From Agnosticism to Atheism

[Locke]

How does one go from agnosticism to atheism? Of course a rational thinking person can deny the existence of a Christian god, as Christianity is a theology based off of scriptures. Stories which expressly defy scientific fact. Therefore they can be proved false (When taken literally).

However, atheism is the belief that there is no higher being of any kind. That rational thinking removes the possibility. The ideology that no deity could have possibly created this Universe. That we're here by mere chance, and that the universe, as a whole, is simply a fluke.

When debating that a higher being is possible, I am often confronted with the argument that there is no proof. But how does a lack of evidence prove that a deity of some kind isn't possible, when there is no evidence that suggests it's impossible?

How can you leap from not knowing to being positive, when it's impossible to know?

When speaking to atheists, they use phrases like "have an open mind". But surely denying something [completely] that's within the realm of possibility is not open mindedness. You're making a conclusion without understanding all the facts. Because the facts aren't available to us.

I've even heard atheists contradict themselves on this matter. Yet they hold strong to the title. In my opinion, atheism is just as counterfactual as Christianity or any other modern day religion. Agnosticism is the only real truth. That no one fucking knows, and no one will ever know.

By the way, it doesn't matter how slim or improbable the existence of a God or Gods is. Even if it's one in trillions, it still remains a possibility. Therefore removing that possibility wouldn't be correct.

Thoughts?

[Locke]

After reading similar threads like this one on this forum, it seems most people generally cop out and don't really state their philosophies on how they can say, without doubt, God doesn't exist.

Kind of like how most Christians generally cop out when explaining how they can believe in the bible. Mostly their explanations revolve around "How else can you explain the universe?" Atheists explanations are generally, as expressed on this board, "I have a huge penis that is carried around by hot midgets. I believe it so it must be true."

Automatically dismissing religion as nonsense without knowing so isn't intelligence, or being rational, it's arrogance.

[Tom62]

Automatically dismissing religion as nonsense without knowing so isn't intelligence, or being rational, it's arrogance.

That is a dangerous statement, because for the very same reason one could say that "Automatically dismissing atheism as nonsense without knowing so isn't intelligence, or being rational, it's arrogance".

I plainly don't know if a god or gods exist. However by reading the bible (and other "holy scriptures") I'm pretty well sure that if a god should exists then the chances that this god could be one of the gods described in those "holy" books is practically zero. For that reason I reject any kind of religion, since none of them are convincing enough for me. That fact alone makes me an atheist.

[Locke]

That is a dangerous statement, because for the very same reason one could say that "Automatically dismissing atheism as nonsense without knowing so isn't intelligence, or being rational, it's arrogance".

I believe both atheism and religion are possibilities, actually. Because I don't know. And neither do you.

I plainly don't know if a god or gods exist. However by reading the bible (and other "holy scriptures") I'm pretty well sure that if a god should exists then the chances that this god could be one of the gods described in those "holy" books is practically zero. For that reason I reject any kind of religion, since none of them are convincing enough for me.

And you don't think that's arrogant? Leaping from "I don't know if God exists" to "I'm an atheist". "Practically zero" is not zero. You yourself just admitted there's a possibility of a God. Is the reason you don't believe the God described in said "holy scriptures" is simply because you disagree? Because that's hardly a reason to completely dismiss it as false.

[Kestrel]

Hi Locke. Good to see you.
I'd like to take a moment and double check, to see if perhaps you mis-spoke.

The following;
 

Agnosticism is the only real truth. That no one fucking knows, and no one will ever know.

Do you stand by the above quote?

[Whitney]

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god...what's arrogant about not believing?  I can't force myself to believe.

Btw, most atheists are what could be called agnostic atheists (see http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic91.html for a better idea of what I'm talking about).  You are trying to argue against the strong/gnostic atheist stance.  

Is it arrogant to not believe in flying saucers if we have no evidence that they are visiting Earth?  If not, then neither weak or strong atheists are arrogant in having their view.  If you think it is arrogant then you'll have to take the position that we should accept any crazy idea someone dreams up as probable.

[Will]

Automatically dismissing religion as nonsense without knowing so isn't intelligence, or being rational, it's arrogance.

Wouldn't you say that it's unreasonable to accept religion and defend it without testing it at all with any kind of logic?

As for knowing god isn't real: Basically the same kind of evidence exists to  suggest that god is real and the easter bunny is real. As you no doubt agree with me that the easter bunny isn't real, I think that it's reasonable for me to come to the same conclusion about any and all gods. They are beliefs based on old stories, and have absolutely no proof or evidence to suggest they are real.

