Atheism - why?

[rory_20_uk]

I do apologise if the title of the topic has raised a few eyebrows and bloodpressures, but after reading the debates that have opened up on how us atheists / agnostics are not immoral sociopaths I began to think (dangerous I know) about such matters, and here's one thing that perlexed me: atheism.
Cards on the table: I am agnostic, as I don't have a clue about if there is a Greater Power or not, what form s/he / it would take etc etc.
Yet I can understand people who for whatever reason believe in something. It is the aspect of atheism that believes in nothing - a belief that there is nothing.
I used to class myself as an atheist, but I later realised that this was innappropriate as I was against religion (a nasty devisive thing, and I tihnk completely different from a personal belief in a higher power), I could not get worked up about those that said that there was a god in whatever form, as I didn't know either way.
So, do you the athist believe against a god as firmly as those that believe that there is one (As far as you are aware)? And As a second, why is this? I have heard it said that many atheists hate god for not existing - is this true?
If any think that this is a devisive or immflamatory topic, I do apologise, but I am genuinely interested.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'd like to think there is something there but i don't think there is one God alone. There is a Devil, i'm sure of that, so there needs to be a balance. A good book to read is Holy Blood/ Holy Grail. Its a real eye opener, which i really recommend.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]So, do you the athist believe against a god as firmly as those that believe that there is one (As far as you are aware)? And As a second, why is this? I have heard it said that many atheists hate god for not existing - is this true?

good questions.

iv`e considered myself an atheist since i was 15, 20 years ago LOL.

to the first part of your question; i vere slightly in that direction, but don`t like the fact that i do (we`re talking inner turmoil here&#33 as i consider it irrational to get that worked up about something that doesn`t exist (my view only ) .

to answer the second part; no, i can`t hate something that is not there, though i can hate what it`s followers have done to humanity down the ages, in it`s many names.

just look at the Crusades in the game, all done in it`s name.

since my change in viewpoint i have never been tempted to run back to any religion, even in extremis.

this is all very cathartic

[A.Saturnus]

There`s a very good explanation of what is it to be an atheist by Portuguese Rebels in the thread Atheist or Believer? in the Tavern.
I consider myself as an atheist, but that doesn`t mean I believe there`s no god. And surely not that I hate anyone. I simply favorite the non-existence of god as the most likely hypothesis. As the philosopher Karl Popper once said: I don`t believe in believing.
Imagine this story:

Quote[/b] ]An extraterrestrial civilization exists in the interior of our planet. Several thousand kilometer below the surface, huge artifical caves are carved into the earth. The technology of this species is of course far advanced to ours. Their caves which contain cities they live in, are fueled by fusion power plants. Their walls are build in such a way that very few emissions escape through it and everything works very energy efficient. They can leave this caves with spaceships through tunnels that end in double door locks in the deep of the ocean. These ships are of course also constructed in a way that makes it impossible for us to detect them with radars.

Everything described here is possible, however no sane person would believe it without very convincing evidence. Still, it is more plausible than what we right read in the bible or any other religious text.

Edit: I`m very sorry, Rebel

[econ21]

In my opinion, Saturnus has given the best intellectual answer. To me there is no compelling reason to believe in a God. I find godless scientific accounts do a reasonable job of answering some fundamental queries about life. Divine explanations, if anything, detract from this by adding a further layer of complexity.

I probably don't believe in the non-existence as fully as the religious believe in his existence. I can easily conceive of the possibility that he does exist and somehow doubt many followers of organised religion could admit a similar possibility of error. I can envisage compelling reasons to believe in God - if I was blinded on the road to Damascus as St Paul was or was spoken to by a burning bush etc - I would believe. But the third person accounts of these kind of revelations I have heard are not convincing and could be given more plausible explanations than those involving divine revelation (someone commented on how the major religions often seemed to originate from desert areas well known for inducing hallucinations and among people who often used narcotic substances). I can also concede that our scientific understanding is still very limited. It might be possible in the far future that science does discover powers that go far beyond what we now understand and are something akin to what we would now regard as supernatural. But so far trends in scientific research seem to head the opposite way: explaining more and more in terms that do not require a God.

