Of Athiests and Agnostics...

[Martin]

This is something I've meant to write for sometime, and just a word of warning to all the mindless bashers - no I am not athiest because I think its cool.


With that said, I was wondering if any fellow athiests have similar views. By definition, agnostics belive that its not possible to prove if god exists and athiests don't believe in god at all.

However, I have a slightly different view. Like athiests, I don't think god exists, but at the same time, like agnostics I realize that we can't prove if god exists (not now and not for hundreds and hundreds of years at least). This is because:
1. Religion is constantly forced to change in order to apeal to the public (I dont think witch burnings and the inquisition woud be popular today)
2. While religion often concedes to science (earth being the center of universe, creation etc), as long as there is something unknown, religion can use it to justify the existance of a god.
3. People (as seen many times on ATOT) can't even agree on what god is/can do/cannot do.

With that said, how can anyone hope to disprove god, when poeple can't even agree on what god is?


Unless all belivers come together and put forward a well defined vision of what god is, trying to disprove a god is an excercise in futility.

 

[jbod]

(directed to athiests)

Just curious how you feel about life after death? I mean, do you think you just die and that's it? I'm just wondering what your view is on that.

Please don't be harsh, just inquiring.

 

[TallBill]

agnostic here.. and yes.. i do believe that its just over.. i've been asked.. "whats it worth lviing for then" just because i can damnit.. if i lived a really long crappy life i wouldnt know when im dead

 

[Wallydraigle]

I would say in response, why would you want to disprove the existance of such a being? It is impossible to disprove the existance of something. A lack of evidence only means that there is a lack of evidence. Science shouldn't concern itself with disproving anything at all, but only with finding the truth of what actually is.

 

[rival]

here we go again

 

[Martin]

<< (directed to athiests)

Just curious how you feel about life after death? I mean, do you think you just die and that's it? I'm just wondering what your view is on that.

Please don't be harsh, just inquiring. >>




I think it just ends. Nothing left of you, but a memory in some people's minds and some genetic material if you should happen to have kids.




<< Science shouldn't concern itself with disproving anything at all, but only with finding the truth of what actually is. >>


That's what science is doing. Its just that in their quest for truth, they often come at odds with religion.

 

[t3chvest]

yeah seriously all religion threads need to stop....

ok, might as well throw in my .02. First of all, yes science should go out to prove things wrong. That's how you test theories. If you find evidence FOR something, great, it's even stronger. If you find evidence AGAINST something, great, we dissproved this and can now try to find the truth again.

As for life after death, I've thought about that many times. I die, then I see the tunnel and think "oh @(%@"... then I see the gates... won't even bother, just walk over the clouds and fall into the fiery pits lol

But you have to wonder, if god made us who we are, how can he give us eternal damnation for just using the minds he molded?!

 

[Zenmervolt]

Actually, I would consider your view to be agnosticism. In fact, it's very much like the agnosticism favored by Bertrand Russell and myself. I agree that there is no conclusive proof denying the existance of a god (and I agree that there never will be), however, I believe that based upon the evidence we have that the only logical hypothesis that can be drawn from it is that there is no god. In legal terms, it's preponderance of evidence, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt". As for what happens when we die, well, we die. When I die, I am, as Mercutio said, "food for worms".

ZV

 

[Rudee]

I'm an Athiest... I swear to God!

 

[AreaCode707]

<<
2. While religion often concedes to science (earth being the center of universe, creation etc), as long as there is something unknown, religion can use it to justify the existance of a god.
>>



There will always be at least the suspicion of the unknown because how do you prove that we know everything?

 

[Zenmervolt]

<< yeah seriously all religion threads need to stop.... >>

No, but I'll agree that the religious flame wars should stop. Level-headed discussions on the topic, however, are quite fun and enlightening.



<< ok, might as well throw in my .02. First of all, yes science should go out to prove things wrong. That's how you test theories. If you find evidence FOR something, great, it's even stronger. If you find evidence AGAINST something, great, we dissproved this and can now try to find the truth again. >>

Uh, no. That is not how science works at all. This is a grade-school over-simplification. If a theory is found to be inapplicable in certain situations, then it is not considered to be true, but not being true does not make something false. Science is a search for better and more comprehensive answers, but any scientist will admit that science is incapable of absolutely disproving something. All science can do is disprove something given a certain set of baseline circumstances. In any situation other than the tightly controlled laboratory setting, the thing disproved may actually be true. Let us say for a minute that there are no pencils at all on the earth. Searching the earth completely and finding no pencils does not disprove the existance of pencils. It only proves that there are no pencils on earth at that time. There may be pencils on the moon or on jupiter where we cannot look. Science cannot disprove anything, it can only offer alternative explanations which work in a wider variety of instances and are therefore more likely.

ZV

 

[Pacfanweb]

In other words, ZV is basically saying, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

I agree. I don't think that any of the viewpoints are 100% wrong. I have a hard time with going totally with the bible, 100%. However, looking at the universe, it's just not enough explanation either way.
The bible says, basically, "first there was nothing.......etc". God created this, that, etc.

I ask, "Who created God? Where did the nothing come from?"

Science offers the big-bang theory. Okay, I ask "where did the big bang come from? What was there before? Comets? Who created them?"etc.

Nobody can give a legitimate answer to any of those questions.

