posted
Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.
This amuses me highly, since I've defended agnosticism in just about every thread that's ever mentioned the term on this forum. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was recently telling Pat that God's attempts to bring me closer to Him were only succeeding in pushing me further from man. Pat, if you're lurking, feel free to email me.
posted
Okay, I have had just about enough of multiple pages of people debating whether people who call themselves agnostics or atheists really are what they claim to be. So...
Dictionary.com:
a·the·ist One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2.One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun : one who believes that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
On either definition, of both words, there is an accepted definition which covers what people classify themselves as. You may reference a "true" meaning, perhaps something your philosophy teacher taught you, but both meanings appear to be equally valid.
So...
I either consider myself atheist or agnostic, depending on how convinced I am of the non-existance of God.
If I consider myself an athiest, by the definition offered on both sites, that just means that I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. It implies nothing about whether I believe its POSSIBLE to KNOW whether God exists. So PLEASE do not turn every thread mentioning atheists or agnostics into arguments as to what the words mean. Especially, please don't say that I am too stupid to know what the term I apply to myself means. In return, I won't tell you to go to Hell (which I may or may not believe we can know exists ).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap, I think you're making the decision that you know things you don't. While you can't tell me one way or the other if I'm right about being an agnostic, I can certainly tell you that you're wrong about me. What's that they say about assumptions....?
I haven't said anything about you, so what is it about you that I'm wrong about?
What I'm talking about is agnosticism, and agnostics in a generalized fashion (recognizing that there are exceptions to what most agnostics normally do).
I can't tell you for sure whether you are an agnostic or not, but if you tell me what you believe, I can tell you what I think that should make you, by my best logic.
quote:So. What was I, in the Xaposert Dictionary? And is there a picture?
Atheist, I'd say. Everything you've mentioned sounds consistent with the view that God doesn't exist, and many of the beliefs are somewhat contingent on that belief. For instance, I think it's pretty tough to say it is likely there's no afterlife or soul, unless God also does not exist.
You do say "it seems illogical and silly in the extreme to embrace atheism because that's as much a leap of faith as theism" but I would just answer that I think you are wrong about that - that you MUST take such leaps of faith. I think it's something that happens involuntarily whether you like it or not, much like those leaps collapse involuntarily once you see they are wrong (as you might have with Santa, for instance). If the facts suggest, even incompletely, that God likely doesn't exist, you need to take that leap of faith. That doesn't mean you need to go around confident that there's no way you could be wrong - which you don't (and neither does your average atheist, despite certain more extreme sorts).
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out how to get into this without being accused of "not reading the whole thread."
Well, I just read the whole thread (I skimmed a bit) and there are so many topics to respond to I don't know where to start.
I guess this definition of agnostic and atheist is the most recent, so I'll start there.
We need good definitions. And we need definitions that are free of baggage. When a theist defines an atheist as someone who "denies the existence of God" he is assuming that there is a God to deny the existence of. That's a bad place to start.
And that's a problem all through this thread. The whole section of whether god is good or evil, for example; this is an argument between theists (who believe) and atheists (who don't believe). Yet sometimes the people who say they don't believe say they are not atheists, they are agnostics. That confuses the issue, so I'll ignore them, and call them atheists. Sorry, but I need a simple dichotomy in order to straighten things out: Theists believe, atheists don't believe.
It's important to have a word with a simple definition, for logical reasons. Literally. IF you believe in God, THEN you are a theist. IF you don't believe in God, THEN you are an atheist. Period.
That's a definition we can work with, whether we like it or not.
I have always been a proponent of Pascal's wager, as a logical starting point (This despite my being an atheist, you'll see why). Pascal starts with a tautology: Either God exists, or God does not exist.
This is important, because it gives equal weight to the opinions of both parties. If a theist argues that the definition of good is that goodness is to love and obey God, he is assuming the existence of God. This argument, of course, has no validity to an atheist, since there is no God to be obedient to.
Using Pascal's tautology, we have an "or" statement. Therefore, we must argue by cases.
