agnatheist?

Your Type is
INFP
Introverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving

Strength of the preferences %
33 25 62 44



[edit on 12/1/10 by blupblup]

Originally posted by Wookiep
#1 Can someone be an "atheist" by defenition but still be open to the fact that there just might be something else there?

Sure--but definitely not God in the traditional sense--that of a conscious, personalized and infallible creator. The existence of such a being presupposes a degree of complexity greater than that of the universe, which begs the question: where did that come from? Thence, a descent into infinite-recursion hell.

#2 If there are any atheists reading this, I'd like to ask you, would you be at all interested in "ghost hunting"?

No, ghosts are boring.

#3 Just how many "atheists" out here on ATS share pretty much the same stance as Paul? It could be rare thing, but it's a curious thing.

The question isn't clear, but if you're asking whether I, as an atheist, have seen some inexplicable things, the answer is yes. Nobody is omniscient.

#4 How many people who claim to be atheists are *really* atheists? Meaning how many atheists out there actually believe in *nothing* which is the whole basis for that belief in the first place?

Typical believer's category error, already well dealt with by others.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by Wookiep

Sure--but definitely not God in the traditional sense--that of a conscious, personalized and infallible creator. The existence of such a being presupposes a degree of complexity greater than that of the universe, which begs the question: where did that come from? Thence, a descent into infinite-recursion hell.

Not bad, thanks for the input. When you say "sure" however, I'm inclined to think you actually *might* believe in something, (yes it's clear you aren't "traditional" got it) but you cover it up with something that makes it seem like you don't.

No, ghosts are boring.

That's unfortunate, yet quite common among atheists, you're the first to say as much.

The question isn't clear, but if you're asking whether I, as an atheist, have seen some inexplicable things, the answer is yes. Nobody is omniscient.

Not sure how it wasn't clear but that's cool that you have seen some crazy stuff.

Typical believer's category error, already well dealt with by others.

So if a "believer" asks a quesion that allows you to put myself in a box you so clearly hate that others put you in, it's ok for you to act like the fool you hate so much. Interesting. I appreciate your catagorization, and I must note that I have respected every one of the "others" responses quite clearly.

Originally posted by blupblup
Funny thing is, the last time i took this i think i was an INTP.

It changes all the time. The test gives inconsistent results. I don't think it has much value, except in a general sort of way.

Originally posted by Wookiep
When you say "sure" however, I'm inclined to think you actually *might* believe in something, (yes it's clear you aren't "traditional" got it) but you cover it up with something that makes it seem like you don't.

Sorry, you have that wrong. I am merely allowing for possibilities. I do not believe in any kind of deity, though it is quite possible to have worshipful feelings for life and nature without making gods out of them.

Not sure how (Question #2) wasn't clear.

We don't know Paul well enough from your description to tell which aspect of his personality we're supposed to be like.

So if a "believer" asks a quesion that allows you to put myself in a box you so clearly hate that others put you in, it's ok for you to act like the fool you hate so much. Interesting. I appreciate your catagorization, and I must note that I have respected every one of the "others" responses quite clearly.

I'm not sure what all this means, or why you're getting all het up about it. Perhaps the phrase 'category error' threw you? It's a philosophical term. At any rate, you have already identified yourself as a believer ('I beieve in God'), so if any boxing is being done, it's self-boxing, done by you. And yes, religious believers--at least the unsophisticated ones--do often make the mistake of imagining that atheists don't believe in anything. Frankly, it's a silly mistake. One cannot live without having certain beliefs--belief in causality is an obvious example.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by Wookiep




I'm not sure what all this means, or why you're getting all het up about it. Perhaps the phrase 'category error' threw you? It's a philosophical term. At any rate, you have already identified yourself as a believer ('I beieve in God'), so if any boxing is being done, it's self-boxing, done by you.

Frist, I'm not all "het up" about anything. I'm asking questions, with no offense intended. Yep, I am a "believer" thats true as clearly stated. "I believe in God" actually more than that I "believe" in having a relationship with him, but that's moot. Now, as an atheist BY DEFENITON which has been brought up here more than once, you "do not believe in God or any diety". So that's the box you are in ...yet you argue this point, I'll explain below.

