I think this is a topic that can unite atheists and theists. What is up with agnostics?
When you come down to it, there is almost nothing more important in life than the question of “is there a god”, and “if there is a god, what is it like”? After all, if there’s a god there might be a heaven and hell - and ANY measure of utility says that an infinitely long infinitely good life rules, and an infinitely long infinitely bad life sucks. If there is a god, he might send you to hell because you don’t believe in him, and so you need to understand god in order to have an eternity of bliss.
So who in their right mind would say “hmm, I don’t know if god exists or not. I’ll just go on about my life until I figure it out later.” HELL no! You say “holy crap, this is a really important question, and I need to sit down and think about it NOW!”
Agnosticism seems like a very reasonable “transition” position. But it doesn’t seem like anyone should stay in that position for long. In fact, the most likely way that someone would remain agnostic for a long period of time (e.g. more than a year) would be if that person really didn’t believe in god, but was too scared of death / too scared of social rejection / too much of a pussy to admit it.
I was an agnostic for a few months. But during those months I was actively thinking about the whole “god” issue. The issue is actually pretty cut-and-dry if you sit down and think about it objectively. Thus, I transitioned quickly and easily into full-blown atheism. Anyone who has been agnostic for any extended period of time should consider growing a pair and doing the same.
I always described myself as an atheist, but for the last few months I’ve been calling myself an agnostic. The way I see it, an atheist is someone who believes there’s no god, just as a theist is someone who believes the opposite. My opinion is that it’s very unlikely that there’s a god, but I’m not sure enough to “go the whole hog” and be an atheist. A problem with calling oneself an agnostic, of course, is that people think you’re a hippie who wanders around the middle ground.
I’ve seen the terms “weak”- and “strong atheism”, and think that strictly speaking I’m a “WA”, but I hate to call myself something with “weak” in the title, particularly as I’m a “strong AI” man.
Are you absolutely certain there’s no god, twiffy?
I think Dawkins brings up a good point on this argument…an atheist believes there is no God in the same vain they believe there is no teapot orbiting the sun…I don’t think you’d consider yourself a teapot agnostic.
Agnostic implies there is a 50/50 chance of existence…unless you think there is a 50/50 chance of God existing, you’d technically be atheist anyways.
Opposing sides teaming up to denounce the middle ground? LOL! Since when did the universe have to be so black and white?
I was interested in what reasoning you had to posit a basis that Agnostics were “pussies,” but once I read that (in bold), I came to the assumption that you really don’t understand Agnosticism at all.
Are you really under the assumption that if a person calls him/herself Agnostic, that means that they’re struggling with the concept of Christianity only? Have you never thought that as an Agnostic, which is not really a belief system but more of a method of thought, that I would consider the possibility that the Norse gods are more likely to exist than the Hebrew one? Must it always be about Christianity?
Actually, the concept of going on about my life until I figure it out later is not far from the method… the idea is to accumulate knowledge until the answer is eventually found. Certainly you or any other human being on this planet cannot truly grasp the mysteries of quantum physics, yes? Would you then say that humanity is just going to have to go on with its existence until it figures it out later when we have either obtained the knowledge or the tools to obtain the knowledge that will allow us to understand the answer?
Wow Twiffy, that’s a bold assumption… considering the lack of evidence to back it up. If you’re still concerned about the Christian concept of “god,” I would have to say I’m more Atheistic about that concept than most other concepts… I wouldn’t say I’m scared of death, but if I did die somehow, I’d think that’d be a bitch since I’ve not really accomplished much for the world, so my motivation to not die is fueled by my desire to make something of myself and contribute to society; that is not fear.
Social rejection is not an issue, although the obvious fact that one WILL be socially rejected within a religious family; if one is some how a dependent of that family, performing an action such as informing them that you don’t believe what they believe may result in a loss of “support” and force the individual (if unprepared for the real world) to seek other methods of dependence.
Of course, I could make the argument that everyone is a pussy at something or other…
So, what “issue” about “god” were you thinking about? I’m asking that question under the assumption that you were really only concerned with the Christian concept of “god.” Did you never have or come across other conceptions of “god” that had no connection with Judaism whatsoever?
You say you went from agnostic to atheiest by “sitting down and thinking about it objectively”. Any chance you might have missed the possibility that the question and all of the possible answers are subjective? Some might argue that it the theist and atheist who hasn’t thought through the issue, and that the agnostic conclusion that one may not know with any degree of certainty is perhaps the more thoughtful conclusion.
