Confessions of an Atheist

reply to post by Gigatronix


Not trying to do anything. Simply noticing the tactics used. And wasting my time commenting on the problems I see then watching you attempt to dance around them.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


So we agree to disagree hehe. We can drop it no problem.

no harm no foul right?

reply to post by Gigatronix


I am agreeable to peace. Much preferable to screetching at each other via internet.

Things get so ridiculously complex the more I learn.

Not only are there a seemingly very high number of different types,sects and branches of religious beliefs there are a seemingly HUGE number of Spiritual beliefs and books with a HUGE number of interpretations of all of these different books and beliefs etc. etc. etc.

AS WELL as an apparently VERY HIGH different number of combination's of qualities and attributes that can be applied to not only the belief in a God but a belief in a Goddess, God's, Goddesses, Deities, Supreme Intelligence/Intelligences etc. etc. etc.

AS WELL as a seemingly VERY high different number of Beliefs in an Afterlife or staging area between lives or reincarnation direction center or judgment facility etc. etc. etc.

AS WELL as a variety of beliefs as to what exactly would be inside of us that would be considered a Soul, or Spirit or Consciousness etc. etc. etc.

And then when you can pull a choose your own adventure novel and combine ANY of the above into any combination or combination's of anything that you choose it gets to be a pretty HUGE number of possible combination's.

Or you could believe in none of the Above.

Or you could make up something completely new!

Religion actually seems kind of cool when I look at it like that. Like a video game where you get to choose any accessories that you want!

Create your God, Create your religion! Do battle against other users online!

Buy ATS God War now! No monthly fees!

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


It does sound fun doesn't it? Being able to go to a spirtual buffet and pick and choose what sounds appealing. now the argument against this is: You can't cherry pick, that would just be too convenient! How self serving that is! But this just falls in line with definition arguments, why should we take someone elses word for it? Why should we follow someone elses lead as opposed to blazing our own path? naturally we're not talking about thrashing around blindly in the forest falling over ourselves, we SHOULD study the established definitions and theories, as well their as arguments.We should also be ready and willing to take in new info without bias.

but ultimately choose yourself, and don't worry if what you end up believeing is not popular or well understood. It only has to work for you!

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


hEh. We must all choose our own paths. Just some chowderheads decide to try to push their path off on others. And still other chowderheads actually let themselves get convinced by those other chowderheads theirs is only one "true" path. Then there are those boneheads that eskew certain paths as evil because others travel it. And etc and so forth. The human high comedy.

reply to post by Gigatronix


Now THAT is a statement I whole heartedly agree with. *claps*

If there IS a creator God, along with an afterlife realm of new possibility, I'd hate to totally rule that right out as a possibility, and so if I were an atheist, I'd switch over to agnostic and start investigating on my own and forming my own evaluations with careful analysis and open eyed and minded evaluative discernment, and that's what I've done. And that is what other atheists like C.S. Lewis have done. There is no shame in changing one's mind, or even in being proven wrong in the process of your own investigation. But locking one's self into the no-God position, as being outside the realm of possibility is an absurd position without any rational basis of any kind, and without logic. It is nothing but a reaction to something else, or a prejudice or a bias.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I decided to give this another shot.
If you hadn't been so quick to argue over what you thought was an error on my part you may have realized we are arguing the same thing, but perhaps from slightly different views.

You see, the reason I even decided to post in this thread (I normally avoid religious topics like the plague) is because I don't understand why people type things to the effect of "this debate doesn't concern me because I'm agnostic." As you said they claim the middle ground as if they have a right to it. In reality though the question isn't about what you think you can KNOW but rather what you BELIEVE.

Look at it this way, in the Bible it is said that "no man may look upon the face of God..." It is also said that "no man may hear the voice of God and live..." It appears that those writers are agnostic in the fact that they are saying it is impossible to have CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of God but they are obviously theists being believers in Him.

The point here is what you believe, not what you believe you can know. And in response to a later statement by the author of this thread, YES atheism is still a belief. Why? Because this debate started eons ago when someone asked that dreaded question "Why am I here?" Since then the common answer amongst man has been "God did it." Now, right or wrong, that possibility exists and to claim atheism is to BELIEVE that explaination is incorrect.

Once again, agnosticism is the only honest approach because at the end of the day, NOBODY on this Earth will ever know for certain God exists or not. At least not in this lifetime. Maybe after we die. Who knows? But for now, you either believe or you don't but none of us know. This is why it is possible to be both a theist and an agnostic.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by JayinAR]

I should point out:

Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

I actually did not say this, it was intended to be part of the reference I cited. my cut and paste was haphazard apparently hehe. I linked this not because I felt it reinforced anything I was saying, but because there was some debate going and thought I would present what some people have said.

