't a god, but that there probably is some kind of vaguely karmic resurrection type affair going on.

That said, if people are into religion, fair enough. I'm sure they're just as annoyed by Atheists trying to force their views on them, just as we are of people trying to force their views on US.

Stories about Zeus turning into a random animal and getting some woman pregnant is less obviously false than there being a huge flood that submerged the whole world?

Well, there is a flood myth in Greek mythology also.

Explain how you can believe there is no God and believe that whether God exists is unknowable at the same time?

... read this post.

Well, there is a flood myth in Greek mythology also.

There are also Native American flood myths, Babylonian flood myths, Hawaiian flood myths, Aztec, Incan, Indian and Egyptian... it's interesting how many different faiths have common stories.

There are also Native American flood myths, Babylonian flood myths, Hawaiian flood myths, Aztec, Incan, Indian and Egyptian... it's interesting how many different faiths have common stories.

Flood myths are common because flooding is common. Sooner or later, every culture has to deal with widespread flooding, and the concomitant loss of life.

Of course, there was a massive flood event in the Mediterranean basin in prehistory. Likely some of the myths can be traced to that.

Well, there is a flood myth in Greek mythology also.However, the Greek flood myth is completely different from the common Mesopotamian flood myth (from which the biblical story has been stolen). What's interesting is that the date for the Mesopotamian flood equals that of the Mesoamerican flood (start of the Mayan calendar), which might indicate a common occasion for the floods (e.g. el-Niño, or vulcanic eruption somewhere)

Explain how you can believe there is no God and believe that whether God exists is unknowable at the same time?
You understand the difference between knowing and believing, yes? I couldn't know there isn't a god while believing that one cannot know whether there is a god or not. I most certainly can believe there isn't a god(or disbelieve, whatever) while beliving that one cannot know whether there is a god or not.
Well, there is a flood myth in Greek mythology also.

There are also Native American flood myths, Babylonian flood myths, Hawaiian flood myths, Aztec, Incan, Indian and Egyptian... it's interesting how many different faiths have common stories.

Huzzah, I'm learnding.

You understand the difference between knowing and believing, yes? I couldn't know there isn't a god while believing that one cannot know whether there is a god or not. I most certainly can believe there isn't a god(or disbelieve, whatever) while beliving that one cannot know whether there is a god or not.

Hmm... I guess that is a fair enough explanation. I would tend to describe myself as agnostic leaning towards atheistic, since my beliefs are generally determined by knowledge. But to each his own.

My belief is that there is no god, but my reason tells me there is no way to prove this, so doubt must exist.
Nicely put. I'll extend it, so that my stated position is less obviously a reaction to my religious background.

My belief is that there are no gods, but I have to reasonably conclude that there is no way to prove this.

I'm not going to answer the poll because, as I've moaned about many times before, I don't like this ridiculous habit that we (people in general) have of trying to slap a label on everything.

I was raised in a fairly religious family (Church of Scotland). My late Father (in addition to being a biology and chemistry academic) was a Kirk elder and a long time member of the congregational board. He also ran the Bible Class for the 11-14 year old bracket whilst I was of that age. My Mother ran the Sunday School (5-11 year olds) as well, and so I had the 'pleasure' of receiving formal religious instruction from both my parents from an early age.

Under these conditions I was fairly slow to come to my disbelief, but I stopped attending church and Bible Class at the age of 13. There was no sudden epiphany of disbelief, no single moment or event that allowed me to break away from the indoctrination, just a growing feeling that none of it really made any sense when looked at objectively. So I told my parents and my father, to his credit, replied that having spent all of my life teaching me to think critically and form my own opinions he couldn't very well turn round and disagree with my decision if I was sure I had thought it through.

I'm 36 now, and I still feel basically the same way about religion as I did then- not just my own Protestant Christian background, but all of it.

There would be no value in me ranting about the evils of religion and all of the problems it has caused in the world. That's all been said before and, in any case, that's not the purpose of the thread.
:)

Flood myths are common because flooding is common. Sooner or later, every culture has to deal with widespread flooding, and the concomitant loss of life.

Of course, there was a massive flood event in the Mediterranean basin in prehistory. Likely some of the myths can be traced to that.

That is the most logical deduction of course. It doesn't stop people from trying to find Noah's ark for example. There are a number of myths that share similarities from one culture to the next, not just floods. All are most likely attributed to the natural human urge to define a common idea of morals.

My head is Agnostic. My gut is Atheist.

