Thoughts on Atheism

[atiguhya padma]

Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from.

If we are not all born atheists, then some of us are born theists huh? Yeah, sure and the moon's made of cheese.

Just for you, another definition: atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods). Atheism is not specifically about a belief. It is specifically about the absence of a certain belief. Atheists can actively express their opinions about th existence or not of god, or they can just not think about the matter at all. Someone who can't be bothered looking into the issue is an atheist, and possibly an agnostic too, but whatever he or she is, he or she is an atheist.

[rabid reader]

I am of the opinion that if God exists or not should not effect my life. My reasoning being that there appears to be only two explanations as to why I am here, I was either planned on and have purpose or I was a member of groups of very lucky cells. Either way it should not effect how I live my life, either God existences and I am fulfilling my purpose or God had been too vague and I was unable to distinguish my purpose, or I am lucky in which case I continue my life unabated. Either way I live with out ever being effect by the fact that their is or isn't a deity, it really doesn't matter.

[monellia]

That's my point, really. I wouldn't use the word arrogance, though: blind faith, perhaps. Arrogance comes into it most often when Atheists portray their own beliefs as somehow inherently more rational than Theists', or when Theists portray their own beliefs as more moral or lofty than Atheists'.

You're right, perhaps "stupid" would be a more fitting word. Blind faith cannot exist without ignorance, after all.

Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief.

The battle over god is one of knowledge in that one's beliefs are what one perceives to be knowledge. If I actually believe in God, then I personally understand God's existence to be fact.

When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist.

That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?

We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.

No, not all of us are born atheists, not all of us are cruelly indoctrinated, and in any case I don't see how that's relevant.

[MaryLupin]

Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from.
atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods). Atheism is not specifically about a belief. It is specifically about the absence of a certain belief.

She's right you know. And another thing,

If agnosticism is taking the stance that one does not know if god exists or not then it implies have considered the possibilities that 1) god exists and 2) that god doesn't exist and not being able to decide between the two. No baby I have ever been acquainted with has considered either 1 or 2.

If atheism is being without a belief in god(s) then all babies do, in fact, appear to be born atheist.

[atiguhya padma]

<The battle over god is one of knowledge in that one's beliefs are what one perceives to be knowledge. If I actually believe in God, then I personally understand God's existence to be fact.>

You seem to be talking about our perception of knowledge. Personally understanding something to be fact, that is actaully untrue, is not knowledge, its more like unjustified belief. Belief and knowledge are two separate categories. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I know people who will not walk home alone at night for fear of being attacked. They believe that something bad will happen to them. They cannot claim to know that this will happen, and some of them even admit that it is highly unlikely that anything will happen to them, but, fed by fears through the media, they cannot help but believe something bad will happen to them.

<That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?>

What?? Atheism is more like disbelief. Agnosticism is absence of knowledge. What is gnosis? It is knowledge, therefore agnosticism s absence of knowledge. The difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist is one of confidence. An agnostic theist would say that they believe in god, but that there is no way of knowing that god exists. Quakers can be agnostic theists. In fact, I would say the vast majority of traditional believers are agnostic theists. A non-agnostic theist is the kind that believes god talks to him on a daily basis in an unmistakable voice; that nature, the universe, life has a design implanted by a creator and that these creations are sufficient evidence for his existence; that miracles do occur and are sufficient evidence for god's existence etc.

<No, not all of us are born atheists>

So you think some of us are born with the mental development that enables us to believe?

[MaryLupin]

People are free to believe what they want to believe.

Barring, of course, the profound effects of socialization which, I hope you will agree, places limitations on 1)the individual's exposure to belief systems, bodies of evidence, and rational and emotional skills with which to make the "free" decision and 2)creates an emotional atmosphere that tends to "guide" an individual into making the "correct" choice so that society can function. These 2 points are why structuralism/functionalism works as an anthropological theory by the way. Why otherwise do the majority of people in Bali (as one example from Adams by way of Reader) believe so whole heartedly in the divine origin and placement of themselves in the fabric of their society and religion. Was it by accident or by social design? And us? Why do we believe we have the right to argue these kinds of things at all? Did we choose to believe in the right to argue or was it part of our socialization? And finally, if we are socialized, how "free" are our decisions?

Nobody has the monopoly on truth. Including atheists.

But of course not all truths are self-evident or created equal. So while no one has the monopoly on Truth (that might be because there isn't a Truth I suppose) some of the smaller truths are simply better guides for living and some small truths are simply crock. Small truths are amenable to evidence since as they are understood by human beings they are functions of language and logic, which is how we can distinguish between truths like "women have one less or one more rib than men" (crock) and "Jesus was a historical figure" (probably not crock). We know the difference through the use of evidence and through the application of logic and reason.

So why do people become atheists? Because they want to, not because they've been persuaded by science and reason and logic.

So, everyone who thinks his/her argument is based logic is actually misguided (or a liar?) - they are actually deciding solely on the emotional grounds of desire? Or is it only atheists who do this? It couldn't be because, since there is no Truth, they are simply negotiating and evaluating truths (for example, claims that god exists because the planet we live on is so well suited to our needs and this couldn't have happened randomly) and the evidence (and/or logic) upon which they rest as Adams suggests?