Personally, I find the agnostic position rather strange. It would seem to be rather a big issue to be undecided on. If the concept of God is to mean anything, it should surely be rather important for one's day to day life. I can see acting your life as if there was a divine element. I can see acting your life as if there were not. But at a day to day level, I would be curious to know what assumptions agnostics work on. I am typically undecided on things that don't matter too much to me, at least on a day to day basis. Important stuff, I have to make my mind up about or feel tormented about until I do.

As to hating God: I confess there is something emotional for me, here. I cannot open a passage of the bible without finding something I profoundly disagree with ethically. Furthermore, a God that would allow the kind of terrible things that daily go by in this world to me is either immoral or irrelevant. I confess, if the God of most major religions existed, I would be in opposition to him. I would never have conceived of hating god until you mentioned it. But now you do, I could state my position thus - I do not hate God for not existing; I might hate him if he did.

[On reflection, this might sound like incendiary stuff and I mean no offence to believers - I find them to be at least as good people as us sinners]

[Archlight]

Quote[/b] ]Personally, I find the agnostic position rather strange. It would seem to be rather a big issue to be undecided on. If the concept of God is to mean anything, it should surely be rather important for one's day to day life. I can see acting your life as if there was a divine element. I can see acting your life as if there were not. But at a day to day level, I would be curious to know what assumptions agnostics work on. I am typically undecided on things that don't matter too much to me, at least on a day to day basis. Important stuff, I have to make my mind up about or feel tormented about until I do.

That's exactly how it works for me. It's not important to me in my day to day life, therefore I don't worry about if God does or does not exist. I have no concrete proof either way, so think either is a possibility. Therefore, I'm agnostic.

[BDC]

Athiest. Agnostic just isn't definate enough for me.

[econ21]

Quote[/b] ]That's exactly how it works for me. It's not important to me in my day to day life, therefore I don't worry about if God does or does not exist. I have no concrete proof either way, so think either is a possibility. Therefore, I'm agnostic.

OK, but this position prompts a number of thoughts.

Firstly, it seems to rule out the kind of Gods in most organised religions - as whether they exist would seem to be important for how one lives ones life. Conversely, the existence of a vague, less anthropomorphic divine presence might be no big deal I guess.

Secondly, it would seem to imply that agnostics think it is roughly equally plausible that the is and is not a divine presence. I'm an aetheist, but I accept as you say that it is possible there is a God - I just don't believe it because it seems so unlikely. Just as it is possible I won't make it home tonight, but I believe I shall and work on that assumption.

Thirdly, I can't help feeling that in some sense agnostics holding that position actually don't believe there may be a deity - if it doesn't affect their daily life. Or at least that they don't believe in a divine presence that really matters to them. I guess I am having trouble with the idea of neither believing nor not believing. I can understand not knowing - I freely admit I don't know there is no god. But not believing - it seems that you either have faith or don't. Maybe I just tend to see things too black and white.

BTW, these thoughts are just intellectual reactions to what you say and I am not trying to criticise you, change your mind or get you to justify yourself. People are all entitled to their own views on these ultimately very personal and private matters.

[Sigurd]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Sep. 18 2003,03:15)]I guess I am having trouble with the idea of neither believing nor not believing. I can understand not knowing - I freely admit I don't know there is no god. But not believing - it seems that you either have faith or don't. Maybe I just tend to see things too black and white.

This is what IMO agnosticism is all about… not knowing. It depends on what you read into the word. It seems that more and more of the strong opinionates tend to separate belief and knowledge and combine them again into new wording.
E.g. Agnostic Atheism which IMO you and A.Saturnus both can be labelled as.
In other words Gnosticism and Agnosticism is all about knowledge and Theism and Atheism is all about belief.