My belief is that there is no god, but my reason tells me there is no way to prove this, so doubt must exist.

I feel great about being an agnostic now. Thankyou.

I know it is. In fact its very definition means somebody cannot be atheist and agnostic at the same time. An agnostic believes, in this context, that it is not currently (or will ever be) possible to know if God exists. An atheist believes God does not exist. What don't I understand?

You don't understand that those definitions are not mutually exclusive, apparently.

I am atheist BECAUSE I am agnostic.

I believe it is impossible for me to know whether or not there is a God/god/gods. That's agnosticism.

BECAUSE of my agnostic beliefs, I then conclude that it would be pretty silly for me to pick out a God-image just for funzies and assume it's real. Therefore, I conclude that I should not believe in any particular God-image. Since I lack belief in God/god/gods, I am an atheist.

You don't understand that those definitions are not mutually exclusive, apparently.

I am atheist BECAUSE I am agnostic.

I believe it is impossible for me to know whether or not there is a God/god/gods. That's agnosticism.

BECAUSE of my agnostic beliefs, I then conclude that it would be pretty silly for me to pick out a God-image just for funzies and assume it's real. Therefore, I conclude that I should not believe in any particular God-image. Since I lack belief in God/god/gods, I am an atheist.

I always thought of agnosticism as being non-commital. I can't say there is, I can't say there isn't. There is room for doubt either way.

I believe atheism is simply saying "there isn't". No room for doubt.

However, the Greek flood myth is completely different from the common Mesopotamian flood myth (from which the biblical story has been stolen). What's interesting is that the date for the Mesopotamian flood equals that of the Mesoamerican flood (start of the Mayan calendar), which might indicate a common occasion for the floods (e.g. el-Niño, or vulcanic eruption somewhere)

Well, the current Black Sea was mostly dry during the last ice age, and it was flooded by sea water rushing throug the Bosphoros. This is probabily the origin of many flood myths in western cultures, and it is consistent with the more recent theories about the indoeuropean urheimat.

I grew up in a family that did not try to convince me of anything but giving me books all the time for what I had to ask about.
Ofcourse when they knew the answer they answered me straight on.
My mother was atheist and my father orthodox christian, though not completely, just when it comes to ethnic pride.

I made up my mind a loooong time ago when I got to see with my own eyes the fanaticism and the struggle of power between churches where I live. And I'm atheist. Though I have a fun time playing with some thoughts about some dark gods some times that I call my "Mentors" or just "Friends" so that I can piss off people that are strict believers.

Everywhere you go you see "JESUS" nailed to every tree and activitiy posters all over.

All I learned from religion is that it segregates humans.

Fanaticism to political leaders and politics overall I can understand.
So I've turnded my thoughts and focus on that more so that I one day may unite the people instead of watching it slowly die in total blindness and in faith of something you can't touch, see or prove with actual scientific facts.


I was pretty amased that your Economics Teacher lended you an exemplary of Marx
Thank you for sharing that kind of information, I will grind my opponets to dust with facts like that.

Are you more politically red now after reading it or do you think it was just another book?

I always thought of agnosticism as being non-commital. I can't say there is, I can't say there isn't. There is room for doubt either way.

I believe atheism is simply saying "there isn't". No room for doubt.

Atheism is saying I believe there isn't, or I don't believe there is. Agnosticism is saying I believe I couldn't know for certain one way or the other.

I always thought of agnosticism as being non-commital. I can't say there is, I can't say there isn't. There is room for doubt either way.

You thought wrong. Agnosticism most certainly is not non-committal. In my opinion, agnosticism is actually a harder step to take than atheism or theism.

Agnosticism means embracing the fact that God is unknowable. That's a lot more than saying "I don't know."


I believe atheism is simply saying "there isn't". No room for doubt.
Again, you're wrong. Atheism can mean an active disbelief ("I believe there is no God") or it can simply refer to a lack of belief ("I don't believe there is a God"). The two are quite different. I belong to the second category.

Agnosticism means embracing the fact that God is unknowable. That's a lot more than saying "I don't know."

If somebody as an agnostic admits to not knowing what God is and even if it exists, how can they, at the same time, profess to be an atheist and believe that God doesn't exist?

If somebody as an agnostic admits to not knowing what God is and even if it exists, how can they, at the same time, profess to be an atheist and believe that God doesn't exist?
Please read my earlier post. You will find that I explained what atheism is, and it's not what you seem to think.