I think people who believe in god are just not all there. I’m talking about a god who interacts with us. This idea has to be the stupidest thing ever thought of, but very smart of the Jews to control your dumb ass. This isn’t even worth discussing a futher.
* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
I call myself an agnostic-atheist. I don’t believe there is a God, I don’t act as if there is a God, but I admit that there is a possibility, hence the ‘agnostic’ part.
Can you prove there is no God? Can you prove that there is a God? Our knowledge is too limited to really know this, and it has only been in recent years that we have realized how little we do know.
While it’s true that we have realized how little we know, all of what we have discovered thus far doesn’t point to God. We shouldn’t even give the claim of the possibility credence.
Someone who thinks there is a 50/50 chance is a fool… how can someone seriously claim a probability of existence, truly believing they have managed to take everything into account?
It’s not a matter of semantics… athiests say there is no God… agnostics say they don’t know.
Twiffy, some agnostics may be “pussies” just as some theists and athiests may be. I tend to think you’re one, because you couldn’t handle not being set on the decision. You had to decide one way or another in order to live comfortably.
Maybe some agnostics just stop thinking about it… but I know you only make that generalization because you were one for a few months until making a solid decision. Some agnostics may investigate the issue to the point they feel like they just can’t know for sure.
On 15Dec06 Twiffy wrote: [snip] What is up with agnostics? When you come down
to it, there is almost nothing more important in life than the question of “is there a
god” [snip] So who in their right mind would say “hmm, I don’t know if god exists
or not. I’ll just go on about my life until I figure it out later.” HELL no! You say
“holy crap, this is a really important question, and I need to sit down and think
about it NOW!”
.
tx say: haha, thx twiffy, you really made my day with that post. One good laugh a day
keeps the blues at bay, I always say. Anyway, and seriously now, I’m almost certain
that the God-question is nowhere near as important as you obviously think it is.
Indeed, there are many questions that are far more important, far more relevant
to life on Earth in the 21st century, and far more urgent than that. 4X: Questions of
freedom and liberty. Questions about the rise of fascism and religious intolerance.
Questions about the morality and righteousness of the war on drugs. All these
questions, and many more, require our attention far more than the pointless and
abstract debate over the existence of God.
.
Agnosticism seems like a very reasonable “transition” position. But it doesn’t seem
like anyone should stay in that position for long. In fact, the most likely way that
someone would remain agnostic for a long period of time (e.g. more than a year)
would be if that person really didn’t believe in god, but was too scared of death /
too scared of social rejection / too much of a pussy to admit it.
.
Actually, agnosticism is a very reasonable position, period. In fact, it is the only
reasonable position. The one thing that atheists and theists have in common is that
they are both equally unreasonable. Anyone who claims certainty regarding this
question has long since left the promised land of reason and sensibility and entered
the fickle and shifting shores of faith.
.
I was an agnostic for a few months. But during those months I was actively
thinking about the whole “god” issue. The issue is actually pretty cut-and-dry
if you sit down and think about it objectively. Thus, I transitioned quickly and
easily into full-blown atheism.
.
You are fooling yourself. There is no more evidence to support atheism than there is
for theism. Actually, over the course of my life and studies I have found myself in all
three positions. Moreover, I have found the transition from one position to another to
be rather simple and painless. This is not because of any lack of care or enthusiasm,
but rather because the “god issue”, as you put it, is really not something worth
getting all that excited about.
.
Anyone who has been agnostic for any extended period of time should
consider growing a pair and doing the same.
.
“growing a pair” has nothing to do with it, twiffy. Philosophical maturity means
coming to have a deeper and richer understanding of Reason (and Philosophy) and
the role it should play in our lives, both individually and collectively. It also means
coming to have a stronger respect for logic and rational thinking in all aspects of
our lives. Your belief in the importance of the god-question is really nothing more
than an unjustified value-judgment based on your need to be self-decisive. Wisdom
demands that you re-think the entire structure of your ideas and beliefs so as to
weed out all the shortcomings, faults, and weaknesses.
.
Begin at the beginning: . . . i am … therefore i think.
Agnostic outlooks has never been 50-50 for anyone. everyones percentages differ.
Agnostic are not neccessarily middle ground either, since there is more than just theists and athiests, there are many more current defintions of looking at our little universe.
