Definition of athiest and agnostic
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
IMO atheists can be just as blind as religious people. If they simply believe what what they have been told they are no less ignorant than theists. Alot of them do, they have heard a good argument for atheism so they say "yeah, that sounds about right" and they take it as truth and argue for it fervently.
Thats "faith".
What I have done is forgotten what man has believed over the years, entertained the notion that man has just been wrong about EVERYTHING other than what he has physically seen. I can say the earth is round because there are pictures of it as a whole and it happens to be round, no problem, cross that off.
Look what is living on this planet and the skeletons of what has lived in the past. That seems wierd at first but then you watch animal behaviour and pay particular attention to breeding habits. Ok I can see how the way they selectively breed is going to make them slightly change each generation. There is evolution, and then you can see how this would take a long time so you gather that those animals' ancestry must run back millions of years.
Hmmmm turned out some of these people I so flippantly disregarded were onto something.
Its hard to write about but if you do it yourself and really observe the planet earth and everything on it you will see what I mean. Even if for a day, forget everything you have been told and go outside.
I guarantee not one human being on earth would come to the logical conclusion that god is in charge and he is watching over us. The word "god" would never come up, what the hell is that? god? I can't see one of those, or even its footprints. Therefore I have no reason to think about the concept at this stage.
No one does, they are believing in some words written by some guys and assuming that the sentences these people have formed are describing real events. This makes no sense at all.
Subscribing to atheism after reading darwins book is just as bad, its blind faith until you go outside or at least watch footage of outside and see the processes occurring for yourself. Darwin happened to be telling the truth.
The bible was not, that is the unbiased conclusion, I and many others have come too.
We had no reason to purposelly disprove religion, it just so happens that reality disproves religion all by itself.
Now we get yelled at for noticing reality?
Thats messed up...
Thats "faith".
What I have done is forgotten what man has believed over the years, entertained the notion that man has just been wrong about EVERYTHING other than what he has physically seen. I can say the earth is round because there are pictures of it as a whole and it happens to be round, no problem, cross that off.
Look what is living on this planet and the skeletons of what has lived in the past. That seems wierd at first but then you watch animal behaviour and pay particular attention to breeding habits. Ok I can see how the way they selectively breed is going to make them slightly change each generation. There is evolution, and then you can see how this would take a long time so you gather that those animals' ancestry must run back millions of years.
Hmmmm turned out some of these people I so flippantly disregarded were onto something.
Its hard to write about but if you do it yourself and really observe the planet earth and everything on it you will see what I mean. Even if for a day, forget everything you have been told and go outside.
I guarantee not one human being on earth would come to the logical conclusion that god is in charge and he is watching over us. The word "god" would never come up, what the hell is that? god? I can't see one of those, or even its footprints. Therefore I have no reason to think about the concept at this stage.
No one does, they are believing in some words written by some guys and assuming that the sentences these people have formed are describing real events. This makes no sense at all.
Subscribing to atheism after reading darwins book is just as bad, its blind faith until you go outside or at least watch footage of outside and see the processes occurring for yourself. Darwin happened to be telling the truth.
The bible was not, that is the unbiased conclusion, I and many others have come too.
We had no reason to purposelly disprove religion, it just so happens that reality disproves religion all by itself.
Now we get yelled at for noticing reality?
Thats messed up...I've been an atheist for all my life. Only recently has that changed. I don't believe in the fairy tales told in the religious books about floods and the tower of Babel and so on. What I have concluded is that God exists in a different way.
God exists because I can't fathom forever. It's as simple as that. If there was a Big Bang then what happen just before it? I understand that time does not work when there is a singularity, but was there another universe in another time, and another before that? Where does it end?
So I believe in an arbitrary God that started the dice rolling. Not a bearded God or a God that loves you. Just something that began.
Then again, there may be answers that change my mind. I think that I believe in him for the same reasons that people 2000 years ago did, except for my grasp of the planet I live on, and the solar system it is in, and the galaxy that is in, and the cluster that is in is a lot larger that my predecessors. So there is less magic for me to attribute to God.
I think it is the nature of evolution and progress to need God less and less. I hope that my descendants will exist in a place where they can understand that they are a miracle in themselves. Not a miracle of God, but a miracle that happen without him.
Is it strange that I hope my children can live in a world without God? I bet some of you think so, but I think that would be a great world where the only real pursuit is that of knowledge. No more holy land wars or suicide bombers.