You thought wrong. Agnosticism most certainly is not non-committal. In my opinion, agnosticism is actually a harder step to take than atheism or theism.

Agnosticism means embracing the fact that God is unknowable. That's a lot more than saying "I don't know."
*...*

Yes. Others call themselves agnostic when what they really mean is "I may believe or not, but I'd rather not talk about it. Can we change the subject?"

To further muddy the waters... I was under the impression that 'agnosticism' is not a one-definition term. It covers the following:

- the existence of a 'higher being' cannot be proved or disproved
- the existence of a 'higher being' can be proved but not disproved
- a more general 'I don't know'

I regard myself as agnostic based on the second definition. If there is a higher being, then technically it could choose to reveal itself. Ergo, its existence is provable. There's little practical difference between the first two positions, admittedly, as this scenario is not especially likely. But it is possible.

To further muddy the waters... I was under the impression that 'agnosticism' is not a one-definition term. It covers the following:

- the existence of a 'higher being' cannot be proved or disproved
- the existence of a 'higher being' can be proved but not disproved
- a more general 'I don't know'

I regard myself as agnostic based on the second definition. If there is a higher being, then technically it could choose to reveal itself. Ergo, its existence is provable. There's little practical difference between the first two positions, admittedly, as this scenario is not especially likely. But it is possible.
Your definition is incorrect. Agnosticism refers to whether or not God is knowable, not "provable" or "disprovable." It's actually a critical distinction.

Perhaps God could reveal itself. But we humans could never know whether or not it was God revealing itself. Maybe it's just something immensely powerful and far beyond our comprehension, but it's not God. Maybe it's the Devil. Maybe it's an alien species. Maybe it's a new form of psychosis.

The point of agnosticism is that we cannot know. It doesn't matter whether God/gods might be objectively "provable," it matters that we cannot know, and it cannot be proven to us.

If you believe that it is possible to know whether or not God exists, you are not agnostic. I'm not trying to be rude; that's just the definition of the term.

Just to make things even more confusing, I'd like to add that I'm also ignostic. Look that one up in your Word Of The Day desk calendar. :D

Bottle I've read both your definitions and they are mutually exclusive. Using your own words, if somebody thinks "God is unknowable" then they can't actively have an active disbelief or lack of belief in God, because that would be definition mean that they think God ('s existence) is knowable.

Bottle I've read both your definitions and they are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not.


Using your own words, if somebody thinks "God is unknowable" then they can't actively have an active disbelief or lack of belief in God, because that would be definition mean that they think God ('s existence) is knowable.
Not true.

No, they are not.


Not true.

Well thanks for explaining it. :rolleyes:

Well thanks for explaining it. :rolleyes:
I've already explained it, as have several other people. You continue to make the same false assumptions.

It is quite possible to say, "I don't think I can ever know if God exists, but I am going to choose to believe in Yahweh/Buddha/Zeus/etc." That is called a leap of faith. It is something that many religious individuals choose. These are agnostic theists.

It is also possible to say, "I don't think I can ever know if God exists, and I am not going to choose to believe in any God/god/gods." That is a choice made by many atheists. These are agnostic atheists.

There are also other individuals who assert that they CAN know whether or not God exists. Some people insist that they know God does exist, and thus they believe. Others insist they know God does not exist, and thus they believe there is no God. These individuals are not agnostic.

I've already explained it, as have several other people. You continue to make the same false assumptions.

It is quite possible to say, "I don't think I can ever know if God exists, but I am going to choose to believe in Yahweh/Buddha/Zeus/etc." That is called a leap of faith. It is something that many religious individuals choose. These are agnostic theists.

It is also possible to say, "I don't think I can ever know if God exists, and I am not going to choose to believe in any God/god/gods." That is a choice made by many atheists. These are agnostic atheists.

There are also other individuals who assert that they CAN know whether or not God exists. Some people insist that they know God does exist, and thus they believe. Others insist they know God does not exist, and thus they believe there is no God. These individuals are not agnostic.

I'm sorry, but I still can't understand how somebody can believe God is unknowable then believe in God or not believe in God. That makes no sense and is the definition of a contradiction. It is like saying "I don't know what BBQ sauce tastes like" then saying "it tastes bad".

"I don't think I can ever know if God exists, and I am not going to choose to believe in any God/god/gods."

But how is there not a difference between actively not believing in a God and merely not being drawn on the issue? They are atheism and agnosticism respectively, aren't they?

