From Agnosticism to Atheism

[SteveS]

Hello all.  I found Locke's post interesting because I also used to have a similar opinion of atheists as he states below:

Atheism <Agnosticism> Religion

Once I educated myself about the atheist position, I realized that this was false.  I always felt the atheists were correct on most of the social issues they raised (like the pledge of allegiance, and "in god we trust" on the money).  But, I didn't call myself one because I mistakenly thought an atheist believed he "knew" that god doesn't exist.

I can sort of make a progression of my understanding by other people's quotes:

I wholly reject the human concept of god(s). I find every desciption, act, and word of god(s) to be fiction

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.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god.

How does one go from agnosticism to atheism?

We simply mature.

Yes.  In my case, educate myself on the position.  Education in this manner hopefully counts as maturation

I just feel atheists should respect religion. You don't have to believe it, but at least show some respect to those that do.

I certainly agree, and I think I do (respect religion).  I expect the same respect in return.  It's hard, when you read about a 14 year old girl getting a death threat because she's an atheist, and realize that most people just don't give a crap.  If she received a death threat because of her race, society would be (rightfully) all over it.  Personally, the lack of respect shown to atheists is something I believe to be one of the few remaining prejudices tolerated in the United States.  When you flip on CNN and see somebody (Karen Hunter, here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU) keep repeating the phrase "atheists need to shut up", it's hard to feel respected.  Just substitute any other word for "atheist" and see how prejudicial it sounds:

blacks need to shut up
jews need to shut up
women need to shut up
christians need to shut up
muslims need to shut up

Sounds terrible right?  If someone came on TV, on CNN, and said one of the above, might they not risk serious damage to their public character?

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.

Hope I've added something useful, esp. about the respect part.  It's okay, I don't get offended too easily, it's all good.
 :wink:

[Locke]

Thank you for your replies.
Especially SteveS & Willravel.

Kestral: I still stand strong in my belief that each religion and every belief (including atheism) should be respected. That each holds it's own truths in their followers' eyes. And that agnosticism, as it is the admission of not knowing, is really the only honest answer one can give when asked, "Were we created by a God(s)?".

[Whitney]

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.

If you had bothered to take a look around the forum first you'd realize that statments and questions recieve much more thoughtful replies if they aren't written in an offensive manner.  Personally, I write much more thoughtful replies to those who are respestful in their posts.  Purposely attempting to be offensive is not respectul (see rule one) of those you are trying to offend.  Your approach is a waste of our time and yours...please try to be more mature.

[Kestrel]

Kestral: I still stand strong in my belief that each religion and every belief (including atheism) should be respected.

I disagree.
Beliefs are like sand.
We all hold certain beliefs to be true. Right up to the point where we find those beliefs are no longer true for us. Then we acquire different beliefs. And so on.
This is the perfect venue to see if what I say is true. Just ask any atheist who used to be a believer. There’s plenty around.
Nope. I don’t respect beliefs. Instead, I endeavor to do something far more rare and astoundingly more rewarding;
I respect the people/person behind the belief(s). Even those who hold beliefs that dictate the follower must kill those who do not believe as they do.

Dollars to doughnuts that you cannot say the same, at this time. And this is why I say that;

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

Intellectually, I can destroy your above stated belief with a question. That is, How do you know?
There. Done. Big deal.
Out of respect for you as a person, I took the time to ask you twice about your position. No answer.

However, you do toss me the following;

 

That each holds it's own truths in their followers' eyes. And that agnosticism, as it is the admission of not knowing, is really the only honest answer one can give when asked, "Were we created by a God(s)?".

A backpedal perhaps, but nevertheless far more palatable.

Yet there still remains a glaring problem with your stance.
That being, if it is your position that all beliefs deserve respect, it has to include those beliefs which do not show respect in return. Obviously you do not feel this way because you posted what you did.

And ya just can’t have it both ways, and make it work.

So, while I do not respect all beliefs, I do respect a persons right to hold whatever beliefs they will. Why?
As you said...   Because no one fucking knows.

