Any atheists in the house?

[Lawliet]

Note in advance: I mean "atheism" here in the "true" sense of rejecting the possibility of any deity, not those who have agnostic beliefs (won't be going into the blurred lines between the two here - unless someone else wants to bring it up).

I've always been curious (and no one has ever given me a clear answer)... why atheism over agnosticism?

Mostly, I find that atheists believe atheism to be the most logical, rational choice. Science apparently opposes the possibility of a deity, the whole idea of a god is illogical, etc...

In my opinion, true logic would lead to the belief that a deity is possible and can be neither proven nor disproven - and therefore, atheism is the result of half-baked logic.

Why is a deity impossible? Why is the idea illogical? I've heard all sorts of answers to these questions and they just don't hold up. Maybe some of you can do a better job.

[James81]

In my experience, I've come across a couple different types of atheists:

1. Those who apply logic and reason to everything and simply cannot grasp concepts that exist outside of that.

2. Those who have been hurt by religion in some way and are extremely bitter because of it.

Most of the time their logic is just as faulty as those the deists who argue with them--and just as narrow-minded I might add.

I know there are exceptions to this (as will be evidenced by the myriads who will come out to decry this post). I'm not talking in generalizations. I'm talking about my own personal experience with atheists.

[Daffy Duck]

Many Atheists see Agnostics as a bit delusional. They say, "If there's no proof of a God or many gods, then why do you feel the need to say you're just not sure?"

To Agnostics -- let me ask you this: Are you "unsure" about whether or not your shoe is alive? Is it possible your shoe is God? Maybe your socks? If you're going to be an Agnostic about God, then you pretty much need to be an Agnostic about everything, because anything might be God. Or in other words, "The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing." Atheists see this position as silly and even cowardly, though not as silly as theists.

I often describe myself as an Agnostic who believes in God. In other words, I believe and hope that a God exists, but I can't really say with any certainty what God is or how the afterlife works. I just focus on living a life of joy and have a silly assumption that everything else will just fall into place.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

To Agnostics -- let me ask you this: Are you "unsure" about whether or not your shoe is alive? Is it possible your shoe is God? Maybe your socks? If you're going to be an Agnostic about God, then you pretty much need to be an Agnostic about everything, because anything might be God. Or in other words, "The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing." Atheists see this position as silly and even cowardly, though not as silly as theists.

The thing is, I have all the data I need to make a conclusion about whether or not my shoe is alive. I can see my shoe. I can touch it. I can cut it open and look at how it's made.

I do not have all the data I need to make a conclusion about the existance of God. We currently can track what? Like 1% of the universe?

[aggie]

i just wonder, with all the need for logic...if some atheists just feel it is easier to live life without feeling there is anything or anyone to be accountable for and to....the whole thing about going around for gusto just once....which is ok if you want to live life like it is finite....which i cannot believe...there is so much in life that is unexplainable and illogical and yes, even miraculous! i also believe that if there is not justice or reward for some in this physical life...it will take place afterwards elsewhere...maybe atheists don't like to think about any of that...

[aelle]

Ha, funny the atheist / agnostic question is raised, I alternately define myself as either, depending on who I am talking to. The thing is, I am not convinced God doesn't exist. Nor do I doubt His/Her existence. I just don't think about either possibility. Ever. I am a religious apathetic, so much that I can't even be bothered to take a stand against the existence of God.

Maybe I'd take a different stand if I leaved in a highly religious environment, but being a citizen of a 100% secular state and being only around non religious or very privately religious people, I am perfectly content with my absence of belief or non belief.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Lawliet

Science apparently opposes the possibility of a deity, the whole idea of a god is illogical, etc...

I don't think that's so. I think the scientists, in general, leave the possibility of the existence of a supernatural god out of the realm of logical consideration, except for the ones who are actively seeking a scientific explanation of god, of course; and of course they don't oppose the possibility of a deity.

I don't think science in general "opposes" the possibility of a deity, even though there are some specific scientists who do and are vociferous in expressing their opinions.