God exists because I can't fathom forever. It's as simple as that. If there was a Big Bang then what happen just before it? I understand that time does not work when there is a singularity, but was there another universe in another time, and another before that? Where does it end?
So I believe in an arbitrary God that started the dice rolling. Not a bearded God or a God that loves you. Just something that began.
Then again, there may be answers that change my mind. I think that I believe in him for the same reasons that people 2000 years ago did, except for my grasp of the planet I live on, and the solar system it is in, and the galaxy that is in, and the cluster that is in is a lot larger that my predecessors. So there is less magic for me to attribute to God.
I think it is the nature of evolution and progress to need God less and less. I hope that my descendants will exist in a place where they can understand that they are a miracle in themselves. Not a miracle of God, but a miracle that happen without him.
Is it strange that I hope my children can live in a world without God? I bet some of you think so, but I think that would be a great world where the only real pursuit is that of knowledge. No more holy land wars or suicide bombers.
Atheism is lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. There are two general types of atheism. Weak atheism is simple absence of belief in the existence of God. All atheists are at least weak atheists. This is the default position and has a lot of overlap with agnosticism. Strong atheism is an explicit belief that God does not exist. The difference between weak and strong atheism is the difference between not believing something is true and believing it is false.
Many people incorrectly think agnosticism is the middle ground between atheism and theism. Whereas atheism is in the realm of belief, agnosticism is in the realm of knowledge. An agnostic does not know whether God exists. Most often, agnostics are weak atheists. Strong atheists can also be agnostics. For example, I believe that God does not exist, but I don't claim to have personal knowledge of this. A gnostic atheist is one who claims to know that God does not exist. A gnostic theist is one who claims to know that God does exist. Accordingly, Xians can also be agnostics if they believe in God but do not claim to know that he exists.
Hope this helps.
Re: Re: Definition of athiest and agnostic
Very well put. I remember very well what a family member's answer was when I asked what an agnostic was. They said "A person who believes in what they can see." I know that is general, and I know that it's not only based on vision, but it stuck in my head to this day as my definition of an Agnostic. (Though after reading Jade Squirrel's definition I think I have an entire new level of knowlege, thanks Jade)
Glad to be of assistance.
brainuniverse
Registered Senior Member
Jade, very well put.
I think that strong atheism is as bade as a strong theist, I rather believe that the good choice is being an agnostic, an agnostic is more about someone that does really not know like the rest of us, but unlike others admit his ignorance.
Is there a God ? What a God is ? etc... we have no answer of those, we just admit our ignorance.
The Big Bang theory has been put here, I am as well agnostic of the big-bang theory, I am not sure of its real existance, but the concept is fun, all the Universe comming from a singularity, near like how a plant grows, but unlike the plant, all what was needed to start the Universe was all in this point. The question of what was there before and how something came of nothingness does not prove or disprove the existance of a god, Quantum physic answer that something can come from nothing by at the same time respecting the principle of conservation of energy, sound contradictory but it is true, Quantum physic don,t admit the "nothing" even nothing is something. Like "0" in mathematic could give birth to lets say 1 and -1, adding those two with each others we still obtain 0.
The question rather is, then if something can come from the nothing, then what stops the Universe to creat new matter, more energy and, since energy could be increased by ironically still respecting the principle of conservation of energy.
What I bring sounds out of subject, but it is not, what prevent a god from existing, when something can come from nothing from actual physics knowledge, what prevent the existance of a god ? I mean, imagine that there is many Universe created from Quantum bubbles out of nowhere, and by accident one Universe in Question is consciensness, something that thinks, and then from this thinking thig created by accident all the laws of physics have been made possible like a program in an computer, and that the only reason we human exist and that life is possible, because this program in question permit the existance of life, in fact, the most complex thing that we have knowledge of its existance in the entire Universe is the human brain, and this brain is possible in our Universe, because this Universe permit such evolution like an "end" in itself. So when trying to answer that god existed or not, no one can claim to have the knowledge or its existance or its non-existance, claiming that it exist or not, is still a belief, but that does not change the fact that in your Universe, if you believe in god, God is in your Universe, if you do not, it is not, as simple as that.
