Atheist or Agnostic?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I am an atheist. Many people in my life think this is counterintuitive to my profession as I often say that knowledge of God is impossible. My claim is that atheism has nothing to do with what is “knowable” but rather what is believed. To me it is all about faith. This is a belief I have held since I was very young. I don’t know why I believe the way I do–just as many believe in God for no other reason.

Many people equate atheism with having no faith at all. This is not true. I have faith in many things. For example, the love my wife has for me is taken in faith because it, like all emotions, is irrational. There is no reason why we feel certain emotions the way we do or why we feel them at all. Emotions are also a matter of faith.

T.H. Huxley first coined the term agnostic claiming that there is no such thing as an atheist because knowledge of God is untenable. Unfortunately, he did not think highly of theism either for the same reason.

It is impossible to “know” God on any measurable level but I still do not consider myself an agnostic because of my faith. Are faith and atheism inconsistent with each other?

2

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Are faith and atheism inconsistent with each other?[/quote]

If faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, than no, I don’t think they are inconsistent; in fact, I agree with Huxley, Atheism, for someone who believes only in that which can be proved, is an untenable belief. You can’t prove the existence of God any more than you can disprove it, so both beliefs take a certain amount of faith–one more than the other, obviously. Have I misunderstood your question?

3

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am an atheist. Many people in my life think this is counterintuitive to my profession as I often say that knowledge of God is impossible. My claim is that atheism has nothing to do with what is “knowable” but rather what is believed. To me it is all about faith. This is a belief I have held since I was very young. I don’t know why I believe the way I do–just as many believe in God for no other reason.

Many people equate atheism with having no faith at all. This is not true. I have faith in many things. For example, the love my wife has for me is taken in faith because it, like all emotions, is irrational. There is no reason why we feel certain emotions the way we do or why we feel them at all. Emotions are also a matter of faith.

T.H. Huxley first coined the term agnostic claiming that there is no such thing as an atheist because knowledge of God is untenable. Unfortunately, he did not think highly of theism either for the same reason.

It is impossible to “know” God on any measurable level but I still do not consider myself an agnostic because of my faith. Are faith and atheism inconsistent with each other?[/quote]

emotions aren’t irrational. they are evolutionarily adaptive mechanisms <sometimes, anyways>. love for others allows people to build strong bonds with one another, and human relationships allow us to work together to accomplish more. being admired/loved by other gives us confidence and allows us to better accomplish our goals.

of course there are instances where emotions can be debilitating. instances like these are obviously not advantageous, but it’s the price we pay for emotions which aren’t perfect.

i can go on and on regarding this. but emotions are not entirely irrational.

i’m not sure if i understand what you’re saying. are you agnostic or atheistic?

i’ve been atheistic for quite a few years now. for the moajority of my life though i was a believer, just not very religious. lately, though, i’ve been reconsidering.

4

You are and atheist agnostic. These 2 dimentions are orthogonal to each other - you can be agnostic and be a theist, you can be agnostic and be an atheist.

Atheist agnostic is my position.

I have the following proof that all who believe in “Christian” model of God must be agnostic. Suppose there EXISTS a proof of Gods existance or some undeniable evidence to it (even if we don’t know what the proof is; this is an argument that such proof can’t exist). Then every rational person who finds this proof will have to believe in God and will have no “free will” to make that choice. That contradicts that whole “free will” argument as an explanation for all the evil on Earth. Hence there the proof of “Christian” God’s existance can’t exist and any believer in such God MUST be agnostic.

5

I believe life is like an illusion. I just accept that nothing actually “is”.

When it comes down to it, I don’t believe in God.

But when it REALLY comes down to it, I just don’t give a shit. I’m just gonna live.

Here’s one of my favorite quotes, and I think it sums up what a lot of atheists, agnostics, and rational theists (those who don’t dogmatically follow an organized religion)…

“The meaning to life is not WHy are we here? It is, what do I want to do?”

6

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IIt is impossible to “know” God on any measurable level but I still do not consider myself an agnostic because of my faith. Are faith and atheism inconsistent with each other?[/quote]

No, life is all about faith. You can’t know the sun is coming up tommorow, but you belive it will, hence that is faith. Belief in anything unprovable is an act of faith. That means we take each moment on faith, because we cannot prove almost anything really, including the reality you think you exist in. You can’t trust what you see, hear, feel,smell or taste because the senses can be decieved.
Immanual Kant said that reality does exist we just can’t know what it is because we do not have all the faculties to percieve it. In other words there is more going on the we can tell with our 5 senses. We probably need 6 or 7 to get a truer picture of the world we live in.
So to stop babbling, most everything we do is based on faith, because we can know very little. The good news is that many of the assumptions we make from moment to moment turn out to be correct. It fucks us up when they are not. For instance, you trust your car will start tommorow. You make plans based on that fact. But it may not start, and you plans are fucked at least for a moment. That would be an act of misplaced faith.
You don’t have to believe in God to have faith in other things. But divulging into metaphysical philosophy will make you wonder, be cause there is clearly reality beyond our senses…Wow, I almost bored myself!