Agnostic is not saying, I don’t belive anything, it is saying, I am not going to pretend to know questions so vast that you can hardly know what to ask without being one dimentional.
We all have different percentages of outlooks, but there are some people who really “believe,” and those are the folks who seem to be like 95% athiest or theist. (another note, both camps often claim that there is valid scientific research to proove their claim. However, science is not concerned with such claims, except psudo science who are out to proove something . . . god issues is the ground of philosophy more than science, though there is overlap in everything.) But unless you fully believe something, regardless of shifting research and logic, you are probably in my definition an agnostic.
I have meet many theists who are religious more because they think it makes their life good than actually really believing, it could be said that these folks are actually agnostic, but prefer the term theist.
I agree that this is a problem with semantics, not anyone being a pussy.
How you look at the world steems from your upbringing, your influences, maybe biology a bit, and your needs and such. Being an agnostic, athiest or theist does not make anyone an automatic pussy. But saying such, makes you a little bit of a dick. Name calling a large group of people is not philosophy.
Wow, a lot of responses during the time it took me to fly from Seattle to Tampa!
Ok, here goes. I’ll try to cover all good points, but since there was a lot of repetition, I’ll lump some stuff together. If I don’t cover your point, it may be because I don’t think it’s worth responding to, or it may be because it’s late and I’m tired, so if you think it’s important, post again with it.
You guys are all coming from the exact same position, and that position is that atheism = 100% certainty that god doesn’t exist, theism = 100% certainty that god exists, and agnosticism = everything else, most notably including Reasonable Doubt.
According to these redefinitions, I agree with all of you - agnosticism is the only reasonable stance, and the others are ludicrous.
BUT, I think that all of your positions are USELESS. I don’t mean wrong per se, since we only differ in the definitions we’re using and not in our conclusions, and since definitions can’t BE wrong. I mean that the definitions you are using are impractical, whereas the ones I am using are practical.
Here’s what I mean. Let’s go back to what DorkyDood said, about Dawkins’ comment about Santa. This is the perfect example. None of us believe in Santa. If someone on the street approached us and said “do you believe in Santa?”, our response would be “no.” It would NOT be “well, I can’t be certain one way or another” - that’s an entirely different issue. If someone asked “can you PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist”, or “can you be 100% certain that Santa doesn’t exist”, being a rational person, you’d say, no, of course not. There is always the possibility, however faint, that Santa really DOES exist - but it’s so unlikely that it’s ridiculous to really use that fact to label yourself a Santa-agnostic.
The crux of the matter, of why your definitions are bad, is this. In common usage, “belief” is absolutely a different matter from “certainty”. People believe things all the time and end up being wrong. Belief is the EXPECTATION that something is true - it doesn’t have to be 100%. Certainty is that 100% level - certainty is an extreme level of belief.
Atheism, theism, and agnosticism all refer to BELIEF, not to certainty. If I say I am agnostic, I am saying that I BELIEVE there is no god - not that I believe with 100% certainty that there is no god. Under this definition - the only definition that makes sense with the common usage of the word “believe” - agnostics are people WITHOUT BELIEF. They aren’t leaning one way or another, because to lean one way is to believe, even if it’s only a weak belief. To be agnostic really means to be entirely undecided, with no leaning to speak of.
Under this definition, all of you who said “the idea of god seems improbable, but I’m agnostic” would be considered atheists.
So, just to reiterate, you guys should really be careful to use definitions that are consistent with how the same word is applied to other situations. Only with the “God” issue do we see people implying that belief and certainty are the same thing - which, of course, is ridiculous.
Sagesound:
None of my post, and also none of my personal reflection as an agnostic, was in any way focused on or limited to Christianity. When I gave examples of how “whether or not God exists” was an extremely important question, I used concepts of god that are very strong in both Christianity and Islam, but never even mentioned those religions by name, and certainly never even implied that those were the only relevant considerations.
I was speaking of the difference between actively seeking for knowledge, and between passively letting the issue go without at all pursuing a solution in any form. Since the entire structure of How You Should Live Your Life may depend upon it, it seems irrational, or self-destructive, to do the latter. If you are TRULY undecided on whether or not god exists, it seems the former is the only plausible path to take.
(The reason that you have people who really are agnostic but who act more according to the latter is because they think they already know what god would be like if there WERE a god. They don’t know if god exists, but they DO (somehow) know that if god did exist, god wouldn’t send him to hell for disbelief. Of course, these people are thinking emotionally and not rationally.)
