Question for the agnostics

[Xavier434]

*shrug*

I always considered myself agnostic over being atheist because I really don't care if a higher power (god) exists or not so I don't bother with faith. I figure that if there is no way for me to be certain then there is no reason to worry about it. I figure that choosing a religion to follow is like trying to answer a multiple choice question where the options are infinite and only one is right. Since the options are infinite and only one is supposed to be right, that means the odds of me choosing the wrong answer is also an infinite possibility. Why waste time and mental energy worrying about something like that unless it makes your life happier for some reason?

 

[0roo0roo]

yea quibbling over the terms is rather meaningless. most atheists will admit that god is possible in the way the easter bunny or santa is "possible". the whole agnostic term probably gets used a lot because people fear to offend. and in the past they probably thought it was better to be seen as unsaved rather than be an damned infidel. and well sometimes a self labeled agnostic is just an atheist without a spine.

the facts are against the existence of god. the horror in the world, many religions, the lousiness of all scripture in existence, the stupidity of the religious. as said, you can't prove that unicorns don't exist. saying that unicorns doesnt exist isn't arrogant as its so unlikely and there is basically zero proof. pretending that saying that unicorns don't exist(atheist) is just as arrogant as saying they do exist(theist) is just...stupid. the theist is always clearly the most arrogant by a wide margin. they won't just believe the in the unicorn based on basically nothing, but they are so sure they'll damn you to hell or blow you up based on it.

 

[So]

In my opinion, most agnostics are just scientifically illiterate atheists, and many of them turn up their noses and pretend that this makes them more open minded. Look, any intelligent atheist would agree that if someone delivered repeatable, verifiable, concrete proof of a god (which would theoretically be possible -- god could come down and speak to everyone at once from the clouds or something) they would accept it as fact. YOU CAN NEVER PROVE that something DOESN'T exist, just like you can never prove that there aren't tiny invisible gnomes with ropes holding things down, but we don't believe it because of a lack of evidence and basic reason. An atheist is someone who says "I've never seen evidence of a god, so I cannot accept that it exists". God existing and not existing, from a scientific perspective are not equally likely propositions, as evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.

An agnostic is an atheist that doesn't understand that you can't ever prove a negative.

 

[BoberFett]

What do you call someone who simply doesn't care? I don't know if there's a god, and I honestly never even ponder the thought until douchebag atheist egotists start arguing with douchebag religious zealots.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn
I've noticed that the popular notion of what makes someone atheist vs agnostic is level of certainty. Namely, atheists are 100% unshakably certain of the non-existence of a god, while agnostics can be up to 99.99999% sure of its non-existence. I don't agree with this distinction, so first off, please let me know if anyone likes the above explanation.

That is an unfortunately popular conception, and it is also unfortunately wrong. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a position about the certainty of some other belief but none in particular. Theism/Atheism is a position of belief/non-belief with respect to the existence of gods. There are agnostic theists, therefore. There are also agnostic atheists. Those people believe and do not believe, respectively, that a god exists, but neither group considers their beliefs to be necessarily justified and true -- or properly called "knowledge" (gnosis).

Here is my suggestion for thinking about this issue. I consider myself an atheist because I assign similar likelihood to the existence of fairies as to the existence of a god (and really, measurably less, but I won't get into that here). The problem with the title 'agnostic' is it might imply that the likelihood of a) 'the existence of a god' is on equal footing, probability-wise, as b) 'the non-existence of a god'. I find this troubling.

I wouldn't bother calling myself a fairy-agnostic, so why bother with god-agnostic? It's my suspicion that a lot of self-described agnostics would fall into my category of atheist.

It is indeed, however a lot of people seem to be afraid to wear the label "atheist." Part of the reason is the misconception about the qualifications for atheism, and I think part of the reason is a resistance to be being associated with the more obnoxious militant atheists that get so much negative attention.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

An atheist is an agnostic with an overinflated ego.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What do you call someone who simply doesn't care? I don't know if there's a god, and I honestly never even ponder the thought until douchebag atheist egotists start arguing with douchebag religious zealots.

A douchebapathetic? You have the luxury of not caring because those douchebags protect your right to do so.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What do you call someone who simply doesn't care? I don't know if there's a god, and I honestly never even ponder the thought until douchebag atheist egotists start arguing with douchebag religious zealots.

wow, get out of my head.

