I decided I was an agnostic at 12 but that atheism was about as absurd as any religion.
Where that intelligent life in another galaxy analogy fails however is that we know there is such a thing as intelligent life, assuming that we are of course. But there is no evidence for a God whatsoever.
The funny thing is that atheists use the ideas about God that they get from theists, mostly Christian, to argue against the existence of God. What if there is a God but He/She/It thinks that all of the religions are stupid trash? What if God thinks the Christian ideas about God are dumb? Even before I decided I was an agnostic I thought Hell was STUPID.
We are supposed to believe that an ALL INTELLIGENT, ALL KNOWING God can’t come up with a system more intelligent than this? It really sounds like nothing but psychological terrorism of little kids. Religious leaders are nothing but sadistic assholes. But that does not mean it has anything to do with any God. Just that maybe God knows they are sadistic assholes.
That’s it! Atheists expect too much from God and are pissed off because He doesn’t deliver therefore He must not be there. LOL
But trying to deal with a believer everyday would drive me nuts. People that LOVE CARS get on my nerves too. I had a conversation with a man that said he loved cars and he had an Automobile magazine. I asked him what a cam shaft was and he didn’t know. I pointed at a part in an ad in the magazine and asked him what it was. He said cam shaft. I was pointing at a crank shaft. I could not stand to look through a magazine like that and not understand what I was seeing. So people that are fixated on the Bible or some other Holy Book are just like that to me. But I am not trying to change their minds about something I can’t supply evidence is incorrect. I presume evangelical atheists just piss people off.
Of course. Both because theists are where claims about gods come from in the first place - there are no actual gods to use as counterexamples - and because those are the ones that matter because those are the claims that people act on. And because most people on this board live in Christian countries so it is Christian claims about God that we have to deal with.
So atheists are lacking in imagination in not considering the POSSIBILITY that there could be a God very different from what any Christians claim. So the Atheists are really just religious reactionaries that are anti-religious and attacking the most common local example.
You are absolutely right. We also don’t bother considering dogs with 5 ears and 3 tails, the possibility of it raining butterscotch cotton candy, invasions of space koalas wielding artichoke lasers or the cloning of Bugs Bunny. We spend enough time dealing with the illogical fantasies of religionists-why should we waste our time creating new ones?
There are religions other than Christianity that we regard with just as much indifference. I’m as a- (i.e. without) about Jesus as I am about the pantheons of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.
Well, we don’t worry about the least common local examples because nobody’s arguing that “One Nation, Under Baal” should be part of participation-mandatory schoolhouse ritual. Where atheism has to delve into politics is where theism is being allowed to run unchecked, and in the western countries, that’s typically Christianity.
Anyway, if you can explain how God exists but Baal doesn’t, please do. Perhaps you can even muster up as much bold confidence about God and Baal as you have about atheists.
There are an *infinite *number of entities for which there is no evidence. Why should I waste my time enumerating ridiculous hypotheticals?
(Agnosticism, BTW, is really just theism in disguise. It subjects the existence of a deity to a different standard of proof than other hypotheticals, so it’s actually just a subtle form of begging the question … .)
First of all, do a search. Atheists around here at least don’t do all the things you claim we do. For instance, being Jewish, I never believed in the Christian God even when I did believe in a god.
Second, read the discussion about the null hypothesis above. When determining if the null hypothesis should be rejected, you look at one set of results at a time. Whenever someone presents a god theory, we can refute it. Christians just assume most got theories are false. Usually out of faith, because if they used reason to refute other gods they may discover that the same reasoning refutes theirs.
Now, do you believe some god exists or do you not believe some god exists?
No, indifference. As said, there are an infinite number of impossible entities; we don’t have infinite time to argue against all of them, so we argue against the ones people are actually trying to pretend exist.
No, we just have limited time and are mostly motivated by self defense. I don’t spend much time arguing against belief in lucky rabbit’s feet either; but that’s because people who believe in lucky rabbit’s feet aren’t trying to write Rabbit Footism into law or killing people over the matter.
Let’s say I tell you that I have a little green man named Dickens who lives under my sink, and only I can see Him. I trust His judgment in every facet of my life. I devote my life to pleasing Him by living by His rules. They are: don’t murder anyone, don’t steal, and, in general, don’t harm others.