:(

I'm sorry, but I still can't understand how somebody can believe God is unknowable then believe in God or not believe in God.

Most people do precisely that.


That makes no sense and is the definition of a contradiction.

It may not make sense to you, but it's not a contradiction in the least.


It is like saying "I don't know what BBQ sauce tastes like" then saying "it tastes bad".

Personally, I agree that it's silly to have an opinion about something that you admit you can't know about. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.


But how is there not a difference between actively not believing in a God and merely not being drawn on the issue? They are atheism and agnosticism respectively, aren't they?

No.

Atheism is, as you say, the lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is NOT "merely not being drawn on the issue." Agnosticism is a very specific belief that God is unknowable. I happen to believe that embracing agnosticism is more significant, morally and philosophically, than whether or not the individual then decides to be atheist or agnostic. I have more in common with agnostic theists than I do with non-agnostic atheists.

If you believe that it is possible to know whether or not God exists, you are not agnostic. I'm not trying to be rude; that's just the definition of the term.

In the context of a choice between agnostic/atheist/theist, though ...

Gotta suspect that your "agnosticism is really complicated and difficult" stance is not so different from Pascals Wager for atheism! "Can you really be sure, though, what you are? You ARE sure you're not a theist, though ..?"

In the context of a choice between agnostic/atheist/theist, though ...

Gotta suspect that your "agnosticism is really complicated and difficult" stance is not so different from Pascals Wager for atheism!

To be fair, I don't personally find agnosticism complicated or difficult. It's just that a surprising number of other people find it so. I was brought up by scientists, so the concept that I cannot know some things is pretty fundamental to me. :D


"Can you really be sure, though, what you are? You ARE sure you're not a theist, though ..?"
*gets dizzy and falls down*

*gets dizzy and falls down*

*does likewise, turns light off and crawls into bed with a wet towel on forehead*

I was brought up by scientists, so the concept that I cannot know some things is pretty fundamental to me. :D
That feels like a strange sentence. Cannot know as it is actually impossible for you to know, or cannot know simply because you lack some information?

Hey, it's not so complicated. Simply a matter of labels.

I can go around calling myself Jesus Christ. Almost everyone else is going to translate that into Utter Nutter.

That doesn't make all Utter Nutters Jesus Christ, or vice versa.

I was feeling quite comfortable with my self-label "agnostic", until Bottle started making "agnostic" a qualifying verb for some more fundamental condition.

That feels like a strange sentence. Cannot know as it is actually impossible for you to know, or cannot know simply because you lack some information?The former, though it is contingent on universal limitations, rather than strictly human ones. There might be human ones too, but not that we know of so far.

The former, though it is contingent on universal limitations, rather than strictly human ones.
Any examples?

Any examples?Sure. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The fact that you cannot displace yourself from reality and thus cannot empirically determine anything about whatever isn't reality, if anything.

There's shitloads of stuff that's impossible to know for practical reasons that aren't to do with humans & human intelligence (which is what I assume you were fishing for). For example, assuming Strong Determinism governs the macro-cosmos, you could in theory calculate any event within the universe, for as long as the universe exists in any meaningful sense. It is, however, physically impossible to do so, because it would require an amount of energy no less than equal to all the energy in the universe.

That feels like a strange sentence. Cannot know as it is actually impossible for you to know, or cannot know simply because you lack some information?
In the case of an omnipotent Creator-deity, I believe it's simply unknowable for all humans.

I was feeling quite comfortable with my self-label "agnostic", until Bottle started making "agnostic" a qualifying verb for some more fundamental condition.
While I am certainly flattered by the importance you place on my words, honesty compels me to point out that I'm not making agnosticism into anything...I'm just explaining what the term means. I didn't make up the word, I didn't create the definition, and I certainly don't have the authority to change it.

I was feeling quite comfortable with my self-label "agnostic", until Bottle started making "agnostic" a qualifying verb for some more fundamental condition.
You mean until Bottle started to define it properly?

I'm an Atheist because well... I find religion to be pointless and the associated rituals to be... well... pointless. The only one with any relevance is probably Christmas (Pagan holiday, I know). It's got some good stuff; lots of emphasis on family.

You mean until Bottle started to define it properly?

Yep. And I already voted on the poll.

Well, I learnt something today. Always vote the Myrth option.

Bottle, I don't fully agree with you, though it's clear that my interpretation was partly incorrect. Forgive me for turning to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism), but they have a nice breakdown of sub-categories of agnosticism (which includes ignosticism). My own position would appear to be 'mild'.