 

[0roo0roo]

a dolt. of course you should care. if the religious merely left everyone alone perhaps you'd have a point. but clearly the religious are out f*cking up the world and trying to turn their superstitious nonsense into law oppressing everyone else. i mean seriously, nothing importants at stake here right? religious people are only letting superstition get in the way of things like medical research(stem cells) and such, what harm could that do

 

[GeekDrew]

I'm somewhat in the same situation as BoberFett. I've pondered it, I was forced to go to church for years as a kid... but I just *don't care*.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: So
In my opinion, most agnostics are just scientifically illiterate atheists, and many of them turn up their noses and pretend that this makes them more open minded. Look, any intelligent atheist would agree that if someone delivered repeatable, verifiable, concrete proof of a god (which would theoretically be possible -- god could come down and speak to everyone at once from the clouds or something) they would accept it as fact. YOU CAN NEVER PROVE that something DOESN'T exist, just like you can never prove that there aren't tiny invisible gnomes with ropes holding things down, but we don't believe it because of a lack of evidence and basic reason. An atheist is someone who says "I've never seen evidence of a god, so I cannot accept that it exists". God existing and not existing, from a scientific perspective are not equally likely propositions, as evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.

An agnostic is an atheist that doesn't understand that you can't ever prove a negative.

I need to disagree with you.

I find the biggest issue regarding god - and why it differs from the OPs fairy analogy, or Santa Claus or any other imaginary being - is the concept of creation.

For example, one could (and many do), argue that the "proof" of god's existence is our own existence. Our ability to live, think, reason, feel, etc.

An atheist can argue that these things always existed, without a creator, and that is fine. An agnostic would argue that it is possible either way - it can never be proven or disproven, and that is fine. A religious person would rely on scriptures, ancient texts, and tradition, and that, too is fine.

You can debate what "god" is - be it faeries or gnomes or a giant white-bearded guy in the sky - but ultimately it is the issue of creation which separates atheists and agnostics, at least in my opinion.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This thread is making me question my own beliefs, which is always fun on a Tuesday morning. I've never believed in God's existence, or rather, I've never believed that the existence or non-existence of God is knowable by people, but the evidence doesn't seem to be there to support the theory that God exists. I suppose that places me in the agnostic camp, though for many years I identified as an atheist (primarily because I was ignorant of the difference in terminology).

But this thread got me thinking. Humans have invented a great many fictional creatures: unicorns, dragons, fairies, nymphs, elves, goblins, vampires, werewolves, harpies, griffins, pegasi, gnomes, leprechauns, and countless others. The Greeks came up with dozens of Gods and a backstory for all of them, which were then coopted by the Romans. The Celtic and Hindu religions had their own sets of Gods, again with stories behind them. The monotheistic Judeo-Christian religions have a different God still. It strikes me as patently obvious that God is simply another creation of humans, a fictional character created to help explain the unexplainable.

It's odd to me, then, that while so many people are willing to dismiss goblins and elves and unicorns, et al, they will fight and die for their belief in a God. Even as we have this debate, I am keenly aware that I think that the concept of God is simultaneously a fiction created by humans, and yet also unknowable. There's some cognitive dissonance involved in maintaining that something is a complete fabrication, but "we'll never know if it's true or not." I don't feel the same way about any other fictional creatures I've listed; why should I feel this way about God?

ATOT: Turning people atheist since 1999!

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn
I've noticed that the popular notion of what makes someone atheist vs agnostic is level of certainty. Namely, atheists are 100% unshakably certain of the non-existence of a god, while agnostics can be up to 99.99999% sure of its non-existence. I don't agree with this distinction, so first off, please let me know if anyone likes the above explanation.

Here is my suggestion for thinking about this issue. I consider myself an atheist because I assign similar likelihood to the existence of fairies as to the existence of a god (and really, measurably less, but I won't get into that here). The problem with the title 'agnostic' is it might imply that the likelihood of a) 'the existence of a god' is on equal footing, probability-wise, as b) 'the non-existence of a god'. I find this troubling.

I wouldn't bother calling myself a fairy-agnostic, so why bother with god-agnostic? It's my suspicion that a lot of self-described agnostics would fall into my category of atheist.