And yes, religious believers--at least the unsophisticated ones--do often make the mistake of imagining that atheists don't believe in anything. Frankly, it's a silly mistake. One cannot live without having certain beliefs--belief in causality is an obvious example.

hmmm well it's also a "silly mistake" for atheists *BY_DEFENITION* to claim they "do not believe in a God or deity" or believe in anything "spiritual" yet you assume that believers think you believe in "nothing* *chuckle* yes, sir, THAT is silly. When we speak of believing you know exactly what is being refered too. Theres your "box" that not only you put me into but you put yourself into. Feels good doesn't it!
However, I have come to learn that most all "atheists" on this thread so far aren't quite in that box, hence the thread creation. Get the point?

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by blupblup
Funny thing is, the last time i took this i think i was an INTP.

It changes all the time. The test gives inconsistent results. I don't think it has much value, except in a general sort of way.

Me neither mate, I don't pay much attention to these kind of tests.
But yes, generally speaking I guess they can be a rough guide but they change as and when you or your mood changes...so they are "guides" at best.

reply to post by blupblup

And this is where, as Parallex said, The line between Atheism and Agnosticism seems to get blurred.

An Agnostic is someone who doesn't know either way, they don't subscribe to either Atheism or Religion.

as opposed to knowing either way? :-)

while it's true that an agnostic would have to admit to not knowing - either way - I think it is more accurate to say that the agnostic is a person that would prefer to wait until all the facts are in - even if that doesn't happen during their own lifetime

we are really just that patient :-)

otherwise it's all just opinion and speculation

if not believing in a god or gods makes one an atheist - but an atheist then claims to have a mind open to other possibilities - well, what other possibilities?

aren't we really just messing around with words and concepts?

doesn't an open minded atheist end up being the same thing as an agnostic?

just sayin'

:-)

that's right - I said it - I'm calling you an agnostic



[edit on 1/14/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Not to stir anything up, but good post. I don't quite get it.

reply to post by Wookiep

No need to get so excited. Thanks for the clarification.

My point is more subtle than your treatment of it deserves. There is a word for people who 'believe in nothing'; the word is not atheist, it is nihilist. But even a nihilist must believe in cause and effect. And that's a belief: no-one, as far as I know, can prove beyond all possible doubt that cause X has Y effect.

Now an atheist believes in cause and effect just like everybody else. Belief in cause and effect has effects of its own. One of them is that it causes people to wonder how the world was caused--in what manner of process it came to be. Thus an atheist, too, must have some beliefs about this. Lacking recourse to the hypothesis of a divine creator, how does an atheist solve the problem of how she, and the world, came to exist? What's her creation story?

A nihilist would say it doesn't matter because the question, like all other entities, lacks meaning. For an atheist, it isn't so easy. She has to look for clues in the world around her. She finds answers, perhaps, in nature. Thus atheism finds itself somehow conjoined with science. Not that all scientists are atheists or vice versa; still, the fact that the moderators allow discussions like the present one in this sub-forum shows that there is a close relationship between the two in many people's minds.

So many atheists, myself included, believe that what science reveals to us about the world is acceptable as true. We know that it is only an approximation of reality, but we believe that the approximation is close enough to live by and that further application of the scientific method will make it even closer. We believe in science.

This is not the same as saying that science is a belief. It is not; it is merely a method. And the method is just a formalized version of the normal way humans go about finding out the truth about things: by asking questions, trying out things to see what happens, and taking things apart to see how they work. The belief is that doing such things really does help us find the truth.

That belief is called empiricism. You could define it roughly as an acceptance that the information our brains receive from our senses is true. This may seem obvious to some people, but actually, it isn't; there are plenty of folk right here on ATS who state that the world is some kind of illusion or projection of consciousness. It is impossible to prove this argument wrong--try it for yourself. And since the question cannot be disproved either way, every empiricist--everyone who accepts the claims of science--is making a choice about what to believe.

I trust that clears up any confusion, and also gives you something to think about.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Wookiep

 

No need to get so excited. Thanks for the clarification.