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say "I can't know, and neither can you."

Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

Militant agnosticism—similar to weak agnosticism, but with the additional imposition of that view on others. A militant agnostic would say "I don't know, and neither do you."

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know, and who cares anyway?"

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence. A model agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe it can be figured out."

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. An agnostic theist would say "I don't know, but I think so." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, and I don't think so."[6]

Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can meaningfully be discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. The ignostic would say, "I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to God. Unless we first figure that out, debates whether god exists are meaningless."
Things are never simple, eh?

I was raised Roman Catholic though my dad was brought up Southern Baptist. I never understood why. When I was 10, I was put in a children's home that had a generic Christian chapel. I was then exposed to many differing religions. I noticed that many students left the campus to go to different churches. As an avid reader in my earlier years, I started reading everything I could on what made each religion different. The more I read from the bible, more questions than answers arose. I asked our reverend why there were so many religions and how we know ours was the right one. All he could say is "You have to have faith." That's like telling me, "Just because." From the very first time I mentioned that I had doubts, I was harrassed. Desperate to find flaws in my reasoning, I read and read only to come to the conclusion that it was all BS. Eventually I came across a quote that helped me rationalise my way of thinking..
"When you understand why you don't believe in all of the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours." (something like that)

Unless you act like Pee Wee Herman and stick your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la connect the dots" when people say things you don't want to hear, try watching part one of Zeitgest. It does a great job of answering some of the more interesting questions of religion.

Bottle, I don't fully agree with you, though it's clear that my interpretation was partly incorrect. Forgive me for turning to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism), but they have a nice breakdown of sub-categories of agnosticism (which includes ignosticism). My own position would appear to be 'mild'.


Things are never simple, eh?
Wiki is not a reliable source for this (or many other) topics. Even the part you listed shows the problems with Wiki as a source; look at "strong agnostic" and "militant agnostic" as examples.

Agnosticism is really a very simple concept, and trying to invent all these magical sub-divisions of agnosticism is a waste of time.

To be agnostic in the religious context means to believe that God is unknowable. What you do after that point is up to you, and does not change the fact that you're agnostic.

Eventually I came across a quote that helped me rationalise my way of thinking..
"When you understand why you don't believe in all of the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours." (something like that)

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71)

:D

Bravo Bottle !

Bravo Bottle !
Go-go Gadget Google Search!

Well, this is an argument that will rage on until the end of days. Ultimately, One is an agnostic, atheist or theist according to one's own definition of the term.

I am an agnostic. My definition of agnostic derives from a literal translation of the word meaning without knowledge. I don't have enough factual information to know if there is a god or not.

If there is no god, then it's not an issue.

If there is a god, then he/she/it/whatever, may or may not be unknowable - it depends entirely on the nature of the thing. If we are made in this posited god's image, then god is knowable. If we aren't made in this posited god's image, then god may or may not be knowable.

I really don't know.

Wiki is not a reliable source for this (or many other) topics. Even the part you listed shows the problems with Wiki as a source; look at "strong agnostic" and "militant agnostic" as examples.
Yeah, I did cringe a little when I decided to quote it.

Agnosticism is really a very simple concept, and trying to invent all these magical sub-divisions of agnosticism is a waste of time.

To be agnostic in the religious context means to believe that God is unknowable. What you do after that point is up to you, and does not change the fact that you're agnostic.
Really? I can't help but feel that your justification for this is along the lines of 'because I say so'. There clearly are distinctions, and not just 'magical' - mild vs strong (speaking for oneself or speaking for all) being immediately obvious. And why a waste of time? If you're not fond of semantics (and I can fully empathise with this), then fine, but labels are important for some people, especially where they wish not to be misrepresented.

That said, the definition in the first instance for most of the sites I've been searching through does tally with what you've been saying. It's just that the first instance shouldn't always, I believe, automatically end a line of enquiry.

Besides, stating that I'm agnostic because I don't believe I can know if god doesn't exist seems perfectly reasonable to me when looking for a useful term in every day conversation. It may not be completely accurate, but what is the accurate term? Actually, I'll concede the point here for the sake of the obvious follow-up question: what am I if not agnostic?

But also for those of us who aren't atheists or agnostics, I would like to hear your stories or reasoning for why you decided religion or spiritual belief is not for you.