Sagesound, the rest of your post repeats the entirely incorrect assertion that I’m focusing exclusively on Christianity, and as such is really not worth addressing. Let me know if I missed something of substance - otherwise, reread my article, and we can talk about something more interesting.
Tentative:
The answer is either “yes, definitely I may have missed a great deal” or “no, I have missed either nothing or close to nothing”, depending on your ideas of “subjective” and “objective”.
In the very strong beyond-Cartesian sense of everything being subjective, including the application of reason, and CERTAINLY things like sense perception, yes, my conclusion is riddled with subjectivity (like everything else), and can at best be said to be what was “right” for me at the time I thought it. But this sense of subjectivity is very counterproductive, as it really shoots down every position equally.
If instead we’re talking about whether or not I was a) rational and b) scientific, then I can answer with as close as I could ever get to 100% confidence, yes. I went about my analysis in a way that, I honestly believe, was more exhaustive, unbiased, precise, and clever than most philosophers have ever given it. I had a large muddle in my mind when I began, and at the end I had sorted all of it out. And to give a quick, concise description of the issue, it again comes down to Santa, and whether or not he exists.
But back at you, tentative - when you asked me your (seemingly leading) question, which I take as being fair and well-asked, could you have imagined yourself asking the exact same question, with the exact same motives, of someone who didn’t believe in Santa? I am confident the answer is no - but WHY is your answer “no”? That is, I think, an important thing for all of you to consider. It doesn’t reflect philosophical fact in the outside world, but rather your own philosophical preconceptions and biases, which greatly affect how easily or with what difficulty you are able to give an unbiased eye to new or conflicting ideas.
Ah, so that’s my inner motivation! Thank you, Dr. Freud. Next time I’m considering whether to a) not go to church and enjoy my life, or b) have a miserable life but a hope at a glorious eternity, I’ll just say fuck it - what’s up with this “desire for knowledge” thing anyway? Surely that’s as bad a trait as (shudder) the impetus to think logically! Let’s all be comfortable in ignorance, accepting of all cultures and humans as equal and wonderful, and live boring, knowledge-free judgment-free lives of zero consequence or interest.
All sarcasm aside - there are plenty of issues on which I’m still undecided, because I don’t have good information one way or another. It’s retarded to be undecided about god. No one’s ever seen him, heard from him (in a measurable way, as opposed to the dreams of 50 year old women), seen anything that can only be explained by him, or seen his hippy kid walking around with holes in his hands. It’s the Santa thing all over again - there’s plenty of evidence against, and zero evidence for. If I see god I’ll be willing to change my mind - but until then, he’s in the backyard with Santa, and they aren’t playing nice. (I don’t know what that last line even means.)
Textman:
Interesting that you would say that. The issues you talk about affect our lives on this earth. They are clearly important - if we resolve them, we make millions of people able to lead better lives - if not, people will suffer.
But what if there is a god? What if this god, like the Christian god, will send nonbelievers to hell, and believers to heaven? How can the “suffering vs. joy” of earthly life, which is all too short, compare to an eternity of the most perfect bliss, or the most horrible pain? If there IS such a god, it’s in the best interests of everyone to convert as many others as possible, so that everyone can live forever in heaven! Sure, we may have to put up with a little shit on the way, and this world will probably become a TOTAL pile of shit, but this earth means nothing next to the infinite glorious afterlife that could await us all!
But, if such a god DOESN’T exist - if there is no god, or maybe a disinterested god, then we can spend our time fixing the more tangible problems of the world.
THAT is why you’re wrong. Unless you can be reasonably confident that a) there is no god, or b) there may be a god but if so he won’t send me to hell just for not believing in him, or Santa, or for not brushing my teeth three times a day - unless you can be confident in one of those two, you CAN NOT reasonably say that those problems of the world take precedence! As I said before, it’s a very simple utility analysis.
assured infinite pain over infinite time (hell) <<<<< Possible finite happiness over finite time (earth) <<<<< assured infinite happiness over infinite time (heaven)
Only if heaven and hell don’t exist, or aren’t a concern, can you rationally worry about earth instead.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to dig up this new-age secular religious group. I’d explain what’s wrong with them, but I think that I’d be wasting my breath.
Here’s a hint - think about the name and the desired psychological impact. Then consider whether they have something to ‘sell’ just like any other religion.