[McQ]

Kestral: I still stand strong in my belief that each religion and every belief (including atheism) should be respected.

I disagree.
Beliefs are like sand.
We all hold certain beliefs to be true. Right up to the point where we find those beliefs are no longer true for us. Then we acquire different beliefs. And so on.
This is the perfect venue to see if what I say is true. Just ask any atheist who used to be a believer. There’s plenty around.
Nope. I don’t respect beliefs. Instead, I endeavor to do something far more rare and astoundingly more rewarding;
I respect the people/person behind the belief(s). Even those who hold beliefs that dictate the follower must kill those who do not believe as they do.

Dollars to doughnuts that you cannot say the same, at this time. And this is why I say that;

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

Intellectually, I can destroy your above stated belief with a question. That is, How do you know?
There. Done. Big deal.
Out of respect for you as a person, I took the time to ask you twice about your position. No answer.

However, you do toss me the following;

 

That each holds it's own truths in their followers' eyes. And that agnosticism, as it is the admission of not knowing, is really the only honest answer one can give when asked, "Were we created by a God(s)?".

A backpedal perhaps, but nevertheless far more palatable.

Yet there still remains a glaring problem with your stance.
That being, if it is your position that all beliefs deserve respect, it has to include those beliefs which do not show respect in return. Obviously you do not feel this way because you posted what you did.

And ya just can’t have it both ways, and make it work.

So, while I do not respect all beliefs, I do respect a persons right to hold whatever beliefs they will. Why?
As you said...   Because no one fucking knows.

 :hail:  

OK, I couldn't find an emoticon for a standing ovation, so I used those two instead. Well put, Kestrel!

There is a word, "Namaste", which is both a Hindi and Nepali word that I like very much. From Wikipedia:

In context this word can be taken to mean any of these:

    * The Spirit in me meets the same Spirit in you.
    * I greet that place where you and I are one.
    * I salute the Light of life in you.
    * I receive the free spirit in you.
    * I recognize that within each of us is a place where peace dwells, and when we are in that place, we are One.
    * My energy salutes your energy.
    * The life in me sees and honors the life in you.
    * May the life within you be strong.
    * The light within me sees and honors the light within you.


I like this. It expresses what I feel for others. I strive to see the worth in all people, however being an imperfect person, I often fail and become cynical and sarcastic. But that's a different story, better told in a twelve-step program or something. ;-) The bottom line with Namaste for me is that I strive to honor and respect the individual.

Anyway, our good friend Kestrel has been an paragon of the meanings of this word, which is why he gets the standing O.

He and I know we disagree on various things, some of which are very important to us, but I have never felt that he has had anything but respect for me and others, as humans. The same feelings are afforded him as well.

So, what's the moral of this seemingly pointless post? Perhaps it's the "Golden Rule", Locke. You know what that is. Swallow your pride, remove the chip from your shoulder, and engage in courteous conversation and you will be treated with courtesy and respect.

On a related note, I agree with Kestrel again in his point of this:

So, while I do not respect all beliefs, I do respect a persons right to hold whatever beliefs they will.

I would argue that it is impossible for a christian to respect the religious beliefs of say, a Muslim, or a Pagan, because it is very clear from christian doctrine that those beliefs are wrong and will send their respective believers to hell. However, the christian can respect the rights of the person to hold those beliefs. In fact, he can respect the person too, but not the beliefs.

(not checked for spelling or typos)

[Kestrel]

I am sincerely honored and humbled. Even more so because the words come from a poster whom I've grown to greatly admire and respect.

Thank you, my friend.

Namaste.

(If I could only get my friend, Willravel, to re-engage in our discussion of "hell", It would afford me the opportunity to show why I do not and cannot believe in it. Unfortunatley I fear Willravel's rotator cuff will blow out before he renews his interest. )

[User192021]

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.

GREAT post.

[Will]

(If I could only get my friend, Willravel, to re-engage in our discussion of "hell", It would afford me the opportunity to show why I do not and cannot believe in it. Unfortunatley I fear Willravel's rotator cuff will blow out before he renews his interest. )

I have to regrow my fingers after the giant post I posted.

