From Agnosticism to Atheism

[SteveS]

Of course the way we've all been tossing the word, "respect" around sort of reflects the wiggle room the word affords.

eh.

Ha, no doubt!  Keenly observed.

Clear as mud, right? LOL!

Thanks, I catch your drift.  And, I found the wiki page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) to be even "muddier".  Primarily I was concerned with not being understood, guess I'll just stick to qualifying what I mean by "humanist".

That parent thing you hit on is probably a whole topic in itself (and definitely a sticky one).

[Kestrel]

Locke,
I hope you decide to stick around.
This is a good topic.

Cheers.

[donkeyhoty]

oh zeus, not another R-e-s-p-e-c-t semantic debate

[MrE2Me]

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.

I honestly fail to see the distinction between these three.  Prove to me that Santa or the Easter Bunny don't exist.

[McQ]

I think Locke completely missed the analogy, and just took it as those "actual fictional characters" being placed on the same level as the "real god".

(sigh)

[Kestrel]

I think Locke completely missed the analogy, and just took it as those "actual fictional characters" being placed on the same level as the "real god".

(sigh)

For what it's worth, I don't believe the analogy actually applies to Locke's position.
Here's why;
The whole premise of Locke's stance is that god is unknowable/unknown. This  effectively removes any consideration of an 'evidence' of god's possible existence off the table, from Locke's standpoint. Cleanly freeing him from any obligation of such an analogy.

The analogy only works toward a person who believes that there is evidence for an unseen god. As most contemporary christian believers do.

For those who indulge in the traditions of Santa Claus, Easter bunnies, tooth fairy's, etc. they do so based upon what they consider evidence. Be it presents under a tree, candy filled baskets or a nickel under the pillow. (cheap-ass fairy.) Sorry 'bout that last bit. I had a random childhood memory float by while posting.

Anyhoo, fat jolly elves, big rabbits and flying dentists get a wink and a nod for what they are. Whereas the god as put forth by most christians is repulsive to an extreme.
Why?
Because not believing in the 3 characters above doesn't hold the threat of eternal punishment. Nor have have I yet to hear that belief in those same characters must be implemented in deep significant social engineering, for the 'good of all'.

The analogy is effective and logically devastating to only those who hold the view that god is currently provable.

They deserve it and should take their lumps.

It just so happens, that Locke never opened himself up for the correct application of that particular analogy.

Nor do I.

[Kestrel]

One more thing that I am compelled to speak to as far as our new member, Locke;

From here.

This;

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?

Locke, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel your above quote is the motivation for your stance and reason for posting.

In light of your above quote, I recognize a young man who holds his father with love, admiration and in the highest of regard. Even though you do not agree with his beliefs.
I know that it is not easy to hear a man whom you know to be intelligent and open minded referred to as 'delusional' or 'a believer of fairy tales'.

The fact that you stand up for him is not only a testament of your love and loyalty, but also a reflection of your fathers efforts.
He's done a fine job and I'm sure he is as proud of you as you of him.

I felt this deserved to be recognized.
I doubt that any reasonable, compassionate human being on this board would disagree with me on this.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I hope you decide to stick around. Your posting style is certainly a bit rough around the edges, but so what.

We were all 18 once.

Regards.

[Kestrel]

For what it's worth, I don't believe the analogy actually applies to Locke's position.
Here's why;...
....It just so happens, that Locke never opened himself up for the correct application of that particular analogy.

Arrrrrgghhhh!
I was wrong.
Locke did open himself up for the analogy, here.

With this;

The proof that a God could exist is, quite simply, our own existence. Take for example...

Granted, he only opened the door a crack with the use of "could", but that's enough.
Ah well. Perhaps he'll tweak his position a bit.

Say "La Vee".  

I still stand by the point that the analogy doesn't apply to those who feel as I do.

[SteveS]

I agree that this was a good topic.  One of my brothers still terms himself agnostic.  We've discussed it a few times.  Also, I thought the way Locke used a mathematical analogy to state his case was clever, specifically

Atheism <Agnosticism> Religion

Okay, I get it,
Agnostic is neutral on faith, value zero (don't know)
Atheism is "less than zero", "negative faith" (god doesn't exist)
Religion is "greater than zero", "positive faith" (god does exist)

We've all explored why we disagree with the depiction of atheism in this analogy, I just thought it was a particularly clever way to express the idea.  Or I'm just a geek.

By the way, and to continue the original post topic, my brother says he is agnostic not because he thinks "we can never know" about reality, but more because he thinks the entire idea of the supernatural and god is defined to be outside the realm of scientifc or rational inquiry, that he claims a meaning of agnostic like; "I have no knowledge" of whatever the hell it is you're talking about with this god/afterlife/soul business.  If the supernatural is outside of physical reality, what can we really know about it?  It's a subtle point, but many people do declare exactly this (that the supernatural is a whole 'nother world, your foolish science can never measure it!).

I, of course, say he's coping out.  He points out I used to say I was agnostic.  I respond that I've always been an atheist I just never realized it.

(feels guilt --- better get back to work, )

[up2smthn]

I'm a convinced atheist. I'm as sure as one can be that no sentient, all powerful, all knowing being is, or has ever existed in our universe. I cannot prove it, of course, since proof requires EVIDENCE, and that which does not exist leaves no evidence.

For a long time i saw agnosticism as a cop-out. Atheists who hadn't the courage to fully admit it, declared themselves agnostic: thus leaving the possibility open for a god of some sort. I've changed that opinion, seeing agnostics as skeptics who are even skeptical of atheism. But i'm no agnostic. In all my years, I've seen not one shred of evidence that even INDICATES, much less proves, that such a being exists ( unless you count the fact that my opinion is out numbered by about 5 billion to one by the rest of the population).

[Scrybe]

For what it's worth, I don't believe the analogy actually applies to Locke's position.
Here's why...

I have to say… This thread has taught me two important lessons.  First, most atheists are truly agnostic/atheists.  Like Locke, I was ignorant of the distinction between atheists and "hard" atheists.  Second, I really like and respect this Kestrel guy.

I suppose if many of you atheists can call yourself atheists with the caveat that you don't actually KNOW that there is no God, I can call myself a Christian with the caveat that I don't KNOW that there is a God.  I agree with Locke that agnosticism is the only truly honest opinion a human can hold.  Everything beyond that is clearly speculation as there is no proof for or against a God.  Atheists and Christians merely acknowledge the white elephant differently.  We all know we (matter and time) exist, and don't have an answer as to how that happened.  After that, it's a matter of interpretation.  Atheists claim to have the mature, intelligent answers.  Theists claim to have the enlightened, faithful answers.

[Johndigger]

Well, let's face it - if we're looking at hardcore evidence - everyone's an Agnostic at the end of the day. Neither Atheists nor Theists can really know 100% that God doesn't exist or exists, respectively.


What distinguishes the groups apart is what they "believe" not "know" in the vast realms of the unknown.


JD