My point is more subtle than your treatment of it deserves. There is a word for people who 'believe in nothing'; the word is not atheist, it is nihilist. But even a nihilist must believe in cause and effect. And that's a belief: no-one, as far as I know, can prove beyond all possible doubt that cause X has Y effect.

Ok- not getting excited sir/ma'am, please note the purpose of the thread. Thank you for providing the defenition that excludes atheists from the "believe in nothing" catagory!

Now an atheist believes in cause and effect just like everybody else. Belief in cause and effect has effects of its own. One of them is that it causes people to wonder how the world was caused--in what manner of process it came to be. Thus an atheist, too, must have some beliefs about this. Lacking recourse to the hypothesis of a divine creator, how does an atheist solve the problem of how she, and the world, came to exist? What's her creation story?

I'm listening, and this is where you have proven that your mind isn't exactly closed, so again, thank you for the clarity.

A nihilist would say it doesn't matter because the question, like all other entities, lacks meaning. For an atheist, it isn't so easy. She has to look for clues in the world around her. She finds answers, perhaps, in nature. Thus atheism finds itself somehow conjoined with science. Not that all scientists are atheists or vice versa; still, the fact that the moderators allow discussions like the present one in this sub-forum shows that there is a close relationship between the two in many people's minds.

I find this quite compelling.... I acually had this convo today. I commented to someone (of whom I have no idea of their "beliefs") This statement: " I don't see how anyone could not believe there is a divine being, it's just something I can't comprehend given my own personal experiences.." The person I was speaking to responded "Well, I can be assured there is, just by witnessing nature alone every day I wake up and walk outside."

So many atheists, myself included, believe that what science reveals to us about the world is acceptable as true. We know that it is only an approximation of reality, but we believe that the approximation is close enough to live by and that further application of the scientific method will make it even closer. We believe in science.

Ok *this* is where the confusion lies for me, and it actually strays off-topic BUT lets indulge. You believe in science, thats totally fine, and no dis-respect there. You, in essence believe in other *humans* because they created science. Every aspect of science is a compilation of findings by other human beings on this planet, and this planet alone. Let me be clear before quoting the next paragraph, You believe in science not the other way around. I'm not trying to dis-credit science, but the difference is, who or what gave us science? If you think outside that box, you might just not be atheist, but agnostic.

This is not the same as saying that science is a belief. It is not; it is merely a method. And the method is just a formalized version of the normal way humans go about finding out the truth about things: by asking questions, trying out things to see what happens, and taking things apart to see how they work. The belief is that doing such things really does help us find the truth.

Yes, the normal way humans go about finding out the truth about things. Not necessarily wrong, but again created by humans, and humans alone. I ask questions too, as I have in this thread and that's exactly what makes me human as well.

That belief is called empiricism. You could define it roughly as an acceptance that the information our brains receive from our senses is true.

Again, I understand this. It's a little troubling to me that we go on science and human observance alone as pure evidene of anything "real" or "right".

This may seem obvious to some people, but actually, it isn't; there are plenty of folk right here on ATS who state that the world is some kind of illusion or projection of consciousness. It is impossible to prove this argument wrong--try it for yourself. And since the question cannot be disproved either way, every empiricist--everyone who accepts the claims of science--is making a choice about what to believe.
I trust that clears up any confusion, and also gives you something to think about.

Yes, some people do think and actually believe it's an illusion and there is no true way to know. Hence again, the amount of agnostics here on ats. I see nothing wrong with that. I'm still trying to decipher the difference between you and them. Good post tho and as always, you are very inciteful and I do appreciate your post/s in this thread as well as my other. Star for you sir/ma'am.