I am a theist, and though I don’t claim any particular denomination, I do know where I stand. I was raised in a home that went to church, but didn’t practice any of it. My dad was a drug addict and blew most of our money on hookers, drugs, and booze. My mom did what she could to take care of us four kids. By the time I was 13, we had been evicted from 10 different houses, my mom had over 10 STD’s from my dad, I had been diagnosed with a terminal blood disease, and my dad decided to leave us.

My mom moved us kids from Ohio to Michigan where we would have more family support, enrolled us in school, and worked 4 jobs. I was desperate for friends that didn’t have to know that I was “sick” and was willing to do anything to get them. I started getting into RPG’s and selling short sex stories at school to pay for lunch. I quickly learned that by “performing” some sexual “favors”, I could make more. I never did drugs, but I helped kids deal them. I started drinking to numb the pain of having no father and an absent mother.

We transferred schools after a year and I had decided to throw all reason out the window – what ever it took to feel loved, wanted and accepted I would do. But less than 3 days in a new school, I was raped. He told me if I ever said anything, he would hurt my sister too. It scared me into silence. I pulled away from the people around me, scared, and feeling trapped. Since I didn’t talk, avoided parties, and was apparently “innocent” and “homosexual,” I became the laughingstock in a small school.

My mom got engaged to an abusive alcoholic, and the only good thing was I would be moving schools. So the last day of school, I got on a table in the lunch room, cussed everyone out, and left feeling proud only to get home and hear that my mom broke of the engagement and I had to return to the same school next year.

I went back and no one wanted anything to do with me. About a month in, there was a guy who transferred in. He was on probation, a troublemaker, and every girl wanted him… except me. But I some how managed to be his first pick,

Through him, I was drawn into another group and started to make friends. He protected me up through my Jr. year, but then they pulled him out of the home he was in and over night I lost my best friend. It was then I started getting closer with one of the other guys. For the first time, I got up the courage to talk about my past… but I picked the wrong person to trust.

To him, that simply meant that I had been victimized once and never pressed charges. For the remainer of the year, he repeatedly assaulted me, breaking into my room at night, giving me “a ride home” after school, etc.

I turned suicidal and a friend of mine (Sarah) got a hold of me. He graduated, so I was alone again my senior year, Sarah as my only companion. She was a pastor’s kid, and talked a lot about church and God and all the crap I wanted nothing to do with.

I started dating a guy who lived downstate (far enough away to be safe). After high school, I moved down to be close to him while going to college to find out he was an extreme porn addict, and wanted me for only sexual reasons.

After four years, I finally got out of it, and found myself back on Sarah’s door step curious about the “peace” and “hope” she kept telling me about. I am a math/science nerd who bases all of my thinking on fact, and she is a faith person so she had a hard time getting through with me. So she sat me down with a man who was a philosopher in science and religion and I was able to ask all the questions that everyone says, “That’s where faith comes in” and get real answers.

One of the things he said to me that really stuck was, “It takes more faith to believe that there isn’t a God than to believe that there is. It is more logical for the world we live in to be created than it is for it to randomly occur. It makes more sense for there to be someone greater than us out there controlling everything than it does for things to just happen. If you are right, and there is no God, then we die and go nowhere. All of us theist have simply lived our lives believing lies, but at least we found joy believing them. At least we loved the life we had and found purpose in it. But what if you’re wrong? If you’re wrong, and there is a God, us Theist will go to heaven, but everyone else will burn in Hell. You may mock us for being “fools”, but at least we’re won’t suffer for being wrong.”

I attended Catholic schools until I was 9, but my family ain't that religious (though my father is close to being one). We don't go to church (except on Christmas), and I was there in a Catholic school just because private education is far better than public education. I did live with an aunt who goes to church every day, and one time I got embarrassed in front of my class by my teacher because I admitted not going to church on Christmas Eve. (yes, it was tough... :()

Come high school (a different school, public and secular) I decided I was an atheist when I was 10 years old, then an agnostic when I was 11 or 12. At that time there was a priest who kept on hounding me to go to confession regularly and attend church. Thankfully, I managed to evade him, and well, I never went to church again. Until college came, and I started going to church again when I was 16 or 17. There. Now I'm a theist, a Catholic.

I was feeling quite comfortable with my self-label "agnostic", until Bottle started making "agnostic" a qualifying adjective for some more fundamental condition.

Grammar time!

Grammar time!

Yeah, thanks. If it ain't a noun, I call it a verb. Getting those two mixed up is the only thing I really find embarrassing.

*slinks away in adjectly*

Atheism is saying I believe there isn't, or I don't believe there is. Agnosticism is saying I believe I couldn't know for certain one way or the other.