Now, the Universe could simply admit the existance of a God as a necessity, if, and only if(supposing that the Universe has a starting point, and that you want to prove the need of a God in a rational matter) this God in question has as well a starting point out of nowhere from an accident of a Quantum bubble, what I mean, is suppose that there is many Universe created out of nowhere from those bubbles, Univere where logic and laws can't exist, and don,t exist, by accident there has been a Universe created that is self conscious, and this "Thing. Universe or whatever, immitate this accident, or better duplicate it in itself, the only way to do that is to organise a kind of Law in itself in order to make possible the existance of "consciousness."
So here we are at a point, that "logically" speaking a God could be important, it depdent all on how this Universe started, and why it respect some laws, on the other hand, we can suppose that a God is not important, if we suppose that there has been many and many Universe, and by accident this one had laws to permit life, in fact, the possibility of consciensness should exist just after those laws were "created" after its existance, so not only should the Universe be possible of the composition of organisms, and the possibility of such neural connections, but the Universe in question should admit the existance of "consciousness," if that was not the cases, then you readers would not even know of your own existance.
Now, what is intriging, is that, the most complex thing we know of in this entire Universe is in itself life, sounds like life is in itself an "end" like an accomplishment of what all those laws waiting this Universe could "creat" as the most complex structure, that is in fact the most extraodinary thing. There is for example more connections in ones brain then there is atoms in the entire Universe, thats how "life" is complex, in fact, in 4.5 billions of years of evolution, the Earth gave birth of what we know as the most complex thing in the entire Universe, that took 13.7 billions of years to compleat the masterpiece that we look at.
Now, the question is, is that all Nihilism, is life just a simple accident ? Now, telling you no ! Would be a blief, just like telling you yes ! If you say that life is an end in itself, the achevement, the kind of complition of all those laws of the Universe, all those laws just existing to give the possibility of life, the possibility that a part of this Universe be conscient of its own existance, that is of course life, and that this explains why life is the most complext thing we know of its existance in the entire Universe, like for example a house that is more complext then its parts, and that the house in itself is the achievment and the end in itself of all what it is composed of(wood etc...). That would be what humans expect the most, and wish the most, be it those atheists, Nihilists, agnostics most of all etc...
Statistically speaking, and compared to what we have as scientific knowledge, we would make more sense to affirm that life in itself is a completion of those laws of the Universe, like the "reason" behind, just think about it, how can we explain that in this world that sound so chaotic and so sensless, still we know of nothing more complex then life ? How it could be that the most complex in itself is actually the "thing" that tries to understand this Universe ? I mean, take a look at those galaxies, those stars etc... this complexity all just simplicity, but not humans, humans or life in itself is more then that, particullary humans, us humans are more special then what Nihilists or Atheists want us to believe, this is not a belief of mine, but an observation, it is very intriging that us humans, being the most complext thing(mainly because of our brain) that we know of, are the only(that we know of) that tries to understand, the only that EXPECT and answer, the only that want the WHY, and not only the how, this in itself is the Essence of our evolution, so yes ! We are special, and we have this universe there waiting to be understood, there waiting to be explored, waiting to "know" the reason of its existance, because we are a part of this Universe, answering the why of our existance is in the same time answering the why of its existance, we can tell that, us humans trying to answer those questions, would be like telling that a part of thise Universe is trying to understand its existance, and that make us humans, humans.
And this is why Faith is so important, it gives meaning to things, you believe or not in something, in your Universe that is in fact your brain and the Universe in itself(the Universe i just a reflection of your brain), this thing really exist or not, Faith is proper to us, someone that does not have fate in anything is not human in himself, it is faith that help us to understand the universe.
So does God exist ? Yes ! and No ! Both answers are true, because if in your eyes God does not exist, in your Universe it does not, if you say that it exist, then in yours it exist, all those battles between skeptics and theist is just worthless, because none of those views is the absolute truth, there is only absolute truth in mathematic, nothing else,
Just my 2 cent.
I think that strong atheism is as bade as a strong theist, I rather believe that the good choice is being an agnostic, an agnostic is more about someone that does really not know like the rest of us, but unlike others admit his ignorance.
Is there a God ? What a God is ? etc... we have no answer of those, we just admit our ignorance.