[Noisms]

Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from.

And that's the sense I was using it in.

If we are not all born atheists, then some of us are born theists huh? Yeah, sure and the moon's made of cheese.

Point me to the place where I said some people are born theists. Oh, that's right: I didn't.

I said "we're born agnostics in the truest sense of the word": i. e. (since apparently I have to spell it out for you) "without knowledge".

Just for you, another definition: atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods).

That's the wrong definition. The real one (just for you) = a (without) theos (god) ism (doctrine). Without-god-doctrine, in other words. A belief. Learn your ancient Greek before you start getting pedantic about it.

Atheists can actively express their opinions about th existence or not of god, or they can just not think about the matter at all. Someone who can't be bothered looking into the issue is an atheist, and possibly an agnostic too, but whatever he or she is, he or she is an atheist.

No, somebody who can't be bothered thinking about it, or hasn't looked into it, is an agnostic - somebody, in other words, "without knowledge".

Again, atheism doesn't mean "without theism". It means "without-god-ism". It can't be mixed together with agnosticism. Nontheism is the absence of belief in a deity. But we aren't talking about that, are we?

[Noisms]

She's right you know. And another thing,

She isn't right. See my post above.

If agnosticism is taking the stance that one does not know if god exists or not then it implies have considered the possibilities that 1) god exists and 2) that god doesn't exist and not being able to decide between the two. No baby I have ever been acquainted with has considered either 1 or 2.

If atheism is being without a belief in god(s) then all babies do, in fact, appear to be born atheist.

You're confusing nontheism with atheism. Nontheism (a form of agnosticism) is the lack of belief in a God. (That's what babies have.) Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God. (Without-God-Ism, which babies don't have but some adults do.)

[Noisms]

Barring, of course, the profound effects of socialization

Obviously.

But of course not all truths are self-evident or created equal. So while no one has the monopoly on Truth (that might be because there isn't a Truth I suppose) some of the smaller truths are simply better guides for living and some small truths are simply crock. Small truths are amenable to evidence since as they are understood by human beings they are functions of language and logic, which is how we can distinguish between truths like "women have one less or one more rib than men" (crock) and "Jesus was a historical figure" (probably not crock). We know the difference through the use of evidence and through the application of logic and reason.

Sure. But we aren't talking about "small truths" that evidence and logic and reason can be applied to. We're talking about two big truths (the biggest, in fact) that evidence and logic and reason don't apply to.

So, everyone who thinks his/her argument is based logic is actually misguided (or a liar?)

Yes. And yes, that does include theists. (Actually, I'll rephrase that. Nontheistic agnostics are not misguided if they think their argument is based on logic. They're the people who say "I don't believe in God, because I haven't been persuaded of the truth of it yet" - which is different to atheists, who say "I'm convinced there isn't a God", and theists, who say "I'm convinced there is.")

[PrinceMyshkin]

Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief. When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. So in terms of belief or non-belief, agnosticism is irrelevant. We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.

It is not impossible to disprove the concepts that many religious people have of god. It is impossible to disprove that I am god, as its also impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns etc etc. Big deal.

Your concept that "the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist" delights me and is an eye-opener.

In the end the battle amongst us, I think, is between

1) Those whose posture is I know what I know and I don't need or want to know anything else, and

2) Those who believe or hope for certain things but whose posture is Most of the really important questions have yet to be answered for me.

A problem I have with 1) is that their I know what I know is a mistranslation of I believe what I believe, and it is, I believe, a fatal flaw in their thought-process to confuse the two.

[NikolaiI]

That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?

The definitions of all words contradict the essence of reality, but I am the only one saying that.

[NikolaiI]

She isn't right. See my post above.



You're confusing nontheism with atheism. Nontheism (a form of agnosticism) is the lack of belief in a God. (That's what babies have.) Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God. (Without-God-Ism, which babies don't have but some adults do.)

Why do you tell everyone they don't know what the words they're using mean? That's mean. And then when they post it from m-w.com or something, you say there's another word in there of which they don't know the meaning, like magnanimous or something.

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So it can be disbelief or belief in no deity.

[Noisms]

Why do you tell everyone they don't know what the words they're using mean? That's mean. And then when they post it from m-w.com or something, you say there's another word in there of which they don't know the meaning, like magnanimous or something.

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So it can be disbelief or belief in no deity.

Didn't I agree to disagree with you the other day? In which case, why are you sticking your oar in again?

[Noisms]

Your concept that "the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist" delights me and is an eye-opener.

In the end the battle amongst us, I think, is between

1) Those whose posture is I know what I know and I don't need or want to know anything else, and

2) Those who believe or hope for certain things but whose posture is Most of the really important questions have yet to be answered for me.

A problem I have with 1) is that their I know what I know is a mistranslation of I believe what I believe, and it is, I believe, a fatal flaw in their thought-process to confuse the two.

I'd agree with that. The problem is that everybody has a tendency to see people with opposing views as belonging to category 1 rather than category 2!

[NikolaiI]

Didn't I agree to disagree with you the other day? In which case, why are you sticking your oar in again?

Eh? It's open to everyone. You ignored me.