BTW the results are out in What do you Believe?: RESULTS

[Fortebraccio]

A very brief answer to such a question could be: Hockam's razor. []As an atheist, it's not that I believe against God...I do my best non to believe at all, under any circumstance and into anything. I prefer trust to belief, and sense to faith.

[Archlight]

Quote[/b] ]Firstly, it seems to rule out the kind of Gods in most organised religions - as whether they exist would seem to be important for how one lives ones life. Conversely, the existence of a vague, less anthropomorphic divine presence might be no big deal I guess.

Yes, I disagree with organized religion's idea of God. How arrogant are humans to believe that God is like a human, but with super powers?

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, it would seem to imply that agnostics think it is roughly equally plausible that the is and is not a divine presence. I'm an aetheist, but I accept as you say that it is possible there is a God - I just don't believe it because it seems so unlikely.

I don't know about others, but that is the way I feel. If it's a possibility, then it deserves a place in thought. Even if the chances are largely imbalanced, there's still a chance. I lean much more toward there NOT being a God, but still acknowledge the possibility that there is. Maybe I'm screwed up on my definitions of Atheist and Agnostic, but I was under the impression that Atheists did not even believe in the possibility of a God existing, and that Agnostics were open to that possibility. It's a tough road to walk. I guess sometimes it DOES play an important part in my life since sometimes I wonder what the point of everthing is, but for the most part, it's neither here nor there for me as long as I have food, shelter, family, and friends.

The way I figure it. If there IS a God and he's the benevolant being he's supposed to be. I could stand before hiim when my time comes and tell him I was wrong and I'm sorry and he'll forgive me for being a freethinking skeptic and let me on in...

And don't worry about me getting upset thinking you're criticizing me. I'm just not that way. I like these sorts of intellectual discussions and I'm a pretty liberal person. I like knowing others ideas and thoughts on my ideas.

[A.Saturnus]

I think the best definition of the words is given by Sigurd. We should all hold to it.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]In other words Gnosticism and Agnosticism is all about knowledge and Theism and Atheism is all about belief.

isn`t it nice to be pigeonholed.... NOT

[Alrowan]

how can one be an athiest if they freely admit they dont know everything, therefore how can they say there is no God without knowing everything to prove it? If you try to believe there is no God, then you are not an athiest, because by chosing to believe there is no God is the admittence of the possibility, meaning one is agnostic, not athiest.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]how can one be an athiest if they freely admit they dont know everything, therefore how can they say there is no God without knowing everything to prove it? If you try to believe there is no God, then you are not an athiest, because by chosing to believe there is no God is the admittence of the possibility, meaning one is agnostic, not athiest.

give me a shout when you have this translated into english.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 17 2003,10:20)]There`s a very good explanation of what is it to be an atheist by Portoguese Rebels in the thread Atheist or Believer? in the Tavern.

I'm flattered But i won't let it rise to my head since you got my name with spelling mistakes

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] ]how can one be an athiest if they freely admit they dont know everything, therefore how can they say there is no God without knowing everything to prove it? If you try to believe there is no God, then you are not an athiest, because by chosing to believe there is no God is the admittence of the possibility, meaning one is agnostic, not athiest.

Simple, insert Santa Claus instead of god and you will get your answer. Why must we give more credibility to this text with the word god than with Santa Claus? Show me why.

my position on the subject can be found here:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....22;st=0

And it is not in the thread Saturnus said it was... But he was still very nice to mention me, spelling mistakes and all

[econ21]

Alrowan - people don't choose to believe; at least not in the sense that you choose to go the gym or watch a movie.

I can't choose to believe black is white, that Santa Claus exists or that there is a world Zionist conspiracy.

Belief is affected by your understanding and knowledge but not something you can alter simply as an act of will.

I think it is possible there is a God, but the possibility in my assessment is so small, I cannot believe it.

A dear friend of mind is a Christian and would like me to change my mind, but I simply cannot unless I am given some good arguments for God's existence.