"I don't believe there is" is simply another way of saying "There isn't": I don't believe there is such a thing as god or gods. I believe there are no god/s. The only difference between the two is how they are phrased.

"I couldn't know for certain one way or the other". Again just rephrasing what I already said. Noncomittal. I might be there tomorrow or I might not. There might be god/s or there might not.

You thought wrong. Agnosticism most certainly is not non-committal. In my opinion, agnosticism is actually a harder step to take than atheism or theism.

Agnosticism means embracing the fact that God is unknowable. That's a lot more than saying "I don't know."


Again, you're wrong. Atheism can mean an active disbelief ("I believe there is no God") or it can simply refer to a lack of belief ("I don't believe there is a God"). The two are quite different. I belong to the second category.

To suggest that God is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a God, which immediately contradicts your theory that agnosticism led to you being an atheist (which is, of course as you said, an active disbelief in God). Once you lend credit to God whether being known or unknown, you've become something other than agnostic. As somebody said quite boldly earlier on, that makes you a deist.

As far as your explanation of atheism, an active disbelief or an inactive disbelief is still disbelief. Again, simply rephrasing a sentence to say the same thing in a different way.

To suggest that God is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a God, which immediately contradicts your theory that agnosticism led to you being an atheist (which is, of course as you said, an active disbelief in God). Once you lend credit to God whether being known or unknown, you've become something other than agnostic. As somebody said quite boldly earlier on, that makes you a deist.
Not really. Maybe Bottle didn't phrase it clearly enough, but there is a difference between believing we cannot know anything about God (except that He exists) and we cannot know whether God exists or not. Agnostic believe the latter.

I guess I am an agnostic theist since I believe in God (or a god, possibly multiple ones, but believing in one God is simpler:p), but am fairly certain that I cannot prove God's existence, and acknowledge the fact that I do not know God exists.

Not really. Maybe Bottle didn't phrase it clearly enough, but there is a difference between believing we cannot know anything about God (except that He exists) and we cannot know whether God exists or not. Agnostic believe the latter.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people contradict just to contradict.

1. There is a higher power. I don't know anything about it, so I have no definitive faith system. Therefore, I am a deist.

(To even use the term "God" begins to suggest that there is a subconcious faith system so I will stick with the term "higher power")

2. I don't have enough evidence to say there is a higher power and I don't have any way of disproving that there is a higher power. Since I have no way to definitely prove or disprove one or the other, I cannot take a side. Therefore, I am an agnostic.

I am fully aware that the two concepts are totally different and have not implied otherwise. Neither one has anything to do with atheism.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people contradict just to contradict.
Yes. But in this instance, I was being genuine.
*snip*
I agree. However, in an earlier post you said something about agnosticism implying belief in God, or at least the way Bottle defined. Again, maybe it was just poor phrasing on someone's part. We seem to be on the same page now, though.

Yes. But in this instance, I was being genuine.

I agree. However, in an earlier post you said something about agnosticism implying belief in God, or at least the way Bottle defined. Again, maybe it was just poor phrasing on someone's part. We seem to be on the same page now, though.

Yes. I was using Bottle's explanation of agnosticism to clarify a point. As you said, poor phrasing.

We are quite apparently in accordance with one another. I was beginning to feel like this ----> :headbang:

Quote :
But what if you’re wrong? If you’re wrong, and there is a God, us Theist will go to heaven, but everyone else will burn in Hell. You may mock us for being “fools”, but at least we’re won’t suffer for being wrong.”
endQuote

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God--the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely--or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

I feel great about being an agnostic now. Thankyou.

Gartref delivers.

To suggest that God is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a God,

No, it doesn't.


As far as your explanation of atheism, an active disbelief or an inactive disbelief is still disbelief. Again, simply rephrasing a sentence to say the same thing in a different way.
They are not equivalent concepts, though they are both atheism.

Bottle Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbisreverri
To suggest that God is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a God,

No, it doesn't

uh, yeah it does....in order for it to suggest that there is no God, the very definition of the name "God" would have to mean something completely different. This, I think, is part of the difficulty for atheists - the very terms used by theists don't assist an atheist argument very well. You're trying to change the contextual meaning of a term that is not only a noun, it is a name as well.

It's like if the sentence read,

"To suggest that NinjaPenguin is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a NinjaPenguin."