GREAT post.

[schild=11 fontcolor=000000 shadowcolor=C0C0C0 shieldshadow=1]Thanks, dude![/schild]

[Tom62]

Kestral: I still stand strong in my belief that each religion and every belief (including atheism) should be respected. That each holds it's own truths in their followers' eyes.

I don't agree with that. What people believe (or not believe) is their own business, but all my respect is lost the moment they start interfering with other people lives.

I would also never ever respect the believes of  fanatical believers, who blows up buildings or kill doctors to satisfy the needs of their bloodthirsty gods.

I would also never respect any superstitious nonsense.  For example: in Africa people still believe that if they have AIDS they can be cured by having sex with very young children. Or in Europe orthodox christians believe that only God is allowed to cure people and therefore they forbid children vaccinations. Or that you have people in the USA who think that you don't have to reduce CO2 emissions, because God will cleanup the environment.

[Kestrel]

(If I could only get my friend, Willravel, to re-engage in our discussion of "hell", It would afford me the opportunity to show why I do not and cannot believe in it. Unfortunatley I fear Willravel's rotator cuff will blow out before he renews his interest. )

I have to regrow my fingers after the giant post I posted.
 

No problem.
Take this stuff and lets get back at it.
 

[Will]

I took it, and I grew 10 lab mice. Go finger.

[SteveS]

Hmm, after these two very lucid points

So, while I do not respect all beliefs, I do respect a persons right to hold whatever beliefs they will.

What people believe (or not believe) is their own business, but all my respect is lost the moment they start interfering with other people lives.

it occurs to me that I mispoke in my response to Locke,

I just feel atheists should respect religion. You don't have to believe it, but at least show some respect to those that do.

I certainly agree, and I think I do (respect religion).

Blah, reads ugly on review.  Of course what I meant was "I think I do (show some respect to people that believe in religion)".

My understanding of the points made by Kestrel, McQ and Tom62 is that you are basically stating a humanist philosophy, right?  I only took one philosophy class, so my definition might be really over simplified, but isn't it basically "do whatever you want (including of course believing whatever you want), just don't prevent someone else for doing (or believing) whatever they want".  It defines the boundary of human interaction.  Just wondering if anyone thinks I'm stating this incorrectly, or is this your understanding of humanism as well?

[Kestrel]

STEVES; My understanding of the points made by Kestrel, McQ and Tom62 is that you are basically stating a humanist philosophy, right?

For my part, Humanist would apply to me insofar as one who is concerned for the interests and welfare of humans.
Of course the way we've all been tossing the word, "respect" around sort of reflects the wiggle room the word affords.

eh.

[Kestrel]

I took it, and I grew 10 lab mice. Go finger.

Well, at the very least you can look forward to some interesting moments during personal hygiene routines.

 

[McQ]

My understanding of the points made by Kestrel, McQ and Tom62 is that you are basically stating a humanist philosophy, right?  I only took one philosophy class, so my definition might be really over simplified, but isn't it basically "do whatever you want (including of course believing whatever you want), just don't prevent someone else for doing (or believing) whatever they want".  It defines the boundary of human interaction.  Just wondering if anyone thinks I'm stating this incorrectly, or is this your understanding of humanism as well?

It's more difficult for me to pin mine down to one particular philosophy. I'm still a work in progress anyway. I don't want people to tell me what I have to think or believe, insofar as religion goes. I don't have issues with people needing spirituality as individuals, because I once felt that need myself. Do I believe in god, gods, or a "spirit" world? No, but I understand why humans feel the need to and do so.

I am against the enforcement of religious belief systems on people, whether it be through an organized church, or a government, or even through parents to their children. that last one gets a bit sticky as parental rights are hotly debated all over the world. I just wouldn't force my kids to be Roman Catholic Christians because they were my kids. I'd rather them learn comparative religious studies, while at the same time, learning about the world and the way it works. As I said, it's difficult to pin this one down. I call myself a rationalist, a naturalist, a humanist, but probably not the same definition of humanist that is used in secular humanism.

Clear as mud, right? LOL!