To me an agnostic is one who implicitly thinks there are good arguments on both sides.

[Knight_Yellow]

i dont need an emotional safety net of religion to help shield the fact that when we die thats it.

live life cos its the only time you have

[Sigurd]

Quote[/b] ( Portuguese Rebel @ Who is God?)]Like with god/s, if new evidence comes up i will gladly review my position as any good science guy will if shown the evidence.

This my friend, can be considered as an Agnostic statement.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think that Agnosticism is a cop out in terms of a choice of religion, I see it is the rational response to the evidence that presents itself.
To cite an example, I view the existence or not of god similar to wondering what lies at the furthest point away in the universe. As far as we are aware at the moment we have no evidence from the event itself, nor any secondary effects. To be firmly committed that there is something or not at this point seems to be far less sensible to me than to think that either may be true, and to get on with one's life: the extremes may think that agnostics are sitting on the fence. As an agnostic I think that the extremes are taking sides way too prematurely.

To paraphrase one famous humanist: God either exists or he doesn't. So isn't it better to worship him as if he does? If you are right, you go to Heaven, if you are wrong, nothing happens in any case I think that this is the most sensible course of action, although not one that I have managed to follow yet

[squippy]

Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Lets take them from first principles. The Agnostic asserts that the existance of god is unkown, therefore it would be foolish to assert confidently that dog does or does not exist.

The atheist asserts there is no god.

But: one should not leap to conclusins that the Atheist is saying they believe there is no god. This is a lie that theists tell so they can comfort themslevs by claiming everyone believes equally.

As an Atheist, I think the Agnostics are in a wholly illogical position. As was pointed above, the implication is that the possibility of the existance and not existance of god is roughly equal, for they consider them both.

But: why do we even ask ourselves the quesiton at all?

BEcuase of the institutions, the churches. Without those, I suggest that nobody would even bother to wonder if there was a god.

Agnostics must surely apply their principles consistently. An agnostic must also be agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, which has exactly the same evidential basis as god. They have to be agnostic about father christmas, and about the Lambton Wyrm, and alien Greys, anfd the Loch Ness Monster, all of which have been reportedly observed by people, and which are documented to varying degrees.

To most rational people, the existance of the Tooth Fairy is not a serious question. They do not agonise about it. After age 10 or so, most people would be happy to say that they do not think the Tooth Fairy really exists. They are A-Fairyists. If pushed, they would probably agree that they cannot conclusively prove the non-existance of the Tooth Fairy. They will howevre protest that the burden of prrof does not lie on them, it lies on those who claim the Tooth Fairy DOES exist.

The Pro-Fairyists assert the existance of the Tooth Fairy on the basis of revealed wisdom. Fair enough, if it keeps them happy. They never seem able, however, to advance any serious evidence of their beliefe or why they believe it.

But the Fairy Agnostic is the weirdest of the lot, because even they they admiot that there is no evidence for the Tooth Fairy, they will not draw any conclusions from this absence of evidence. They seem to claim, illogically, the burden of proof lies on the A-Fairyists equally; the Fairy Agnostic thus leaves open the possibility of the existance of the Tooth Fairy despite the awsome improbability of this being true.

The Fairy Agnostics are the least rtational of the lot.

[econ21]

Sigurd Fafnesbane: I would not bring the term gnostic into this, it refers to a specific religious doctrine (matter being evil or some such) and is not the antithesis of agnosticism per se.

I think the confusion over definitions arises because the term agnosticism could be taken to refer to either knowledge or belief, depending how narrowly you want to interpret it. Take the definition in Webster's online dictionary, vis

Quote[/b] ]
agnostic: person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I would be an agnostic on the first definition but not on the broader one. I don't know for sure that God does not exist, but until I see good evidence I am committed to believing he does not. However, if we want to contrast three mutually exclusive positions - atheist, theist and another - then the broader definition of agnostic is the one we should be using.

