Happy Atheist Forum

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?

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.

Quote from: "Locke"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.

Quote from: "Tom62"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.

QuoteI 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.

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;
 

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

Do you stand by the above quote?

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 (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.

Quote from: "Locke"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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

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.

QuoteLocke, 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.

Quote from: "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.

QuoteLocke, 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.

Quote from: "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. 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.

QuoteSince 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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost5657.html#5657) to save you the effort of scrolling up.

Cheers.

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.

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

Quote from: "Locke"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:

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

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"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.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god.

Quote from: "Willravel"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

Quote from: "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).  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?

Quote from: "Locke"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:

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)?".

Quote from: "Locke"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.

Quote from: "Locke"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;

QuoteAgnosticism 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;

 

QuoteThat 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.

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "Locke"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;

QuoteAgnosticism 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;

 

QuoteThat 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:  :cheers:

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)

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. )

Quote from: "Willravel"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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "User192021"GREAT post.

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

Quote from: "Locke"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.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/247-02192007-1301244.html?referrer=email) and lets get back at it.
 
8)

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

Hmm, after these two very lucid points

Quote from: "Kestrel"So, while I do not respect all beliefs, I do respect a persons right to hold whatever beliefs they will.

Quote from: "Tom62"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,

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "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?

QuoteSTEVES; 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.

Quote from: "Willravel"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.

 

Quote from: "SteveS"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!

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

Quote from: "McQ"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).

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

Cheers.

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

Quote from: "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.

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

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)

Quote from: "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)

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.

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

From here. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost5668.html#5668)

This;

Quote from: "Locke"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.

Quote from: "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. (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost5668.html#5668)

With this;

QuoteThe 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".   :lol:

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

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

Quote from: "Locke"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, )

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).

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

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