Question: Is God good or evil?
By Tautology, there is a God, or there is no God.
Case 1: Let there be a God.
Since God exists, then by the definition of God, goodness is God's creation, and therefore goodness is defined by God. God defines himself as good, so God is good. QED
Case 2: Let there be no God.
So God is neither good nor evil.
Like it or not, folks, that's as close as you're going to get.
What's really going on in the argument about whether God is good or evil, is that since atheists are operating under the assumptions that there is no God, then good (or morality) is a human concept, and God is also a human concept. The question is whether the two are compatible with one another.
But this time we are arguing under the assumption that there is no God, so we aren't burdened by possibilies that we have imperfect knowledge of God or God's plan. Instead, we can simply compare the descriptions of God's behavior, as described in the Bible, to definitions of goodness, also described in the Bible. So here it's pretty easy to conclude that God is evil, but it really doesn't make any difference, since he doesn't exist in the first place.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a flaw in your argument; you assume that God is defined as good. Christians define their God thus; Hindus, to choose just one example, do not. Pascal's tautology needs a bit of tightening : Either God exists and is as we imagine him, or he isn't. Note that the latter case has two possibilities : Exists, bit is not as we imagine him, or doesn't exist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, you responded in a post directly under my first post. Perhaps your post wasn't directed at me, but seeing as it was directly under mine I pretty much figured it was.
posted
I assumed that god is defined as the creator. Therefore, he defined good in the act of creation.
Your point, of course, is that the basic dichotomy of Pascal's wager is invalid, and I'm not questioning that. I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't make any sense to argue with one set of assumptions when you actually assume the other. If you remember the tautology each time you begin an argument with a theist, it helps avoid that.
More often than not, theists will not allow the assumption that God does not exist to be used in an argument, and since atheists are used to the dominance of theism, we let them. We actually get really good at arguing from a position other than our own, but in reality it undermines our position.
That is, it's better simply to maintain that theistic arguments are invalid to an atheist.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Just as atheistic arguments about the nature of God's morality are invalid to a theist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Since God exists, then by the definition of God, goodness is God's creation, and therefore goodness is defined by God. God defines himself as good, so God is good. QED
Actually. as a believer, I have a problem with this statement. You see, I believe that Good exists independant of God and that God chooses to be Good. I don't know if this POV is unique to LDS or not. I have no clue.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oookay... I read that as "God exists independent of God" the first time around. Clearly I need to start getting more sleep.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It. Is it not possible that God created the material universe and 'lets' us make our own decisions in the present? Are there no Deists or proto-deists left in the world? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
experience has left me doubt and now they're after me cause everybody's living in a digital world, and i am not a digital girl.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It.
Well, Beverly has presented a theology where that's not the case.
From my perspective, the definition of morality is entirely intertwined with God's will. In other words, without God, it would make no sense to speak of right and wrong.
But ultimately, from my perspective, everything that exists does so only because of God. So it makes no sense to speak of the world without God.
quote: I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It.
I don't either. After all, I'm an atheist.
As King of Men points out, I'm only arguing the theist position of the basis of one *possible* god. Maybe I misread the arguments in earlier pages of in this thread, but the assumptions I used in this argument are those used by Dagonee, or at least my closest approximation of them.
Perhaps Dagonee can clear that part up. But I think the points remain valid:
1. We need a clear definition distinguishing atheist from theist.
2. If we agree to argue fairly, we must include both possible cases, regardless which God we are arguing about, and not argue about that God's characteristics from the opposing set of assumptions.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Everything you've mentioned sounds consistent with the view that God doesn't exist...
Except for the part where I said I don't believe in the nonexistence of God, yes.
...and many of the beliefs are somewhat contingent on that belief. For instance, I think it's pretty tough to say it is likely there's no afterlife or soul, unless God also does not exist.