Sidenote: Atheism and theism do seem to be about belief, rather than knowledge according to Webster's:

Quote[/b] ]
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

[A.Saturnus]

Sorry, Rebel, I got it all wrong. I corrected your name, though.

Well said, squippy, that`s exactly what I wanted to express with that story I posted.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 17 2003,21:38)]

Quote[/b] ( Portuguese Rebel @ Who is God?)]Like with god/s, if new evidence comes up i will gladly review my position as any good science guy will if shown the evidence.

This my friend, can be considered as an Agnostic statement.

I can see how it can, but the atheist position derives from the absolute lack of proofs or indications of a god or gods. If such evidence was to be produced, then the atheist position would have to undergo some changes, under the penalty of being accused of intelectual dishonesty, if i failled to do so.

Until those proofs are produced, i'm razoring the unecessary hypothesys.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 18 2003,06:45)]Sorry, Rebel, I got it all wrong. I corrected your name, though.

Well said, squippy, that`s exactly what I wanted to express with that story I posted.

It's ok Saturnus, i'm eating some belgium chocolate right now so i'm inclined to forgive you

[komninos]

Though I avoid such debates ... a lot
1. They lead to no where cause your beliefs are your beliefs and none others. They apply to you because they fulfil certain needs and that’s that.
2. You just don't know where they will end. And finally
3. I had way too many such debates in the past.

Why I brake this ... well ... no particular reason just make a statement or two ... who knows.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have been trying to free my self of all beliefs and teachings since I was ~14. Now I am 31 so it’s been some time.

I am Greek this means Greek Orthodox Christian. This also means that a lot of preaching for a simple reason: We are very few Also since 1821 till 1980 there was a very strong link that bonded Greek to Orthodox.
So since these things made me think a lot (I was never a believer) I decided to consider my self as an atheist. this was easy.
But unfortunately you need to believe in something. I read a bit but mostly I searched in me.
Finally I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon. I since follow that path as my own.
Trust me it has been difficult.

One of the things I learned though all this was people make there gods in their own image. The gods represent the ideas that there followers should try to be.

What I learned to like about Orthodoxy was that it gave you freedom to decide for your self if you were to follow it. Though other Greeks will not approve of you it gave you the option. The same thing can be found in the Dodecatheon. It has an evolving nature. It bonds the Ideas of what we should be like with us.

But what I totally loved about it is that there is no Good and Evil. There is no battle between good and evil, they simply coexist even in the gods. The Gods can and will make mistakes.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So don't go on trying to prove what is best or write ... you just can't. The question here is are you satisfied with the answers you are getting from what you believe in?
Does it follow your way of life?

As since moves forward believing the original text will be almost impossible. (According to the Bible the world is ~10000 years old ... the Dinosaurs never existed.) But apart from the tales of old time every religion gives you and defines a way of life.

Even I you never enter the church and you say there is no god you can be a Christian ... why ... because you live like one. You believe in the same basic stuff. You will teach your children the same things.

I have spent 12 years as an atheist only to find my self where I started. I have spent 3 years as a Dodecatheist and I think I am changing to my pleasing

[Knight_Yellow]

how come my comment

i like microsoft actualy

was deemed heritical and this wasnt

i dont need the emotional safety net of religion

[Portuguese Rebel]

Quote[/b] ]I read a bit but mostly I searched in me.
Finally I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon. I since follow that path as my own.

Now this is interesting. For the peeps who do not know, the Dodekatheon is the religion of the twelve gods. The traditional gods of the greeks: Zeus, Apollon, Ares, Hephaestos, Hermes, Poseidon, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, Artemis, Demeter, and Hestia.

Is this current strong in greece komninos? Because i think most people believed your particular form of religion to be extinct.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon.

indeed it is very interesting, i had absolutely no idea that it had been revived at all.

i hope it isn`t like the Druid religion in the U.K., a totally made up farce for the gullible.

it wont`t change my views, but it`s nice to see that you have found your path.