I think, rather, there may be a widespread tendency in the scientific community to consider the likelihood of there being a personal, interventionist god to be so slight as to be insignificant -- just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Easter Bunny, or the Blue People. That would be "agnosticism" in the OP's view, but if you're looking at it from the point of view of someone who sees the likelihood of the existence of a supernatural p.i.g. to be about equal to the likelihood of the existence of a supernatural tooth fairy, you might feel free to just go ahead and call that "atheism" as a linguistic convention.

You probably wouldn't refer to your "agnostic" belief in the tooth fairy (well, of course it's possible that there's a tooth fairy, but with the information I've got, it seems safe to proceed under the assumption that there's not). While there's no specific word, I don't think, for someone who believes there is no tooth fairy (adentifairiest?), you might still find it kind of funny when someone asks you, "Why is the tooth fairy impossible? I've heard all sorts of explanations against the tooth fairy and they just don't hold up. Adentifairianism is just another dogmatic religion!"

Sure, there may be a tooth fairy and there may be a p.i.g. -- so you can refer to me as an agonistic about both, if you like.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by aggie

..there is so much in life that is unexplainable and illogical and yes, even miraculous!

It doesn't necessarily follow that the unexplainable, illogical, and yes, even miraculous is attributable to a personal, interventionist god.

People sometimes have superstitious beliefs about what they don't understand, but that doesn't mean a baby born with a caul actually IS the devil's child.

i also believe that if there is not justice or reward for some in this physical life...it will take place afterwards elsewhere...maybe atheists don't like to think about any of that...

The justice and rewards of this life, this natural world, are plenty for me -- they represent rich abundance to me. There's no need for belief in immortality to keep me living a life of integrity and joy here and now. Smart people don't require an external force to make choices that work well, like living with a win/win intention and cleaning up your messes.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by James81

I do not have all the data I need to make a conclusion about the existance of God. We currently can track what? Like 1% of the universe?

Probably more like .0000000001%, my friend.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Probably more like .0000000001%, my friend.

If there are other Universes and even dimensions then we've seen even less than 10^-9. Could be 10^-100^-100^-100 or even infinite-ish?

We have seen a surprising amount of this Universe, all the way back to less than 1 billion years after the big bang. Statistically it looks largely the same in all directions. Who knows what mysteries we might find on other planets though.

I've always assumed atheist views were mostly caused by a lack of pondering on the right topics.

It's like saying LOA CANNOT possibly be true without at least becoming familiar with what science is telling us about the mind/matter connection.

[Lawliet]

Lot of good stuff here. As stated in the original post, I think atheism is where people land themselves when they poke holes in religion and stop there. If they poked holes in their atheism, I believe they'd find agnosticism.

To Agnostics -- let me ask you this: Are you "unsure" about whether or not your shoe is alive? Is it possible your shoe is God? Maybe your socks? If you're going to be an Agnostic about God, then you pretty much need to be an Agnostic about everything, because anything might be God. Or in other words, "The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing." Atheists see this position as silly and even cowardly, though not as silly as theists.

I always question everything because we can be sure of nothing. I don't know my shoe is or isn't a deity. This doesn't mean I live by this belief; I live my life "practically" in that I operate on the understanding that what I see is what it appears to be, but when I visit the little land of question marks, I appreciate the unknown and unknowable.

@ Angela: science doesn't oppose deities directly, but atheists often use it as though it does. The big bang, the age of the earth & universe, abiogenesis and evolution... all supposedly prove that life happened spontaneously. At best, they undermine particular religions.

In another thread similar to this on another site, we were discussing in more specifics how there could be a god in a metaphysical universe and it opened a lot of eyes - people whose beliefs were founded on logical arguments and scientific fact, convinced by a philosophical explanation of how something can exist that is both logical and doesn't defy their science.