The Big Bang theory has been put here, I am as well agnostic of the big-bang theory, I am not sure of its real existance, but the concept is fun, all the Universe comming from a singularity, near like how a plant grows, but unlike the plant, all what was needed to start the Universe was all in this point. The question of what was there before and how something came of nothingness does not prove or disprove the existance of a god, Quantum physic answer that something can come from nothing by at the same time respecting the principle of conservation of energy, sound contradictory but it is true, Quantum physic don,t admit the "nothing" even nothing is something. Like "0" in mathematic could give birth to lets say 1 and -1, adding those two with each others we still obtain 0.
The question rather is, then if something can come from the nothing, then what stops the Universe to creat new matter, more energy and, since energy could be increased by ironically still respecting the principle of conservation of energy.
What I bring sounds out of subject, but it is not, what prevent a god from existing, when something can come from nothing from actual physics knowledge, what prevent the existance of a god ? I mean, imagine that there is many Universe created from Quantum bubbles out of nowhere, and by accident one Universe in Question is consciensness, something that thinks, and then from this thinking thig created by accident all the laws of physics have been made possible like a program in an computer, and that the only reason we human exist and that life is possible, because this program in question permit the existance of life, in fact, the most complex thing that we have knowledge of its existance in the entire Universe is the human brain, and this brain is possible in our Universe, because this Universe permit such evolution like an "end" in itself. So when trying to answer that god existed or not, no one can claim to have the knowledge or its existance or its non-existance, claiming that it exist or not, is still a belief, but that does not change the fact that in your Universe, if you believe in god, God is in your Universe, if you do not, it is not, as simple as that.
Now, the Universe could simply admit the existance of a God as a necessity, if, and only if(supposing that the Universe has a starting point, and that you want to prove the need of a God in a rational matter) this God in question has as well a starting point out of nowhere from an accident of a Quantum bubble, what I mean, is suppose that there is many Universe created out of nowhere from those bubbles, Univere where logic and laws can't exist, and don,t exist, by accident there has been a Universe created that is self conscious, and this "Thing. Universe or whatever, immitate this accident, or better duplicate it in itself, the only way to do that is to organise a kind of Law in itself in order to make possible the existance of "consciousness."
So here we are at a point, that "logically" speaking a God could be important, it depdent all on how this Universe started, and why it respect some laws, on the other hand, we can suppose that a God is not important, if we suppose that there has been many and many Universe, and by accident this one had laws to permit life, in fact, the possibility of consciensness should exist just after those laws were "created" after its existance, so not only should the Universe be possible of the composition of organisms, and the possibility of such neural connections, but the Universe in question should admit the existance of "consciousness," if that was not the cases, then you readers would not even know of your own existance.
Now, what is intriging, is that, the most complex thing we know of in this entire Universe is in itself life, sounds like life is in itself an "end" like an accomplishment of what all those laws waiting this Universe could "creat" as the most complex structure, that is in fact the most extraodinary thing. There is for example more connections in ones brain then there is atoms in the entire Universe, thats how "life" is complex, in fact, in 4.5 billions of years of evolution, the Earth gave birth of what we know as the most complex thing in the entire Universe, that took 13.7 billions of years to compleat the masterpiece that we look at.
Now, the question is, is that all Nihilism, is life just a simple accident ? Now, telling you no ! Would be a blief, just like telling you yes ! If you say that life is an end in itself, the achevement, the kind of complition of all those laws of the Universe, all those laws just existing to give the possibility of life, the possibility that a part of this Universe be conscient of its own existance, that is of course life, and that this explains why life is the most complext thing we know of its existance in the entire Universe, like for example a house that is more complext then its parts, and that the house in itself is the achievment and the end in itself of all what it is composed of(wood etc...). That would be what humans expect the most, and wish the most, be it those atheists, Nihilists, agnostics most of all etc...
Statistically speaking, and compared to what we have as scientific knowledge, we would make more sense to affirm that life in itself is a completion of those laws of the Universe, like the "reason" behind, just think about it, how can we explain that in this world that sound so chaotic and so sensless, still we know of nothing more complex then life ? How it could be that the most complex in itself is actually the "thing" that tries to understand this Universe ? I mean, take a look at those galaxies, those stars etc... this complexity all just simplicity, but not humans, humans or life in itself is more then that, particullary humans, us humans are more special then what Nihilists or Atheists want us to believe, this is not a belief of mine, but an observation, it is very intriging that us humans, being the most complext thing(mainly because of our brain) that we know of, are the only(that we know of) that tries to understand, the only that EXPECT and answer, the only that want the WHY, and not only the how, this in itself is the Essence of our evolution, so yes ! We are special, and we have this universe there waiting to be understood, there waiting to be explored, waiting to "know" the reason of its existance, because we are a part of this Universe, answering the why of our existance is in the same time answering the why of its existance, we can tell that, us humans trying to answer those questions, would be like telling that a part of thise Universe is trying to understand its existance, and that make us humans, humans.