Now…
If you were a friend of mine and I told you that, would you feel obligated to pretend that you also believe in Dickens? Would you respect me if I said that Dickens told me to vote against Candidate A because of his/her beliefs? Would you respect me if I kept trying to get you to believe in Dickens as well?
Here’s my point: As Dio and many have said, the positions of no belief/belief are not equivalent. Assuming the truth of any assertion as the default is antithetical to logic and is an ultimately untenable epistemological position. No sane (forget rational ) person would assume Dickens is real; the most religious of religious people would say that I probably have some type of mental disorder.
But–and here’s the problem–a religious person has no logical reason to discount my experience with Dickens while upholding their own belief in an invisible, all-knowing deity. What is the actual difference between Dickens and the Christian God, for example? More books about the latter? More believers? How many books about Dickens and how many people must believe in him before it becomes just another religion and unseemly to discuss the mental health of those who believe in Dickens? Where is the line drawn where it is okay to call bullshit?
Or, try this one on. Suppose I think depression (which I have) is caused by grad school. Not exacerbated–caused by. That’s my assertion. Now, it is up to me to provide evidence for this assertion. The burden is not on others to prove me wrong, for if it were, then even if they were to be able to do so, I could just posit something else (e.g., not enough sex). And another (bad air). And another (aliens). Now multiply all of those assertions by, almost literally, an infinite number of other claims, each one demanding that it be proven wrong. Scientific progress would grind to a halt if each new claim automatically became the default explanation for a phenomenon, rather than something to be tested against the null hypothesis of no evidence to believe in (such and such).
You don’t lose faith, you just do not believe it any longer, you have found that what you believed before wasn’t what you found a different answer for now. If a person’s believes in their spouse and then find out that the spouse was not as they thought it was they haven’t lost faith in the spouse, just that what they believed about the spouse is now changed as they learned something different.
If a person believes he will no longer believe the same thing 20 years from now his faith is very weak to begin with!
If he dies before he begins to doubt his faith then he died a believer,never had the chance to learn or think any differently!
I think most people who call themselves agnostics haven’t thought through the logical consequences of their epistemology.
For example, I imagine you’re not agnostic about the existence of George Washington even though the proof that he existed is not absolute. There’s a vanishingly small but real possibility that all the evidence we have for the entity called “George Washington” was fabricated 150 years ago.
By the same token I imagine that you’re not agnostic on the existence of unicorns. You almost certainly don’t believe in their existence, even though there is no way to absolutely prove that a unicorn or two isn’t hidden away in some unexplored corner of the world.
Most agnostics only apply their agnosticism to one class of entities – deities. But if you’re starting from the position that deities require a different standard of proof than all other sorts of things, you’re not really operating on a level playing field. You’ve already tilted the argument toward theism merely by the way you’ve structured the debate.
(In fact, being agnostic about the existence of George Washington or the nonexistence of unicorns is a more defensible stance than being agnostic about the existence of deities. After all, there have been cases of "real " people who turned out to be fabrications, or of previously unknown large mammals being discovered. However, we don’t even know if a deity is even possible.)
I would look at it a different way. When you tell me about Dickens, your testimony is evidence for Dickens’s existence. (Isn’t eyewitness testimony considered evidence in a court of law?) But Dickens’s actual existence is only one possible explanation for that evidence; other possible explanations are that you’re trying to deceive me, or you’re pulling my leg, or you’re mentally deranged. I have to decide which of those explanations is the most likely.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say there’s no evidence for the existence of God (or for many another religious doctrine). I think there’s lots of evidence, but the evidence has more than one possible explanation. (For example, the fact that the world in which we live exists can be taken as evidence that Someone created it; but that’s not the only possible explanation.)
And a true agnostic would be someone who doesn’t find the evidence that he is personally aware of to be anywhere near conclusive one way or the other.
Well, they might logically conclude that the whole thing is a huge waste of time and not bother to commit themselves to any particular line of thought, preferring to ignore people who try to sell them on religion and people who try to sell them on reason.
And I also would like to know psikey’s stance on unicorns or, perhaps more relevantly, Zeus, who was worshipped quite sincerely by millions of people for hundreds of years. Can he explain why his disbelief in their god is significantly different that our disbelief in his?
I had to give up the dal_timgar handle since people began talking about the book I got it from.
An agnostic that wants to know if there is any meaningful information on the subject would be in a emotionally different state from one that didn’t give a damn. The latter would be an apatheist.