Actually it was pretty easy. That's the cool thing about being agnostic, it opens up so many possibilities, so many other things not to believe in
One doesn't imply the other. We might have been created by a god or gods but still die a final death when we go. A god might have started the act of creation and then sat back and watched us evolve, or left us to develop while he/she/they went somewhere else to do it again. It's possible that what/whoever started us has since died. Maybe only those saved by God have an afterlife, and the others just end. Maybe God, having never died himself, has no more idea of what happens next than we do. Then there's that reincarnation thing...
It's possible that god is a higher but still fallible being. It's possible that god is a member of a pantheon (or race) of other beings. It's possible that the earth itself developed a consciousness that directs evolution towards preferred directions. It's possible that other races had something to do with it. It's possible that what we'd consider God discovered us after we'd already been created and decided to take credit. It's possible that we are all animals in god's eyes, on the same level as the other creatures, but we tell each other stories about our chosen status and happy afterlife. It's possible that someone from the future came back and kicked off the Big Bang. It's possible that gods are created from our beliefs, instead of the other way around, and that as we lose those beliefs the gods fade and die, or change into new gods to match our needs. It's possible that the world and everything in it came into existence in 1965, complete with history books and fake memories, and it'll pop out of existence when I die. It's possible that our creator was evil, or self-centered, or otherwise unadmirable, and that we have set goals higher for ourselves than our creator could reach (like the child of an abusive parent becoming a good and honorable adult). It's possible that God is beauty, perfection, and benevolence, but that the belief in an afterlife came from humans frightened of their own nonexistence who told stories of heaven to each other for comfort and guidance. It's possible that there is no god of any kind, but that ancient religious leaders discovered the ultimate carrot-and-stick method of crowd control.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to shove me into either Christian theism or anti-Christian atheism. It makes me seem limited and unimaginative.
[ December 01, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only position I've really espoused in this thread is that it is unreasonable to judge the morality of God as depicted in the Bible based on half the story.
quote:Xap, you responded in a post directly under my first post. Perhaps your post wasn't directed at me, but seeing as it was directly under mine I pretty much figured it was.
My bad. You are right. I did say you make religious decisions (entailing a position on the existence of God.) I don't think this is overstepping my knowledge because that is something that everyone must do in life, when confronted with the possibility of religion. When you come to a decision like "pray or don't pray" you have to choose one or the other, and even just taking one or the other as a "default" for when you can't decide is still choosing a position. The only way you'd avoid having to make these decisions is to have never been confronted with the idea of religion at all - and just by the virtue of being in this thread, you are definitely not in that category.
quote:"Everything you've mentioned sounds consistent with the view that God doesn't exist..."
Except for the part where I said I don't believe in the nonexistence of God, yes.
Well, you did say that, but your other statements seem to fairly consistently suggest otherwise.
It's like if I say I have no opinion one way or another on the likely tastiness of hot dogs (it'd be a leap of faith to predict hot dogs will taste good), but then I go around eating hot dogs all the time. If I do that, what you should probably say is that I'm mistaken - I really do think hot dogs are good, and really do take that leap of faith.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you did say that, but your other statements seem to fairly consistently suggest otherwise.
Only in a Christian God or no Christian God situation. In any of the other possibilities I posted -- and I can posit more if you like -- many combinations of beliefs are possible. What if I believe in an afterlife but not a God? I could probably dig up more empirical evidence of ghostly activity than I could of God's doings, but belief in ghosts is not a Christian tenet. Your definitions (and, worse, those of Glenn) allow only for an either/or situation and I flatly refuse to play.
It's like if I say I have no opinion one way or another on the likely tastiness of hot dogs (it'd be a leap of faith to predict hot dogs will taste good), but then I go around eating hot dogs all the time. If I do that, what you should probably say is that I'm mistaken - I really do think hot dogs are good, and really do take that leap of faith.
Wrong direction. In my case, I go around not eating hot dogs, recognizing that some like them, some don't, and neither opinion makes a difference to me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that means we should conclude you don't like hot dogs.