99.99999... = 100 so agnostics are basicially atheists

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

Or maybe an agnostic is someone who disagrees with both sides? Especially the equally elitest and snide attitude of atheists compared to their evangelist counterparts.

This is the attitude I am trying to study and understand. Is it snide of me to announce my equal confidence in the existence of a god and the tooth fairy? If so, why?

No, you're making the typical braindead mistake of assuming that lack of belief is akin to a fervent new non-religion. That's pure crap. Atheists don't believe in God, period. We have looked at the evidence (or lack thereof), we've studied how these fairy tales were invented and we said we want no part of it. If you believe in something it's up to you to justify that belief. If we atheists use science to poke holes in the biblical bullshit about creationism and great floods and all those other non-events that is not snide or elitist, it's FACT.

You either believe in god or you don't. If you don't you're an atheist. That "well, I just don't know, I'm not sure either way, so I'm an agnostic" line is a copout. That's a person that clearly does not believe and equally clearly lacks the courage to say so.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: So
In my opinion, most agnostics are just scientifically illiterate atheists, and many of them turn up their noses and pretend that this makes them more open minded. Look, any intelligent atheist would agree that if someone delivered repeatable, verifiable, concrete proof of a god (which would theoretically be possible -- god could come down and speak to everyone at once from the clouds or something) they would accept it as fact. YOU CAN NEVER PROVE that something DOESN'T exist, just like you can never prove that there aren't tiny invisible gnomes with ropes holding things down, but we don't believe it because of a lack of evidence and basic reason. An atheist is someone who says "I've never seen evidence of a god, so I cannot accept that it exists". God existing and not existing, from a scientific perspective are not equally likely propositions, as evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.

An agnostic is an atheist that doesn't understand that you can't ever prove a negative.

I need to disagree with you.

I find the biggest issue regarding god - and why it differs from the OPs fairy analogy, or Santa Claus or any other imaginary being - is the concept of creation.

For example, one could (and many do), argue that the "proof" of god's existence is our own existence. Our ability to live, think, reason, feel, etc.

An atheist can argue that these things always existed, without a creator, and that is fine. An agnostic would argue that it is possible either way - it can never be proven or disproven, and that is fine. A religious person would rely on scriptures, ancient texts, and tradition, and that, too is fine.

You can debate what "god" is - be it faeries or gnomes or a giant white-bearded guy in the sky - but ultimately it is the issue of creation which separates atheists and agnostics, at least in my opinion.

That's ridiculous. The issue of "creation" provides no evidence for a god. None. There is a story in a book written by sheep herders and nomads and the opinion of monkeys who have declared that "free will" is some magical and nebulous concept. There is no evidence for a creator in "creation" either, if there were, that would be evidence of a god, which could be evaluated scientifically and atheists would change their opinions.

 

[ChaoZ]

Agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in God, but there's a possibility that one may exist so it leans more towards atheism. That's how I always saw it.

 

[moonbit]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn
The problem with the title 'agnostic' is it might imply that the likelihood of a) 'the existence of a god' is on equal footing, probability-wise, as b) 'the non-existence of a god'. I find this troubling.

I wouldn't bother calling myself a fairy-agnostic, so why bother with god-agnostic? It's my suspicion that a lot of self-described agnostics would fall into my category of atheist.

"Agnostic" means literally "without knowledge." It was coined by a man who believed that god could not be known by human means. To me, this does not imply any sort of probability of a god existing, only that there is no way to know. The word was coined by someone that wanted some sort of label for his beliefs, so has always been specific to the belief (or lack thereof) of god. I don't understand why you are tying word usage to how agnostics may or may not believe.

Your experience of "agnostics" seems to be mostly people who are all-but-atheists. On the other hand, most of my experience has been with people who are led to believe in a god, but won't, or can't be bothered to put any sort of labels to their beliefs other than "agnostic." I can also describe myself this way. Events in my life have led me to believe in some sort of divinity, but I follow no religious tenets, and I firmly believe that humans don't have, and never will have the capacity to fully understand the divinity.

I can completely understand why a person would be an atheist. It is a very logical conclusion given the evidence presented. However, humankind is ever-illogical, and there will always be people who fall on a continuum of beliefs for a variety of reasons.