I hold the view that there is a bit of truth to both, and I believe that there has to be some sort of "higher power, level of awareness"....whatever you want to call it. Maybe not a God exactly like in the Bible, but certainly not just nothing, as atheisim believes.

 

[Maetryx]

Sometimes I think what separates atheists from theists is this dilemma: Did the pre-existing condition (whatever it was) that led to the Big Bang have a personality? If the eternal, necessary condition that led to the Big Bang has a personality, then it can be rightly called God. If it does not have a personality, then the energy of the universe itself is god, I suppose.

Theists find it reasonable to believe that life comes from life and intelligence comes from intelligence. They reason that the evidence of living, intelligent beings that are not causative of their own existence most likely were caused by another living intelligent being that is ontologically superior.

 

[SWScorch]

<< (directed to athiests)

Just curious how you feel about life after death? I mean, do you think you just die and that's it? I'm just wondering what your view is on that.

Please don't be harsh, just inquiring. >>



As far as I'm concerned, death is the end. You die and thats it. Your "soul" or "spirit" or whatever does not live on; you do not live happily ever after in some afterlife, you just end. I think the concept of heaven and the afterlife was created to allay people's fear of death. Its like a security blanket.

I think it would be great if there is an afterlife, but I dont believe in it.

 

[Zzzt]

A bit off topic, but I'm impressed at how this hasn't turned into another rant session! Great way of stating your arguement, Marty!

 

[reitz]

<< 1. Religion is constantly forced to change in order to apeal to the public (I dont think witch burnings and the inquisition woud be popular today) >>

The perversion of religious messages often changes to suit the aims of those in power, but most of the actual messages themselves have remained unchanged for hundreds or thousands of years.

<< 2. While religion often concedes to science (earth being the center of universe, creation etc), as long as there is something unknown, religion can use it to justify the existance of a god. >>

Religion does not use the unknown to justify the existance of a god, rather most explain the unknown in the context of God.


<< 3. People (as seen many times on ATOT) can't even agree on what god is/can do/cannot do. >>

You are free to form your own views, why must the religious agree on who/what God is?

<< Unless all belivers come together and put forward a well defined vision of what god is, trying to disprove a god is an excercise in futility. >>

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is a worthless exercise. You can get away with arguing for or against the existance of the Christian God, or of one of the many Hindu gods/goddesses, but to lump so many dissimilar entities into one group is a waste of time.

 

[ImTyping]

<< With that said, I was wondering if any fellow athiests have similar views. By definition, agnostics belive that its not possible to prove if god exists and athiests don't believe in god at all. >>



Sigh.

Wrong on both counts.

Why do people on both sides of this debate have to argue from a position of ignorance?

Come up with a better definition. Then get a life, and stop creating stupidass threads like this.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Good book alert:

What is Atheism? by Douglas Krueger

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

Remember where the last 50 threads on this went?

 

[jbod]

<< As far as I'm concerned, death is the end. You die and thats it. Your "soul" or "spirit" or whatever does not live on; you do not live happily ever after in some afterlife, you just end. I think the concept of heaven and the afterlife was created to allay people's fear of death. Its like a security blanket.

I think it would be great if there is an afterlife, but I dont believe in it. >>



I have personally experienced what some would call the "spirit world ". I have had many "out of body" experiences and I know they were not a dream. You can experiment with them and see for yourself. But they scared the crap out of me so I don't willingly participate in them anymore.

I know some people are going to call me a kook or whatever, maybe say that it was a dream. All I ask is that you don't write me off as someone living in a fantasy world. Anyone can do it, many books have been written about OBE's by respectable individuals, also literature can be found about near death experiences. This is no mere coincidence. I believe the two are directly related to the "afterlife".

I bet it would take no more than 3 months for someone here to seriously experience this phenomenon if they had an open mind and the strength to try.

My first experience: consciousness awakened to this exhilerating feeling only to find my body and all that is associated with, feelings, sight, smell, and presence 3 inches from the ceiling, scared. Wooosh, back in my body with extra-gravity force. I was totally awake in spirit world and afterward in the physical. It was real. I promise.

 

[Halogen]

whoa all this new information flooding my mind... i thought that athiest meant you believe there is no god and that the other one meant you couldn't care less whether there was a god or not

lets just stop talking about this already

 

[jjones]

I was born a christian, became and athiest, found my way towards agnosticism but now for many years I have trouble defining what the term "God" even means to me.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Remember where the last 50 threads on this went? >>

Nowhere. And that's exactly why they'll continue to exist because it's all a matter of opinion and personal belief. There is no correct answer so these threads will continue into perpetuity. And that may or may not what a god or gods intended for us all along. Or maybe not. But it is fun to debate it.

 

[lawaris]

<< Just curious how you feel about life after death? I mean, do you think you just die and that's it? I'm just wondering what your view is on that >>




Why wonder about something no one has seen or proved.

There is a saying in GITA : Do your duty without wondering about what u will get in the end.

It is the same with life - just do your best and that's it !

These sort of questions are too difficult to answer b'cos they depend on one's belief - If I answer that in any way I would be imposing my belief on you!

Death and Life are just words coined up to explain things still inexplicable to man !

 

[lawaris]

& Yes , I consider myself an atheist...................do I believe I am ???

Dunno ...................but then does it matter ?