7

From an interview with Isaac Asimov:

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

Sums it up nicely, in my view.

For those interested, the whole interview is here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm

8

[quote]skor wrote:
You are and atheist agnostic. These 2 dimentions are orthogonal to each other - you can be agnostic and be a theist, you can be agnostic and be an atheist.

Atheist agnostic is my position.

I have the following proof that all who believe in “Christian” model of God must be agnostic. Suppose there EXISTS a proof of Gods existance or some undeniable evidence to it (even if we don’t know what the proof is; this is an argument that such proof can’t exist). Then every rational person who finds this proof will have to believe in God and will have no “free will” to make that choice. That contradicts that whole “free will” argument as an explanation for all the evil on Earth. Hence there the proof of “Christian” God’s existance can’t exist and any believer in such God MUST be agnostic.[/quote]

That’s a nice syllogism, but I think you’re confounded on terminology. Agnostics believe you can’t prove the matter one way or the other. Equivalent to say, they believe the issue doesn’t matter in any objective sense. This is a bit like stating that whatever is beyond the event horizon can never be relevant.

There is no way any believer can ever believe that. Let’s just say that folks who make up syllogisms have one standard of proof, and the faithful have another. If you don’t believe so, try talking to one of them about the Theory of Evolution.

9

[quote]skor wrote:
You are and atheist agnostic. These 2 dimentions are orthogonal to each other - you can be agnostic and be a theist, you can be agnostic and be an atheist.

Atheist agnostic is my position.

I have the following proof that all who believe in “Christian” model of God must be agnostic. Suppose there EXISTS a proof of Gods existance or some undeniable evidence to it (even if we don’t know what the proof is; this is an argument that such proof can’t exist). Then every rational person who finds this proof will have to believe in God and will have no “free will” to make that choice.[/quote]

I don’t really follow. Let’s say god–in the Christian sense of the word-- exists and he created the world in such a way that his existence is unprovable, thereby preserving free will. I suppose you could argue that everyone, in the beginning, is in an agnostic state; however, after coming to a faith in god–again, in the Christian sense of the word–one is no longer an agnostic. An agnostic theist, in my opinion, is nothing more than a deist. One who believes in a god, but does not know what exactly–or would it be who?–that god is.

Furthermore, from the Christian perspective, the choice isn’t necessarily between believing in God and not believing in God. That God exists, in some form, has been taken for granted in most cultures, throughout most of history. The Bible never really attempts to prove that there is a God; it is largely considered a given. For example, in the Bible, the devil clearly believes in god’s existence, but I wouldn’t say he has “faith” in god–at least not in the way the word is used in reference to salvation; therein lies the “choice.” I think, in so far as Christianity is concerned, we need to make a distinction between “faith” and mere belief–there is a world of difference between the two.

I don’t really see how you arrived at this conclusion. Lets assume definitive proof of God’s existence is out there, and no one can make a rational argument otherwise, are you arguing that people would then lack the free will to violate god’s will? If so, why?

Well, I certainly agree that there is no absolute proof of god’s existence, let alone the Christian God, but I don’t see why that makes everyone who considers him or herself a Christian an agnostic–that certainly isn’t the historical meaning of the word.

10

[quote]pookie wrote:
[/quote]

Nice find, pookie. That does sum it up perfect.

11

[quote]pookie wrote:
From an interview with Isaac Asimov:

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

Sums it up nicely, in my view.

For those interested, the whole interview is here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm [/quote]

Ooooo. I like this one. Asimov, once again, puts into words that which most people struggle to say.

12

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:
From an interview with Isaac Asimov:

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

Sums it up nicely, in my view.

For those interested, the whole interview is here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm

Ooooo. I like this one. Asimov, once again, puts into words that which most people struggle to say.[/quote]

One of the fundamental rules of science is that you cannot prove an absence, so I am afraid this argument falls flat.

Personally I am slowly moving from atheism to becoming unitarian. It cut out all the bollox in religion while providing for faith. It also leaves you in the company of some of the greatest men that have existed.

TQB

13

[quote]pookie wrote:
From an interview with Isaac Asimov:

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

Sums it up nicely, in my view.

For those interested, the whole interview is here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm[/quote]

Thanks for sharing this. This puts into words how I feel but have never been able to explain. Asimov’s grasp of humanity is profound.

Why do people of science have such a hard time conveying their emotional state of being? Is it because we are supposed to be completely rational, ruled only by our logic, that we are percieved as emotionless creatures?