Atheism should be the position of non-belief and non-commitment.

I find it very interesting you believe this. Atheism is as much a commitment as complete theism. It is taking a firm stand on a number of concepts that have occupied human thought and discussion since we were intelligent enough to have them: reasons for morality, origin of the self, ultimate fate of the self, role of humankind in the world, etc. And when you choose atheism, you are taking that stand against the majority of humanity. I think that's quite a commitment. And belief? Everything's a belief.

 

[Vageetasjn]

1) as for creation: I don't think the atheist position is "it always existed". It's just that we don't yet know and we're waiting on a good theory for what spurred the big bang. In the meantime, it's no use positing fictional characters. That can only impede progress.

2) on the issue of .9999 = 1
My point was a stance of absolute certainty is not reasonable and I don't attribute unreasonableness to atheism. That's why I didn't specify a repeating decimal. I sincerely meant what I wrote.

3) GagHalfrunt: you lost me on your 12:34 (etd) post. Were you calling me braindead or Goober?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: So
In my opinion, most agnostics are just scientifically illiterate atheists, and many of them turn up their noses and pretend that this makes them more open minded. Look, any intelligent atheist would agree that if someone delivered repeatable, verifiable, concrete proof of a god (which would theoretically be possible -- god could come down and speak to everyone at once from the clouds or something) they would accept it as fact. YOU CAN NEVER PROVE that something DOESN'T exist, just like you can never prove that there aren't tiny invisible gnomes with ropes holding things down, but we don't believe it because of a lack of evidence and basic reason. An atheist is someone who says "I've never seen evidence of a god, so I cannot accept that it exists". God existing and not existing, from a scientific perspective are not equally likely propositions, as evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.

An agnostic is an atheist that doesn't understand that you can't ever prove a negative.

It's more of a two way street than you realize. Think about it. Even in the event where some being shows itself and performs some kind of "divine" act we will never actually know if they are the creator of existence. They could just as easily be another life form that knows a crap ton more about science and have much better technology than we do. To prove there is a god means one needs to prove the existence of a being AND that the being performed acts in the past which are faithfully considered to be fact by a particular religion. How does one actually prove, not just convince, that they are responsible for the creation of everything? I don't believe that is possible to prove. At best, they can show humans stuff that defies the current rules set forth by our sciences but we have been changing those rules throughout history anyways so there is no reason to believe that what we consider to be fact today will not be disproved tomorrow. It is a complete paradox.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

You and I know/understand maybe 0.000000000000000001% of the universe, what has been, what is, and what will be.

I do not see proof of a god in that tiny percentage known to me, but I do not deny the possibility that there is something more in the unknown part. If you claim god cannot possibly exists you are either too simple/ignorant too see outside of your limited knowledge, or too overwhelmed by 'your own greatness' that you think there cannot possibly be more.

Maybe the gods of old were nothing more than far more advanced aliens. Maybe there is indeed one or more very powerful beings. And maybe there is nothing more than tons of planets occupied by equally narrowminded creatures. I do not know, nor do you. And by claiming you do know, that you are 'all-knowing' in that area, you are only making yourself look dumb to my opinion.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: So
In my opinion, most agnostics are just scientifically illiterate atheists, and many of them turn up their noses and pretend that this makes them more open minded. Look, any intelligent atheist would agree that if someone delivered repeatable, verifiable, concrete proof of a god (which would theoretically be possible -- god could come down and speak to everyone at once from the clouds or something) they would accept it as fact. YOU CAN NEVER PROVE that something DOESN'T exist, just like you can never prove that there aren't tiny invisible gnomes with ropes holding things down, but we don't believe it because of a lack of evidence and basic reason. An atheist is someone who says "I've never seen evidence of a god, so I cannot accept that it exists". God existing and not existing, from a scientific perspective are not equally likely propositions, as evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.

An agnostic is an atheist that doesn't understand that you can't ever prove a negative.