And this is why Faith is so important, it gives meaning to things, you believe or not in something, in your Universe that is in fact your brain and the Universe in itself(the Universe i just a reflection of your brain), this thing really exist or not, Faith is proper to us, someone that does not have fate in anything is not human in himself, it is faith that help us to understand the universe.
So does God exist ? Yes ! and No ! Both answers are true, because if in your eyes God does not exist, in your Universe it does not, if you say that it exist, then in yours it exist, all those battles between skeptics and theist is just worthless, because none of those views is the absolute truth, there is only absolute truth in mathematic, nothing else,
Just my 2 cent.
I disagree, i think by definition a atheist is a person who thinks more before taking an opinion. Almost all of us have a religious upbringing, we all have a clean slate when we are kids, and we beileve what were are taught . Its normal child behaviour. A atheist is a person who when approaching adulthood begins to form their own identity and opinion (as is normal in adolescene) thus changes their mind about what they've been taught.
I also disagree about calling that 'faith' on the grounds that aheists are individualists. They each have their own opinion, quite often atheists will argue amongst themselves as much as with religous nuts.
What you suggest sounds more like what creationists do. They hear something like the infamous "Second Law Argument" and think 'yeah, that sounds about right", and then use that to support their theories.
Unfortunatley its the worst and most debunked creationist argument, because if you spend more than a seconds thought and or seek any real information one would realise its a enormous blunder.
I think atheists and religious people represent to very different styles of thinking in the human psyche.
I'm suggesting that a theist doesn't think. Basicly they take the first idea they encounter, and then defend that, creating whatever arguments accurate or not to defend their belief, and when that fails to shut out new information completely.
I can pick that behaviour out in non-religion related situations involving adult theists.
A atheists style of thinking is they don't adopt a point to defend until they have heard several arguments and have had time to absorb information (agnosticism could be called a stage). At a early stage they are reluctant to outwardly represent an opinion. They also after coming to a conlcusion will pay attention to any new facts that may alter what they have concluded where a theist would ignore those.
(Infact.... I believe I have unintentionaly described textbook left-brain dominant thinking and right-brain dominant thinking)
Atheisim is a good thing as this kind of deductive logical thinking is a important survival trait. With pure religious thinking, mankind would have wiped itself out by now.
Thanks. As I indicated, a strong atheist can also be an agnostic, and I suspect that most strong atheists would also admit that they do not know for certain that God does not exist, but that this is merely what they believe based on the lack of evidence.
I disagree. I don't have faith in anything, but I am still human inside. I don't need faith to provide meaning to my life; I find meaning in other things in life that are real. Although faith is often characteristic of humans, it is not a prerequisite for being one.
Yes but those definitions leave the larger context short changed. As Jade Squirrel has appropriately indicated, agnosticism is a statement about epistemology, or the nature of knowing. Athiesm on the other hand, is a statement about 'belief in god'. I would say for example, that everyone except strong theists or strong aithiests, is agnostic.
I was ignorant of that relationship until sciforums straightened me out.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
How would that clear up anything?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Clearly the words of someone swayed by his own thoughts and comments. As a result, you've managed little but to expose the difference between simple and simplistic. Your contempt for those who dare to learn from others is little more than the boastful prattle of the proudly ignorant.
But ignorant about all the right things. Instead of actually trying to come-up with a worth while argument he puts up a false quote of me poking myslef in the eye. not only is that immature it's stupid. I would much rather be ignorant than stupid. I look at everyones point of view and then come to the most logical conclusion. I am not swayed in anyway by my own thoughts or comments. People should just look at every view point and then come-up with their own view, not to be swayed by others and conform to theirs.
I suggest you check your profile before accusing me of putting words in your mouth. I merely thought YOUR words were fitting.
Thus far you appear to be both.
I find it interesting that you:
1) Apparently assume that I violate that based on what you divined from my post.
2) Apparenlty think that you are justified in making that assertion about people other than you.
3) Apparently think that is the only way to form a valid opinion.