[donkeyhoty]

Ignoring the multiple definitions of atheism and settling on the one I use for myself may help(or it mightn't), considering the fact that I could fall under the categories of strong and weak atheism and apatheist(as defined by the link a few posts above):   I wholly reject the human concept of god(s).  I find every desciption, act, and word of god(s) to be fiction, and poorly written fiction at that.  I make no additions for full knowledge of the nonexistence of a god(an impossiblity).  I also do not care one iota whether something created the universe of not.


Is it possible, albeit unlikely, that something created the universe?  Yes.
Would that something fit the concept we humans have devised for our god(s)?  No.

Accepting the premise that something created the universe, why would that being care about, or contact, creatures on a rock by one of trillions of stars in one of billions of galaxies, especially a rock that was formed roughly 8 billion years after the beginning?

Also, again accepting there was some sort of being that created the universe, would this entity even fit our defintion of life?  

Perhaps the universe is the entity, when it created the universe the material came from itself.  Thusly the entity is, essentially, dead, and bears no significance for humanity.

And maybe I'm god, and I'm confusing the issue for my own amusement.
Can you disprove that?

[McQ]

Hello, Locke. I think you misspeak for atheists and assume a straw man argument. Proof is not required of a lack of belief, and atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. As laetusatheos already stated, "what's so arrogant about not believing?"

Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy? If not, then what is your proof for not believing in them? See the point?

My lack of belief in all gods is virtually identical to the, let's say, fundamentalist christian. They disbelieve in all gods save one. I simply add their god to my list of deities in which I do not believe.

My lack of belief requires no proof of any kind. If I were to believe in something, THAT would require proof.

What is arrogant is someone coming to an atheist forum and thinking he has all the answers and can confound the forum members on a subject which is older than anyone here.

[User192021]

Locke, I think you are confusing strong atheists with all atheists.  "Atheism" means "without belief", "agnosticism" means "without knowledge".  We're all agnostic, even religious people, in the sense that none of us know the truth.  Atheists simply don't believe in god - nothing arrogant about that (although plenty of atheists are arrogant - lack of belief in something certainly doesn't qualify).  Only strong atheists say that absolutely no god exists, which I personally don't sign off on, and I don't think most atheists do.  Of course a god or gods could exist - it would undermine our whole position of rationality to rule out something we can't disprove.  But acknowledging that a god or gods could exist doesn't mean I'm not an atheist - I still don't believe a god or gods exist.  I think you are either ignorant to what "atheism" actually means or you intentionally built a straw man argument - I'll assume the former.

[Whitney]

What is arrogant is someone coming to an atheist forum and thinking he has all the answers and can confound the forum members on a subject which is older than anyone here.

Indeed...maybe we should introduce him to kettle.

[Locke]

I don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny because these things are manifestations of the human mind. Whether God is also a manifestation of the same sort is unknown.

The proof that a God could exist is, quite simply, our own existence. Take for example, the creation of our Universe. How the materials came to be that allowed for the big bang to happen, or whatever theory you believe in, gives room to ideas of a godlike presence.

Locke, I think you are confusing strong atheists with all atheists. "Atheism" means "without belief", "agnosticism" means "without knowledge". We're all agnostic, even religious people, in the sense that none of us know the truth. Atheists simply don't believe in god - nothing arrogant about that (although plenty of atheists are arrogant - lack of belief in something certainly doesn't qualify). Only strong atheists say that absolutely no god exists, which I personally don't sign off on, and I don't think most atheists do. Of course a god or gods could exist - it would undermine our whole position of rationality to rule out something we can't disprove. But acknowledging that a god or gods could exist doesn't mean I'm not an atheist - I still don't believe a god or gods exist. I think you are either ignorant to what "atheism" actually means or you intentionally built a straw man argument - I'll assume the former.

Apparently my definition of atheism is not what I thought. I was under the impression that atheism was the denial that any God presence could be possible. And that agnosticism was the idea that no one could know, ultimately, if God exists.

Atheism <Agnosticism> Religion

The reason I think this way is because of the atheists I often see on T.V. whom, as Evangelists do, promote there philosophical views on god as the ultimate truth. And that all others are either: ignorant, or want money.

But who is that person to decide what is ignorant? My father has studied basically every major sect of religion. He's an incredibly smart man with a broad and open mind. Yet he's a devout Christian who believes fully in the biblical God. Is that ignorance? Is my father believing in the Easter Bunny?

I just feel atheists should respect religion. You don't have to believe it, but at least show some respect to those that do. The mere fact that you'd give the bible the same amount of credibility as, say, believing in Santa Clause is insulting.