[edit on 14-1-2010 by Wookiep]

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Wookiep]

reply to post by Astyanax

Now an atheist believes in cause and effect just like everybody else. Belief in cause and effect has effects of its own. One of them is that it causes people to wonder how the world was caused--in what manner of process it came to be. Thus an atheist, too, must have some beliefs about this. Lacking recourse to the hypothesis of a divine creator, how does an atheist solve the problem of how she, and the world, came to exist? What's her creation story?

oh my – what an interesting question

not being an atheist myself – I can only imagine what she might come up with

but for myself – the agnostic – the choice is very simple. I like the creation story with the turtles

it makes no sense of course – but I like the picture it makes in my head

we agnostics are self indulgent like that :-)

A nihilist would say it doesn't matter because the question, like all other entities, lacks meaning. For an atheist, it isn't so easy. She has to look for clues in the world around her. She finds answers, perhaps, in nature. Thus atheism finds itself somehow conjoined with science.

now, this is something I do understand - after all

it would be very comfortable living in a universe where nature was it’s own explanation

with enough mystery just out of reach to keep it all exciting and new

but I would still keep the story about the turtles - I like stories

:-)






[edit on 1/14/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Wookiep

Not to stir anything up, but good post. I don't quite get it.

you're not stirring up anything at all - I think it's all interesting

and I'm like you - I like understanding what makes other people tick - how they come to believe what they do

but I'd like to ask - what is it that you don't get?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

as opposed to knowing either way? :-)

Nope... as opposed to not "Believing"
It's all a question of faith, and i have no faith in there being a being that rules and knows all.

I am not a theist.... i am an Atheist.

while it's true that an agnostic would have to admit to not knowing - either way - I think it is more accurate to say that the agnostic is a person that would prefer to wait until all the facts are in - even if that doesn't happen during their own lifetime
we are really just that patient :-)

Nobody knows... i don't think it's really a question of knowing or not knowing, it's about belief and faith... and i just honestly have neither, especially in a god-being...

I'm patient and I'm happy to keep searching, but in the meantime... i choose not to put my faith (not that i have any) in a personal saviour or god.

if not believing in a god or gods makes one an atheist - but an atheist then claims to have a mind open to other possibilities - well, what other possibilities?
aren't we really just messing around with words and concepts?

The possibilities are many.... i listed a few on page 1
But here you are again...

Maybe Aliens had something to do with it?

Maybe it all happened by chance?

Maybe our Universe is only one in an endless ocean of a Multiverse.

Maybe all of this is someone's dream and when they awake we will vanish?

To be closed minded and say i believe nothing and my mind is closed would be a lie... but to say that i even remotely subscribe to the idea of a god...in the religious sense... is also a lie.

So I'm an Atheist

doesn't an open minded atheist end up being the same thing as an agnostic?
just sayin'
:-)
that's right - I said it - I'm calling you an agnostic

No... it just means that they're open minded.
Not knowing doesn't by default make me an agnostic... it just means i don't know... not that i leave room to believe in God.

And say it turns out that is was Aliens... we're an experiment... that doesn't mean aliens are gods.... so either way, i don't buy the whole god thing.


Any more?









[edit on 14/1/10 by blupblup]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Wookiep

but I'd like to ask - what is it that you don't get?

I'm confused about the "spiritual atheist" ness of some members on here. I always thought there was a clear distinction between agnostic and atheist, but the similarities have been pointed out several times.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Wookiep
I commented to someone (of whom I have no idea of their "beliefs") This statement: "I don't see how anyone could not believe there is a divine being, it's just something I can't comprehend given my own personal experiences..." The person I was speaking to responded "Well, I can be assured there is, just by witnessing nature alone every day I wake up and walk outside."

Well, a failure of comprehension (or rather, of imagination) doesn't prove a thing. As for seeing divinity in nature, this is not the same as believing in God; indeed, for Spinoza it was clear proof that a personal God, a God who was and could act apart from nature, couldn't exist. I agree with Spinoza, actually.

You believe in science, (therefore) you, in essence believe in other *humans* because they created science.

I certainly believe that scientists exist!

Every aspect of science is a compilation of findings by other human beings on this planet, and this planet alone.... But...who or what gave us science? If you think outside that box, you might just not be atheist, but agnostic.

Yes, indeed, every scientific fact we have was discovered by a human scientist. But once the scientist published it, other human beings were free to test it and falsifiy it if they could. So the fact exists independent of the person who discovered it.

As for the qualification 'on this planet alone', it is easily disposed of. When we turn our telescopes upon the sky, what we see confirms that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe. There are a few anomalies, but these mostly serve to confirm that, in general, the picture science paints of reality is an accurate one.