And yes, there are many possibilities in regards to religious issues - but most of these are atheist views, in that they aren't consistent with God (capital G) existing and creating the universe. But if God does exist, and you think things like souls and afterlives don't, a lot of questions arise. Firstly, you'd have to say virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply lying about that stuff. Secondly, you'd have to allow that God isn't telling us the truth for some reason. Thirdly, there'd have to be some reason why you make the leap of faith in thinking you probably don't have a soul or afterlife, and most of the reasons for that that I can think of would also suggest God doesn't exist.
Yes, it is possible you have answers for all of these that you believe (in which case, you'd be a theist), but I'm inclined to think it's much more likely you don't. That's a judgement call, not something I can know for certain, but you did ask me where I'd put you based on the evidence you gave me about you, and my best guess based on that is still atheist.
But the fact that you allow for all those possibilities does not mean you are agnostic. I allow for all those same possibilities just as much, and I'm a Christian theist - because there is one particular possibility that I believe above the others (it has slightly more evidence in its favor), and use to guide my choices.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that means we should conclude you don't like hot dogs.
Why? Just because I have no interest in them? There's a difference between disinterest and dislike.
And yes, there are many possibilities in regards to religious issues - but most of these are atheist views, in that they aren't consistent with God (capital G) existing and creating the universe.
Atheism = disbelief in one specific form of God/creation myth? Really? Are all members of non-JudeoChristian religions atheists as well? 'Cause if so then my definition and your definition aren't even in the same ballpark.
But if God does exist, and you think things like souls and afterlives don't, a lot of questions arise.
True enough. But, to be precise, we're not arguing about the existence of God. We're (or at least I'm) arguing about my belief in the existence of God.
Firstly, you'd have to say virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply lying about that stuff.
No I wouldn't. Perhaps virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply incorrect. Or victims of wishful thinking. Or they received deific communications but misunderstood the meaning. Or they experienced immanence and deduced the existence of an afterlife, assuming that the presence of a perfect god would not allow permanent death. Or maybe they were simply reporting the news as they heard it, but God was lying, which brings us to...
Secondly, you'd have to allow that God isn't telling us the truth for some reason.
Again, I don't have to allow that at all. Perhaps God imparted whatever truth he deemed necessary and humans extrapolated from that. Perhaps God exists and created the world but has never once communicated with any of his creations. Or perhaps God is telling us what he thinks we need to hear, the way parents filter what they tell their children depending on the children's comprehension.
Thirdly, there'd have to be some reason why you make the leap of faith in thinking you probably don't have a soul or afterlife, and most of the reasons for that that I can think of would also suggest God doesn't exist.
Actually in my case it would be closer to suggest that the main reason I made that leap (and I freely admit it is a leap of faith, as much as any other) is that I have yet to hear of or experience a God I want to exist, a God I can respect. Make of that what you will. Doesn't mean there isn't one.
But the fact that you allow for all those possibilities does not mean you are agnostic. I allow for all those same possibilities just as much, and I'm a Christian theist - because there is one particular possibility that I believe above the others (it has slightly more evidence in its favor), and use to guide my choices.
But there isn't one I favor over another, and I don't use any of them to guide my choices. That's kinda been my point.
Yes, it is possible you have answers for all of these that you believe (in which case, you'd be a theist), but I'm inclined to think it's much more likely you don't.
There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there? While we're trying ineffective anaologies, try this one:
I don't follow sports. Not at all. Don't care. Not interested. You're telling me I have to prefer either the Miami Dolphins or the New England Patriots.
"But I don't care."
"You're probably a Dolphins fan, then. You live in Florida."
"No, I don't follow either one."
"You don't like the Dolphins?"
"I don't care."
"Ah, then you're a Patriots guy."
There are other possibilities than just the two you espouse. Honest.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sorry, but I need a simple dichotomy in order to straighten things out."
As Chris has pointed out, this kind of oversimplification does not in fact straighten out anything.