Since you don't know their mindsets. You don't know their experiences. And you don't know if God does or does not exist.


And the reason I wrote in such an offensive manner was to put you all on the defensive. So you'd give me answers, rather than waste my time.

[McQ]

I don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny because these things are manifestations of the human mind. Whether God is also a manifestation of the same sort is unknown.

The proof that a God could exist is, quite simply, our own existence. Take for example, the creation of our Universe. How the materials came to be that allowed for the big bang to happen, or whatever theory you believe in, gives room to ideas of a godlike presence.

Locke, I think you are confusing strong atheists with all atheists. "Atheism" means "without belief", "agnosticism" means "without knowledge". We're all agnostic, even religious people, in the sense that none of us know the truth. Atheists simply don't believe in god - nothing arrogant about that (although plenty of atheists are arrogant - lack of belief in something certainly doesn't qualify). Only strong atheists say that absolutely no god exists, which I personally don't sign off on, and I don't think most atheists do. Of course a god or gods could exist - it would undermine our whole position of rationality to rule out something we can't disprove. But acknowledging that a god or gods could exist doesn't mean I'm not an atheist - I still don't believe a god or gods exist. I think you are either ignorant to what "atheism" actually means or you intentionally built a straw man argument - I'll assume the former.

Apparently my definition of atheism is not what I thought. I was under the impression that atheism was the denial that any God presence could be possible. And that agnosticism was the idea that no one could know, ultimately, if God exists.

Atheism <Agnosticism> Religion

The reason I think this way is because of the atheists I often see on T.V. whom, as Evangelists do, promote there philosophical views on god as the ultimate truth. And that all others are either: ignorant, or want money.

But who is that person to decide what is ignorant? My father has studied basically every major sect of religion. He's an incredibly smart man with a broad and open mind. Yet he's a devout Christian who believes fully in the biblical God. Is that ignorance? Is my father believing in the Easter Bunny?

I just feel atheists should respect religion. You don't have to believe it, but at least show some respect to those that do. The mere fact that you'd give the bible the same amount of credibility as, say, believing in Santa Clause is insulting.

Since you don't know their mindsets. You don't know their experiences. And you don't know if God does or does not exist.


And the reason I wrote in such an offensive manner was to put you all on the defensive. So you'd give me answers, rather than waste my time.

As a matter of fact, I do know their mindsets, and their experiences. If you hadn't been too lazy to take the time to read the introductions of some of the members here, you'd know that already.

And you could not possibly, with the arguments you've presented, put me or anyone else here on "the defensive". But nice try. Now, if you would like to stop wasting your time, you can either act like an adult and engage in meaningful conversation, or see yourself to the virtual door.

[Kestrel]

I just feel atheists should respect religion. You don't have to believe it, but at least show some respect to those that do. The mere fact that you'd give the bible the same amount of credibility as, say, believing in Santa Clause is insulting.

So what? Would you like a hanky? Cookies?
Seriously mate, if one believes in the unverifiable, a thick hide is called for. Especially if that person is determined to impose their will upon others in any way shape or form as many christians and denominations are rather well known for doing.

Since you don't know their mindsets. You don't know their experiences.

True enough. Yet if an individuals mindest and/or experiences translate into poor and counter social actions, it doesn't matter.

I asked a question of you. It seems your time is precious, so here's a link to save you the effort of scrolling up.

Cheers.

[Will]

I'm sorry, the easter bunny thing isn't my best point. I was in a whimsical mood and had just eaten an egg. Let me try this one:

Have you ever put yourself into the shoes of man thousands of years before we live? Have you ever considered our understanding of the universe before computers and advanced mathematics and the scientific method? It's a scary place. People would see a grand, bright sphere rise every morning and fall every night without fail and could not comprehend incandescent gas burning at millions of degrees at 149,600 kilometers from our planet. They hadn't yet developed the means to solve their question. Various different tribes came up with their own explanation of the sun. Many created the idea od a solar deity. This meant that the sun, instead of being a mass of hydrogen and helium going through cycles of nuclear fusion, was dressed in a persona and believed to be not only sentient, but supernatural in nature. The Greeks believes that the sun was Helios, a beautiful god who rode a chariot across the sky. While we understand in relatively simple terms what the sun really is, when the philosopher Anaxagoras introduced the idea that the sun was a giant flaming ball instead of Helios around 460 BC, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death for heresy. It was well over 100 years before the idea would be considered by what were then scientists. I wonder what argument a Greek from the 400 BCs make to explain his faith in Helios. He would say, "I know this to be true because I feel the warmth provided by Helios. I see the chariot cross the sky every day. It is believes by every man, woman, and child I have or will ever know. The knowledge is hundreds, perhaps thousands of years old, and we have documentation of that."