I don't bother with whether Atheism is a belief or a religion. calling it one the or the other doesn't change what it is for me personally.

reply to post by Gigatronix


I just wanted to throw that stuff in there because I usually see that exact thing you just pasted as a response.

It is a semantical difference. In reality, they achieve the same result and you're right, it doesn't matter.

Btw, I enjoyed your OP.

Originally posted by JayinAR


Once again, agnosticism is the only honest approach

[edit on 19-7-2009 by JayinAR]

I agree and I disagree here. It is honest to approach your questions from an Agnostic perspective. And I suspect alot of atheists begin there. But once you allow yourself to question the nature and existence of god, you also aquire the ability to entertain whether one exists at all. If upoon further study and reflection you realize you are still undecided, then Agnosticism is a reasonable position. However, if you find that the universe and existence can function without the existence of a God, is this not also reasonable? Howam I being dishonest with myself by holding a belief, one arrived at after study and debate?

I am not locking myself into a particular position by stating that I am an Athiest. I am saying that is where I stand currently. Until some compelling new information is discovered, my stance probably will not change much.

reply to post by Gigatronix


Sure, it is alright to hold that opinion. As it is alright for me to hold the opinion that agnosticism is the honest approach... and position.

Because while a person may believe that god does not exist, it seems weird to me that a person would simultaneously hold the position that they KNOW FOR CERTAIN he doesn't.

And that is the difference.

As I have said many times now, however, it is possible to hold both positions simultaneously. Atheism and agnosticism.

And I think that is a well thought-out opinion (for those who hold that opinion.)

Originally posted by JayinAR

it seems weird to me that a person would simultaneously hold the position that they KNOW FOR CERTAIN he doesn't.

I can't speak for any other Atheists, but I do not claim to know for certain. There are few things that you will hear me claim as absolute. I can assert, I can argue, I can state that I believe there is no god, but if being able to say for certain that there is no god makes you an Atheist, then there are no Atheists, there are only fools.

reply to post by Gigatronix


But agnosticism is not "straddling the fence".

Agnosticism is a claim. It claims that it is impossible to KNOW.

When a person says they have abandoned agnosticism they are saying that they are now of the gnostic persuasion that it IS possible to know one way or another.
For instance (sounds like a broken record) I have recently changed my beliefs once again to that of theism (not sure where I stand exactly in that realm but I lean towards pantheism). However, I still maintain my agnostic approach in the fact that I recognize humanity will NEVER know one way or another.

reply to post by Gigatronix


There are alot of fools. On all sides of the debate. Though I would argue the middleground has considerably less.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Agnosticism is a claim. It claims that it is impossible to KNOW.

I recognize humanity will NEVER know one way or another.

Ah but isn't this the same as claiming to KNOW there is no god? How can anyone say anything is impossible to know? I would only trust a neuro scientist saying the brain is physically incapable of processing certain kinds of information. And that would only be an argument, it would be far from definitive. Many a religious person will tell you that it is VERY possible to know. And I would agree, but in a different way. Who's to say the answer isn't in front of us everday, staring us in the face, but we aren't looking for it, or deny it, or interpret it wrong? We can't say anything for certain, because we use established ideas as a foundation for our own. It's all second hand information, the key is to take it as information, not as fact.

Is it possible to know something is impossible?

reply to post by Gigatronix


Actually, yeah. I misspoke there...


I should have said that I wholeheartedly BELIEVE that humanity will never know for certain one way or another.

Edit - nevermind.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Actually, yeah. I misspoke there...

I should have said that I wholeheartedly BELIEVE that humanity will never know for certain one way or another.

Edit - nevermind.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by JayinAR]

Then the problem is with Agnosticism, why believe something is impossible when it it is impossible to say for sure?

To my understanding, impossible is only a way of saying this cannot happen under these circumstances. How can we know the outcome if we cannot take into consideration every possible variable?

Furthermore, how can we say anything is impossible to know, if we cannot know what every person who ever existed or will exist knows?

At the end of the day all I'm trying to say is that when I see someone enter one of these discussions calling themselves agnostic I just ask myself "why did you even bother entering the discussion in the first place."

Which is also why I generally DON'T enter these discussions.

Lead a good life and don't rain on someone else's parade and you'll do fine.
No just God can condemn such behavior. (as if God condemns something he is responsible for anyways)