Of course. Why is it so different when 'God' is in the sentence?

uh, yeah it does....in order for it to suggest that there is no God, the very definition of the name "God" would have to mean something completely different.

How so?


This, I think, is part of the difficulty for atheists - the very terms used by theists don't assist an atheist argument very well. You're trying to change the contextual meaning of a term that is not only a noun, it is a name as well.

It's like if the sentence read,

"To suggest that NinjaPenguin is unknowable suggests firstly that there is a NinjaPenguin."

Of course. Why is it so different when 'God' is in the sentence?
Ah, I think I see the problem. Reread what I said about my atheism, and I think it should clear it up for you.

I lack belief in any particular God-image because I believe it is impossible for me to know about any God (including whether or not the God exists).

How so?


Ah, I think I see the problem. Reread what I said about my atheism, and I think it should clear it up for you.

I lack belief in any particular God-image because I believe it is impossible for me to know about any God (including whether or not the God exists).

while I don't agree with that particular view, it is one that makes a lot of sense to me on a logical level - I am a theist but I often struggle with the concept of 'knowing' God and often find it a little bizarre how some seem to be able to categorise something that to me seems virtually beyond categorising - I have a sense of spirituality and a connection with God, albeit a strong one, but I am very cautious about proclaiming that I know exactly what/who/etc God is and/or what/why God is doing.

while I don't agree with that particular view, it is one that makes a lot of sense to me on a logical level - I am a theist but I often struggle with the concept of 'knowing' God and often find it a little bizarre how some seem to be able to categorise something that to me seems virtually beyond categorising - I have a sense of spirituality and a connection with God, albeit a strong one, but I am very cautious about proclaiming that I know exactly what/who/etc God is and/or what/why God is doing.
It sounds like you are an agnostic theist or deist. A lot of people think that's an insult, as if saying somebody is "agnostic" means they aren't serious about their beliefs or they don't know what they believe, but it really just means that you admit you don't KNOW the answers. You believe what you think is best, of course, and you work with whatever information and experience you have, but you are aware that you don't know for sure. That's what we all are doing, at the end of the day, it's just that some people feel the need to claim that they KNOW when they actually don't.

No, it doesn't.


They are not equivalent concepts, though they are both atheism.

I am going to go with the thought that my confusion on your stance arose simply from terminology. I did do some research and finally came to an understanding on what you are saying. I think. The confusion more or less came from the term "agnostic", which as I now understand is entirely misunderstood by many including myself apparently.

What I came across were two terms: agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. I happen to be the first I suppose and you appear to be the latter. Either way, we don't believe in a particular definitive entity. The difference is that I believe in an higher power that cannot be defined and because a higher power cannot be defined you do not believe in any particular one. Is this even remotely correct?

I am going to go with the thought that my confusion on your stance arose simply from terminology. I did do some research and finally came to an understanding on what you are saying. I think. The confusion more or less came from the term "agnostic", which as I now understand is entirely misunderstood by many including myself apparently.

I seriously think that "agnostic" is one of the most frequently misunderstood terms out there.


What I came across were two terms: agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. I'm happen to be the first I suppose and you appear to be the latter. Either way, we don't believe in a particular definitive entity. The difference is that I believe in an higher power that cannot be defined and because a higher power cannot be defined you do not believe in any particular one. Is this even remotely correct?
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I don't have any useful information on the subject of God; I don't know whether or not there is one, let alone which of the countless God-images might be closest to the truth (if any).

There also isn't anything I particularly want or need which can only be obtained via God-belief.

Put together, these two elements are the basic foundation of why I lack belief in God/gods. I don't have any particular reason to believe, and I don't have any information to help me decide what to believe even if I wanted to.

I seriously think that "agnostic" is one of the most frequently misunderstood terms out there.


Yeah, that's pretty much it. I don't have any useful information on the subject of God; I don't know whether or not there is one, let alone which of the countless God-images might be closest to the truth (if any).

There also isn't anything I particularly want or need which can only be obtained via God-belief.

Put together, these two elements are the basic foundation of why I lack belief in God/gods. I don't have any particular reason to believe, and I don't have any information to help me decide what to believe even if I wanted to.

Ok, cool. Now I finally get where you are coming from.

I guess the most confusing aspect of your prior statements for me came from the use of the word "God". Having attended Catholic School for so many years of my life, "God" -especially with the capitalised G- is in my knowledge as a Christianity term for the biblical creator. To me God is the same as Zeus, Thor, or any other religious icon which immediately causes me to think of a defined existing religion.