We all, as humans, have an innate want for knowledge. As the first sentient creatures on this planet, we have a desire to move forward. Being in an intellectual vacuum is an uncomfortable state for a human being. Unfortunately, we did not instantly evolve a full knowledge of the universe when we crossed the threshold of sentience. Because of that, we have to slowly develop an understanding by observing and testing, but what tests could have ancient Greeks made to prove that the sun was not theistic, but nuclear in nature? The simple answer is that they couldn't. So, instead of saying 'I dunno', which as an unnatural state for a human, they guessed. Speculation ran wild and in the end the most fantastic, entertaining, or reasonable (in their mind) story survived. Call it fictional evolution. It sufficed for a time until progress was made. Our methods of testing improved and thus our understanding improved.

Now we saw the sun as a great ball of fire that circled around the Earth. Better, I'd say, but still not quite right. Again, our testing improved and our knowledge grew. Now the Earth revolved around the sun. Improvements were made again and again and again, and Helios was left in the proverbial dust, never to be worshiped again (yes, yes, poor Helios). Through scientific progress, it was made evident that Helios was an outdated explanation that was made when not enough evidence could be gathered to offer a theory. Helios went from a worshiped deity to a myth. The problem is, of course, that the blind devotion to the idea of Helios slowed scientific progress. He became a stumbling block. It was only when people could think outside of the Greek mythology that the fantastic idea could be overcome. He went from a stumbling block in advancement to long forgotten. Man had grown from it's infancy, and there were no more need for fantastic toys. It was time to see the world as it is.

In your own experience, you probably remember early childhood. Because you were not born with a full knowledge of the world, you had to strive to discover how the world works...but you didn't do that all the time. No, you probably were like me in that you loved to play with toys. The more amazing and odd the toy, the more interested you were. Hobbits and spaceships and transformers and such stuff probably covered your bedroom floor just as it did mine. Your head is in the clouds until your feet need to be finally planted in the ground. I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there that envy children for their innocence and ability to live in their own imaginations all day every day, but that's not reality. We live in reality and, one way or another, we have to one day face that cold, realistic fact.

Well you and I are like humanity. Religion was given birth at the beginning of our entry to sentience. Science, on the other hand, was not developed until man developed the ability to think rationally. Religion is the science of cavemen (unless you're in a Geico commercial), and science is the religion of the maturity of our species.

It always fascinates me when people present to me an old book of moral lessons and mythology as proof. I've read the Torah. I've read the Bible. I've read the Qu'ran. None of those books is even said in lore to have been written by god. Not only that, but god didn't take any steps to preserve the original writings of his servants. I dare you to go find the original manuscript written by Luke or Mohammad. All we are said to have are copies of copies of copies of copies. So who copied the original manuscripts? Why are there different versions of the same scriptures? Why did someone make the decision that one interpretation was right, and the other wrong? The official stance of the Catholic church: god wanted the original transcripts to perish. Why? "God moves in a mysterious way". Oh, dear. So a church that recognizes that god has seen fit to preserve wood from the cross of Jesus, the coat of Jesus, and the Shroud of Turin, which Jesus is said to have used to wipe his holy face, simply accepts that the manuscripts weren't that important? God prefers a handkerchief over the entire reason he supposedly sent his son to die? Can they also explain why the genealogy presented by Matthew and Luke are in conflict with one another? Poor Matthew. He was presented with two different stories about John the Baptist, one in which John whitenesses the heavens open and a dove comes down, and one where John sends two of his apostles out (two chapters after seeing the heavens open) to find out who this Jesus dude is.

Your faith is based on secondary documents, edited, altered, changed throughout history for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

No matter what religion you're in, you've witnessed your single religion split again and again over interpretations of the word of god.

And in your teachings, the antithesis of god, often satan, always is there to tempt you to turn on god. You're taught to fear turning from religion from early childhood, when your perception of th world is still developing. Of course you'd be afraid of us evil atheists. Of course you might hate us. Some may even envy us. I'll go out on a limb and say I'm a brave motherfucker for deciding to turn on something ingrained into my head since birth. A lot of people on this very sight gathered their balls and turned around and faced their demons only to find that they had been a slave to the echo of a guess that had gone on too long. I gottta tell ya, it's damned liberating.

How does one go from agnosticism to atheism?

We simply mature.