As a side note, Glenn, you seem to be saying that it is impossible for any concepts to exist independently of their creator, or for anything created to surpass its creator. While central to Dag's definition of God is "a God that includes and encompasses everything in the universe, meaning that no concepts -- including evil -- make any sense without the inclusion of God," I would argue that it's perfectly possible even for strongly religious people (like bev and almost all Mormons, in fact) to operate under a different definition that does in fact allow for the possibility of attributes not possessed by God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there?
Chris, I haven't said anything to indicate that. As I said, yes it's possible you are something other than atheist, but based on what you've said already, my best guess is atheist. You could be a Hindu or a Zeusist or an unorthodox Christian or something totally different, but based on your explanation I still suspect atheist is most likely.
Now... what is the point of asking me to estimate your beliefs? I obviously will not be able to tell you for sure. But that says a lot more about my inability to see inside your head than it does about whether or not you actually do have beliefs one way or another about the existence of God.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While central to Dag's definition of God is "a God that includes and encompasses everything in the universe, meaning that no concepts -- including evil -- make any sense without the inclusion of God," I would argue that it's perfectly possible even for strongly religious people (like bev and almost all Mormons, in fact) to operate under a different definition that does in fact allow for the possibility of attributes not possessed by God.
Of course. But that's NOT the concept of God I was discussing, nor was it the one being refuted in the essay which opened this thread.
posted
There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there?
Chris, I haven't said anything to indicate that.
You've said very little otherwise. Every agnostic statement I've made you've tried to push into the theist or atheist sides, giving me things I "must" assume or "have to" believe for such statements to be acceptable to you. Your assumption that belief in a god must include belief in an afterlife, for example, betrays a bias that I simply don't have.
Now... what is the point of asking me to estimate your beliefs? I obviously will not be able to tell you for sure. But that says a lot more about my inability to see inside your head than it does about whether or not you actually do have beliefs one way or another about the existence of God.
Because you challenged me. I quote:
Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.
I'm defending my beliefs. At some length. Having chosen my sgnosticism after a great deal of introspection, hearing you tell me I'm just a weak theist or an atheist who can't commit brings out the typist in me.
Had you said "some agnostics" or even "most agnostics" I might agree with you, or at least admit the possibility. For all I know I might be the sole agnostic that doesn't fit on your either/or scale, but I know where I stand and why I chose it, and I'm more than happy to defend it.
Agnosticism is -- or can be -- just as strong and principled a position as theism or atheism.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I think at some point you have to decide. Not on the existance or possible existance of a supernatural being, but as to whether your opponent here is incapable of understanding you or just ****ing with you. In either instance, is it worth the fight?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not because I expect to convince Xaposert, ever, of anything, but because others read these things besides the two of us and they might be influenced.
Besides, someday I'll pull all my lengthy forum diatribes together and publish a book, and I might as well start drafting it now...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
And really, I'm just trying to build a humorous analogy to his 2-sided arguement.
I mean, everything he says leads me to believe that he just cannot understand, even if he says neither of my conclusions match his mindset, I'm still going to shoehorn him into one or the other. As if anything he says matters! Clearly, there are only two options.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fact that I can't guess your beliefs for sure illustrates anything about agnosticism though. That just illustrates that there are lots of possible beliefs, and I can't see into your head to figure out exactly which one is the cause of your actions.
And I did admit that agnostics were only "for the most part, although not always" what I was talking about in that quote you gave. It would be possible for someone to actually neither believe in the existence of any gods nor believe in the nonexistence of gods.
However, I think that belief system is a big mistake - so big, in fact, that I think virtually all people almost automatically come to a belief one way or another, whether they realize it or not. The mistake is this: There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.) Thus, there is no issue or question for which believing the answer you deem best would be better than believing no answer. I think this is something most people don't even think about - it's just something people do.
If someone truly did not act in that manner, and simply accepted no belief for a given question, I think their choices would reflect it, in a very negative way. If it were a noncritical issue, like whether Miami is a good football team, then it might not matter so much. But on more important issues, like religion, no deciding one way or another entails making random decisions on those issues - and could be costly. (And religious issues are important, even to the most agnostic or atheist person, because if God or gods DID exist THEN it would be critical for them to act in a certain fashion. If someone claims apathy, it probably means they actively believe all the beliefs about a meaningful God or gods that greatly influence or life or after life are false, because that is the only way such apathy would make sense.)