It's more of a two way street than you realize. Think about it. Even in the event where some being shows itself and performs some kind of "divine" act we will never actually know if they are the creator of existence. They could just as easily be another life form that knows a crap ton more about science and have much better technology than we do. To prove there is a god means one needs to prove the existence of a being AND that the being performed acts in the past which are faithfully considered to be fact by a particular religion. How does one actually prove, not just convince, that they are responsible for the creation of everything? I don't believe that is possible to prove. At best, they can show humans stuff that defies the current rules set forth by our sciences but we have been changing those rules throughout history anyways so there is no reason to believe that what we consider to be fact today will not be disproved tomorrow. It is a complete paradox.

an all knowing all powerful being is the definition of god. i think such a being would be able to prove whatever they wished.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Do you think there may be intelligent life outside our solar system?

Tell ya what: I'd say the probability of ET intelligence is 90%, while the probability of fairies is one over one thousand quadrillion. Or thereabouts.

Originally posted by: Deeko
I'm agnostic, not atheist. I neither believe nor do I disbelieve.

That kinda tells me you've never been bothered enough to think much about it. Nothing wrong with that.

Actually I was raised and confirmed Lutheran - my grandfather was a Lutheran pastor. I had plenty of religion in my childhood. I just decided that there wasn't enough evidence for me to believe in it, but there's also no reason why it COULDN'T be true either. Simple enough.

In a way you're right though, I did stop thinking about it after I made the decision to be agnostic. I'm not going around worrying about what God things, nor do I go around ridiculing theists for their "phony beliefs". Pretty much there's no way for me to know either way, so I'm not going to concern myself with it.

 

[Vageetasjn]

Originally posted by: moonbit

Atheism should be the position of non-belief and non-commitment.

I find it very interesting you believe this. Atheism is as much a commitment as complete theism. It is taking a firm stand on a number of concepts that have occupied human thought and discussion since we were intelligent enough to have them: reasons for morality, origin of the self, ultimate fate of the self, role of humankind in the world, etc. And when you choose atheism, you are taking that stand against the majority of humanity. I think that's quite a commitment. And belief? Everything's a belief.

Maybe I really mean that atheism is non-emotional because it is the rational response to the evidence.

I'm not saying these issues are unimportant. I think questions similar to "is there a god?" are some of the most important questions humans have ever asked. I just wish we could be a little more reasoned in our approach

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
You and I know/understand maybe 0.000000000000000001% of the universe, what has been, what is, and what will be.

I do not see proof of a god in that tiny percentage known to me, but I do not deny the possibility that there is something more in the unknown part. If you claim god cannot possibly exists you are either too simple/ignorant too see outside of your limited knowledge, or too overwhelmed by 'your own greatness' that you think there cannot possibly be more.

Maybe the gods of old were nothing more than far more advanced aliens. Maybe there is indeed one or more very powerful beings. And maybe there is nothing more than tons of planets occupied by equally narrowminded creatures. I do not know, nor do you. And by claiming you do know, that you are 'all-knowing' in that area, you are only making yourself look dumb to my opinion.

that's a good attitude to have IMHO. i like to take it one step further though, and brand all of the people acting like they know something about God as idiots. the Pope and some bum on the street have the same credibility in my book.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: So
That's ridiculous. The issue of "creation" provides no evidence for a god. None. There is a story in a book written by sheep herders and nomads and the opinion of monkeys who have declared that "free will" is some magical and nebulous concept. There is no evidence for a creator in "creation" either, if there were, that would be evidence of a god, which could be evaluated scientifically and atheists would change their opinions.

I don't exactly understand what you're getting at - you're referencing Christian religion, which doesn't make sense as the term agnostic generally implies one who strays from those beliefs in the first place.

If you can't at least understand that someone would think that matter needs to come from
"somewhere", and that "somewhere" could possibly be some sort of "creator" - possibly even a creator that the human mind cannot yet (or ever?) comprehend - then I say oh well. It ultimately doesn't matter

1) as for creation: I don't think the atheist position is "it always existed". It's just that we don't yet know and we're waiting on a good theory for what spurred the big bang. In the meantime, it's no use positing fictional characters. That can only impede progress.

I think the whole point of agnosticism is acknowledging the fact that it's not that we don't know yet, but rather that we can never know. It's not just some large equation that needs solving. Just like there is a minute probability that I will fall through my chair, there exists a minute probability that there is a creator.

For the record, I don't believe in the existence of a god. But I also know that I have been wrong before.