And nobody 'gave' us science. It developed from the natural processes of human learning, which it mimics in a very formalized way. I pointed this out earlier. Human learning processes evolved through natural selection and are substantially the same as those of other higher animals.

Of course, it is science itself that tells us this, so you could, if you were obstinate, argue that the explanation is doubtful as long as science is doubted. This would be to deny commonsense observation and inference, but it seems you are ready to do that:

Yes, the normal way humans go about finding out the truth about things. Not necessarily wrong, but again created by humans, and humans alone.

You are wrong, though. It was not 'created by humans, and humans alone'. It evolved, and we are not the only animals that evolved it.

Tool use by animals

Animal intelligence

It's a little troubling to me that we go on science and human observance alone as pure evidene of anything "real" or "right".

Why does it trouble you? Is there some other source of truth you would regard as more convincing? And how would you receive truth from this source without some kind of human intermediation, not least your own?

Some people do think and actually believe it's an illusion and there is no true way to know. Hence again, the amount of agnostics here on ats... I'm still trying to decipher the difference between you and them.

I don't believe in the existence of God. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not. That's the difference. It is very simple, really.

Thank you for the star, and for the kind things you said about my post.

reply to post by Wookiep

I'm confused about the "spiritual atheist" ness of some members on here. I always thought there was a clear distinction between agnostic and atheist, but the similarities have been pointed out several times.

Ok – I see

sorry so long getting back to this – I’ve actually been thinking about it all. This happens faster some days than others

it’s easy to see from this thread alone that it’s hard to come up with definitions or explanations for beliefs that will work for everyone – they all end up being customized to fit the individual

sometimes it seems that some of us believe in much the same way as others – we just see it differently – and call it by different names

I think my friend blupblup is an agnostic – he sees things differently

he says :-)

he, of course, is just messing with me – and being a little stubborn. Or, is he? :-)

another truth that has been hinted at (yes – there are other truths) is that maybe I really am an atheist after all

tomato/tomahto

where is that line drawn? I’m comfortable with fuzzy lines – others prefer things to be more well defined

I don’t believe in a god – or gods – so that would make me an atheist

I guess :-)

however - I see stuff that makes me go: hmmm...

unfortunately for me (and for much of the rest of humanity) it’s difficult to put enough of the right words in just the right order to even begin to touch on what we mean by: hmmm...

it’s indefinable - we might need new words

(I'll bet the Germans have a word for it - they usually do. But - I don't speak German)

easy to see then why creating categories and then expecting people to fit into them won’t work

it’s also easy to see why people are a little touchy about it all – but for some reason – in this thread – everyone has been very well behaved :-)

it’s been a pleasure

[edit on 1/15/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I think my friend blupblup is an agnostic – he sees things differently

he says :-)

he, of course, is just messing with me – and being a little stubborn. Or, is he? :-)

That would be telling.

Stubborn i may well be...but i have been very straight in my answers... maybe

another truth that has been hinted at (yes – there are other truths) is that maybe I really am an atheist after all

Well yes, Technically you are (as am i) but who likes labels anyway?

Who wants to be defined by their religion or lack of?


For me to say "Hi I'm blup and I'm an Atheist" is just silly.. i never bring up my beliefs in conversation, unless of course the conversation (as this one is) is about beliefs.

Nobody likes boxes or labels anyway.

reply to post by blupblup

Stubborn i may well be...but i have been very straight in my answers... maybe

yes - maybe :-)

For me to say "Hi I'm blup and I'm an Atheist" is just silly.. i never bring up my beliefs in conversation, unless of course the conversation (as this one is) is about beliefs.

Nobody likes boxes or labels anyway.

true - the labels prevent people from looking any further

on the other hand - it's also true that if you do choose to define yourself with a label - often that invites criticism or animosity

I'm sorry I called you an agnostic blups - I didn't mean it

I guess

:-)

[edit on 1/15/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
I'm sorry I called you an agnostic blups - I didn't mean it

I guess

:-)
[edit on 1/15/2010 by Spiramirabilis]

Well.... what did Jesus say about forgiveness?

**** knows

I'm sorry i called you an Atheist


Can we ever be friends again?