[aggie]

angela, the reason i brought up logic and things that could be explained because logic and being able to explain things is why some people don't believe in a God....and as far as external sources are concerned....i do not think it is stupid for someone to have a spiritual belief or faith in a higher power that makes them think about the choices they make in this world, or how they treat other people or get through things...it is not like checking your horoscope every day...it is just part of who someone is. i really do think that some people behave badly or make bad choices because of some immediate gratification they want in this life and don't care what they do to get it...because they don't believe in ANYTHING except themselves. i am by no means saying that all atheits are like that, just to be clear. if you are happy with just your earthly life and don't need anything else...that is wonderful, i am happy for you...but don't imply that i am stupid because i do!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by aggie

angela, the reason i brought up logic and things that could be explained because logic and being able to explain things is why some people don't believe in a God....and as far as external sources are concerned....i do not think it is stupid for someone to have a spiritual belief or faith in a higher power that makes them think about the choices they make in this world, or how they treat other people or get through things...it is not like checking your horoscope every day...it is just part of who someone is. i really do think that some people behave badly or make bad choices because of some immediate gratification they want in this life and don't care what they do to get it...because they don't believe in ANYTHING except themselves. i am by no means saying that all atheits are like that, just to be clear. if you are happy with just your earthly life and don't need anything else...that is wonderful, i am happy for you...but don't imply that i am stupid because i do!

Aggie, I had to read back my post to see why you might think I implied that you (or anyone who believes in a supernatural god) is stupid, and I think it's because I said, "Smart people don't require an external force to make choices that work well, like living with a win/win intention and cleaning up your messes." Is that the reason you felt I had implied that?

I'm sorry I had you feeling that way, and that wasn't my intention. It wasn't an exclusive statement -- like, you're not smart if you believe in god. Rather, I'm saying that a person with a brain in her head doesn't *need* a belief in god, or any other external authority, the fear of punishment or hope for reward -- for her to have a sense of what works well -- you know, like it doesn't work well to kill or covet but it does work well to love. Believing in a personal interventionist god is one way of instilling a way of life that works well (what some might call a "moral" life), but it's by no means required for that result.

I think that a moral code is more effective, powerful, and integral when it's distinguished through internal verification -- an internal sense of what's right -- than a fear of punishment or hope for reward after death. That could go either way, though -- with religious belief, or without.

[aggie]

angela...i totally understand what you mean now...i suppose I made it sound like someone needed the threat of fire and brimstone to be able to lead a decent, moral life...and i didn't...that would be absurd for me to think. i guess i am trying to make some sense of the bad things that do happen...sometimes logic cannot explain away the hurts and pains and injustices...and i am trying make some sense of everything...because i personally cannot believe this is all there is...as wonderful as it can all be at times....

[Angela]

I know life can be hard, aggie, and painful, and it sure doesn't always seem to make sense -- and whether there's a god or not, there are people who would be glad to help, including me, if they can.

Lots of love and good wishes.

[aggie]

thank you...angela and everyone else out there!

[aggie]

i feel the need to explain myself (whether anyone is interested or not)...i do not want to be peceived as a sad creature because of my observance of the bad things on this earth and a desire and faith to believe in something beyond...the same goes for the good things...i do not believe that that good or bad things happen by chance or coincidence....i definitely believe there is a good higher power and also evil forces that battle daily around us....and of course our own good judgement and common sense comes into play in our reaction to things around us. i understand that smart people do not necessarily need this....but to me some good and some bad things defy logical explaination...ie the death of a child...or someone that seems to suddenly be cancer free...extreme examples i know...things that logical people will probable explain either with coincidence or science...but that is ok....whatever works for everyone is fine by me...i am open to discussion and other opinions...

[Dreamline]

I am a former atheist.

I chose atheist over agnostic because Ayn Rand called agnostics "fence sitters" and described that trait as one of the most heinous a person could choose. To her, there was nothing worse than not being able to make up your mind. I agree.

Jennifer

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

To her, there was nothing worse than not being able to make up your mind.

Hmmm. I'd rather make up my mind to be intellectually honest with myself than just pick a side for hell of it. Unlike a yard and a fence, there are more than two sides to this.

[Dreamline]

Well, if you were Ayn, you never randomly picked a side for the hell of it. She was hardcore definitive.

I tend not to either. I just never had a hard time figuring out where I stand. Though I have shifted in some ways. I don't think of it as being wrong at the time, just working with a lack of information.

Jennifer

[Lawliet]

As Daffy said, there's no sitting on the fence here. You're not saying, "I can't decide either way." You're saying, "My decision is that it's impossible to prove either way" which is absolutely right ("imo", at least).

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Lawliet

In my opinion, true logic would lead to the belief that a deity is possible and can be neither proven nor disproven - and therefore, atheism is the result of half-baked logic.