If someone REALLY were to do that, they'd just be blowing in the wind. When it comes to religious issues, their choices would either be random or determined by whereever the "wind" happens to push them - wind being other factors, like what is popular, what is easier, etc.
I haven't yet met an agnostic who acts in such a random fashion on issues of religion, that it would suggest they carry no beliefs on the matter one way at all. You, by all appearances to me (which are limited), seem to act in a way that is much more consistent with a belief in the nonexistence of God than it is consistent with someone who'd be blowing in the wind when it comes to questions where the right answer depends largely on religious questions. Instead it seems more like you've chosen a default which you believe until evidence comes in towards something else. I can't say for sure what that default is, but I still think it must be something.
quote:Not because I expect to convince Xaposert, ever, of anything, but because others read these things besides the two of us and they might be influenced.
Incidently, it is not so hard to convince me of something - it has been done many times before. Even what I'm saying now is something I've been convinced to believe, sort of.
However, I think it is far less likely anyone is going to be convinced to change religious views or any other significant view IMMEDIATELY. I generally assume that if I am right and get my point across clearly, the facts will eventually convince someone over time. And if I'm wrong, I don't want to convince them anyway.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in order to prove my agnosticism, I would have to make random decisions? My experience has given me nothing to judge the existance or nonexistance of God. Or to even judge if it is possible to make this decision. That doesn't mean that I am incapable of drawing from exerience in making decisions.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say for sure what that default is, but I still think it must be something.
It is. It's agnoticism.
I would be an atheist except that the single defining aspect of atheism, as I understand it, requires a leap of faith I see no reason to take. A leap of faith that, to me, is even less defensible than theistic belief.
I choose to live as though there is no afterlife, although I don't discount the possibility. Therefore, to me, the existence of God is not such a perilous decision as you make it out since my decisions are all based on their effects during my lifetime and don't require consideration of my eternal anything. I don't assume that belief in God and a belief in an afterlife are synonymous.
I do not believe there is no God. I do choose to live with the assumption that there isn't one that has any obvious relevance to me. Not the same thing. And "atheism," as I've always defined it and heard it defined, requires the active disbelief in a god.
Where I take issue is the assumption that my decisions are random or based on convenience. Is it so impossible to conceive of a self-constructed ethical framework?
[ December 02, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, I think it is far less likely anyone is going to be convinced to change religious views or any other significant view IMMEDIATELY.
I should point out that I have no interest in convincing anyone to change ther beliefs. I'm just trying to make the case that my own chosen belief is a valid one and not merely a weak version of someone else's belief. Doesn't bother me if you feel it's a major mistake, as long as you don't dismiss it out of hand as poorly defined or casually chosen.
[ December 02, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.)
Is this really possible? Is belief so subject to whim of desire? Is it a light switch for you? Could you flip it to athiest by just deciding to?
quote:So in order to prove my agnosticism, I would have to make random decisions?
You don't have to prove anything to anyone, except maybe yourself if you ask it of yourself.
quote:I do not believe there is no God. I do choose to live with the assumption that there isn't one that has any obvious relevance to me. Not the same thing. And "atheism," as I've always defined it and heard it defined, requires the active disbelief in a god.
So you believe there is either no god or a god that is not relevant to you? You could probably call that agnosticism and live with that degree of nonbelief, although it does still entail the sort of leap of faith that you are hesitant to make - faith that a god that IS relevant to you doesn't exist.
quote:Is this really possible? Is belief so subject to whim of desire? Is it a light switch for you? Could you flip it to athiest by just deciding to?
Well, that is a good point, but I'm not suggesting people choose their beliefs that way. I think it is more automatic - but I think you automatically believe one way or another, rather than not in any option. When confronted with two or more possibilities, one switch automatically comes on. This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpower.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
twinky![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