Working from this, theism is half-baked logic too, as the possibility of a deity can never be proven or disproven, making everyone agnostic by default.

Is that where you're going with this?

[Dreamline]

As Daffy said, there's no sitting on the fence here. You're not saying, "I can't decide either way." You're saying, "My decision is that it's impossible to prove either way" which is absolutely right ("imo", at least).

That works if you base your conceptions on proof. But the thing about proof is that if you wait X number of years, some of those things we took as solid have a way of getting disproved as we evolve and learn more and get more information. So I have learned that proof often doesn't mean ****. No offense.

Jennifer

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

But the thing about proof is that if you wait X number of years, some of those things we took as solid have a way of getting disproved as we evolve and learn more and get more information.

Has that been proven?

Anyway, I know what you mean, and your statement (to me) helps the argument for Agnostics. If you can't be sure of anything, even things that are proven, then why choose to be a theist or atheist (if proof is the main concern)?

[Lawliet]

Yep. The point here is that when deciding their beliefs, the atheists in question choose atheism based on logic... when surely the truly logical conclusion is that it's impossible to know either way and so the logical stance would be agnosticism? Rather than taking either side.

If you want to be "practical" and decide that the chances are slim there's no deities and then choose atheism as a result, that's fine... but that's not founded on sound logic.

[Dreamline]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Has that been proven?

Anyway, I know what you mean, and your statement (to me) helps the argument for Agnostics. If you can't be sure of anything, even things that are proven, then why choose to be a theist or atheist (if proof is the main concern)?

Because, it can be said that at the time of the decision, I had enough information to make that decision easily. So in my judgement, there was no God. No need for me to wonder or ponder. See? It has little to do with proof. It has to do with one's perception of the given issue and whether one can make that decision or feels the need to remain wishy washy. Fence sitter. Bet hedger.

If more information then becomes available, or the perception of the person changes, then the decision can be changed.

One is not better or worse than the other, make no mistake. I am not arguing that. I'm simply supporting my statement with regard to my own beliefs.

Jennifer

[Daffy Duck]

Richard Dawkins explained the Atheist perspective well in his book, The God Delusion. To him, being an Atheist means knowing that you can't know for sure whether a God exists or not, but also knowing that you believe it's so improbable that you can declare yourself an Atheist with 99.999% certainty.

For example, no one argues whether or not there is a magical teapot floating around the moon. We just don't believe in such a thing and don't argue about it, even though it is technically possible that a magical teapot exists.

So technically, an Atheist is an Agnostic who has a very strong leaning towards the "God does not exist" belief. An Agnostic, then, would be someone who is caught somewhere in the middle between belief and non-belief, or someone who just doesn't care.

[KazeCraven]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Richard Dawkins explained the Atheist perspective well in his book, The God Delusion. To him, being an Atheist means knowing that you can't know for sure whether a God exists or not, but also knowing that you believe it's so improbable that you can declare yourself an Atheist with 99.999% certainty.

For example, no one argues whether or not there is a magical teapot floating around the moon. We just don't believe in such a thing and don't argue about it, even though it is technically possible that a magical teapot exists.

So technically, an Atheist is an Agnostic who has a very strong leaning towards the "God does not exist" belief. An Agnostic, then, would be someone who is caught somewhere in the middle between belief and non-belief, or someone who just doesn't care.

I think I understand now why my atheist friend always brings up the flying spaghetti monster whenever someone starts talking about religion.

[TaylorLord]

In life I find it effective to believe the things that works for you in your life. If being an atheist is fulfilling you then stick with it. No one can alter your beliefs toward one way or another its something you have to feel on your own. You have to experience one thing or another to decide what you believe. I personally believe that there is a god, this belief works wonderful in my life.

[Dreamline]

I think this argument is becoming circular. If belief in God requires faith and there is no proof whatsoever that God exists, then atheists are not agnostics. They are simply happy with the facts, as presented. No proof= no God. Saying you can't know if God exists or not does not change the fact that there is no proof of such. Therefore it is possible for an atheist to be 100% certain that God doesn't exist. Sorry Dawkins.

Now turning that around and saying they are agnostics because there is no proof God doesn't exist is a Burden of Proof argument and not possible to settle. You can't prove something doesn't exist.

Jennifer