Atheists / Agnostics. Could We Be Wrong?

For the purposes of this thread, I am using the dictionary meanings of:

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I call myself an atheist, but I am probably more of a cross between an atheist, and an agnostic. My personal stance is, since I can neither prove, nor disprove, a creator, or the existence of an entity that is, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, I must leave room for such a possibility. However, just because a being meets these qualifications, does not automatically make that being worthy of worship, reverence, and homage. It does however, allow that being the ability(not the right) to demand such. But the power, and the ability does not make one God. It makes one a bully. Creator or not. Moving on...

If our archaeologists and scholars are correct, humans have believed in a god, or gods, as far back as we can find evidence of a cultures beliefs. Whether it be written in metal, stone, wood, clay, hide, or papyrus. Almost without exception, these cultures spoke of the existence, and subsequent return of a god, or gods. And frequently, in the role of a savior in one form or another.

Our modern world is no different, the overwhelming majority of the worlds population believes in a god, gods, or a higher power of some kind. And out of those, the majority are waiting for a savior of some kind. For some, it is the promise of eternal life. For others, it’s the promise of setting the world right. For still others, it’s the promise of ascension or transformation. Then there are those who aren’t seeking a being as much as they are an event. Whether it be a promised event, or a deduced event. But the common thread among all these is they are all waiting for...

So atheists/agnostics, could we be wrong? We have thousands of years of written and verbal testimony from a vast number of witnesses that something, or someone, IS going to happen. Are we, the “uber” minority wrong to believe that the only savior or event that is ever going to happen is us? That the only cure to our problems is us? Individually and collectivity? Are we the fools? And everyone else has it all figured out but us?

Are we the crazy ones to think that’s all these folks will ever be doing, is waiting, and waiting, and waiting? Whatever view you hold on this, please include why you think or believe the way you do.

An agnostic cannot be wrong by the word's very definition.

Originally posted by Garfee
An agnostic cannot be wrong by the word's very definition.

Good point. But I don't know many agnostics who are waiting for a savior. An event maybe.

ETA: Actually, I retract that. An agnostic could be wrong that it is impossible to know, if he finds out he can know.

Originally posted by Klassified

Originally posted by Garfee
An agnostic cannot be wrong by the word's very definition.

Good point. But I don't know many agnostics who are waiting for a savior. An event maybe.

That's true, but instead of waiting for a savior they're just open the the possiblity that there may be one - or not.

Waiting for something wastes precious time doing something else.

Simple answer is, we are no position whatsoever to think we know anything about the fundamental basics of our reality. Anyone who says otherwise is going on blind faith.

Your problem with atheism is - proving a negative - which is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to be an atheist. This is only a problem for someone who considers a super being.

One can be agnostic about the Tooth fairy - however the concept is so ridiculous that the question of the tooth fairy existing is not even considered (by anyone older that 6).

An atheist looks at the concept of a god as ridiculous as the tooth fairy.

Ask a christian about the existence of any of the 1 million hindi gods the thought of proving or disproving the existence of the gods would not be considered.

reply to post by Klassified


Dear Klassified,

I call myself an atheist, but I am probably more of a cross between an atheist, and an agnostic. My personal stance is, since I can neither prove, nor disprove, a creator, or the existence of an entity that is, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, I must leave room for such a possibility. However, just because a being meets these qualifications, does not automatically make that being worthy of worship, reverence, and homage. It does however, allow that being the ability(not the right) to demand such. But the power, and the ability does not make one God. It makes one a bully. Creator or not. Moving on... If our archaeologists and scholars are correct, humans have believed in a god, or gods, as far back as we can find evidence of a cultures beliefs. Whether it be written in metal, stone, wood, clay, hide, or papyrus. Almost without exception, these cultures spoke of the existence, and subsequent return of a god, or gods. And frequently, in the role of a savior in one form or another.

I like what you said, it had a very conversational tone and was in no way antagonistic to anyone. I want to start by responding to your comment about the what type of God could exist and whether or not God could be not deserving of our love. I have heard many people say that if there is a God they don't understand why he does not reveal himself; but, I think you have provided the answer. If God were to reveal himself to you, how would you respond. In the bible, the few times he actually interacted with humans directly, they fell to the ground and were overwhelmed and that is not what I believe he seeks (I say he; but, I don't know that God has a gender). In Job, God speaks to Job and Job falls to the ground and God tells him to gird his loins, to stand up. The story of Moses is interesting in that God is in the midst of the Israelites and they ask Moses to speak to him because they are afraid to.

In regards to why people believe in God, there are as many reasons as there are people. I spent over a decade as an agnostic and can comprehend a universe without a God where we just die, I just don't believe that is the truth. I don't believe because I want some reward. As for what others believe and why, The act that people throughout history have believed in God, does not make it true. If everyone believed except me then it still wouldn't make it true. If nobody believed except me, it wouldn't make me wrong either. The same applies to non-believers.

So what if you are wrong and I am right, what would it mean to you? What if you had a Near Death Experience and you met God and returned? You could still deny it to yourself (though I have yet to meet anyone who had an NDE that has). What does it matter if there is or is not a God, we will all find out in the end. While I believe there is a God, I think the biggest issue here on this earth is how we treat one another.

My question for people is "What if you got to pick your God, what type of God would you choose?" And maybe that is what this life is about, free will and choosing to define ourselves so that we can define the type of relationship we would want to have with God. But, all relationships involve give and take. I may have lost my train of thought while I was writing as I got interrupted a couple of times. I hope what I did say contributed in a good way to your thread. Peace.

I was agnostic once. Saw some things that pushed me off the fence to Christ. I've asked Christ to heal, and he has done so miraculously and saved my wife from deaths door. After seeing what i saw i will never not believe. Somtimes that's what people are waiting for, is the proof. Christians used to go out and provide that proof on a daily basis performing healings, but in today's time most of them do not even believe they have the ability to heal, yet we still do. I've only been a christian a little over a year but i am glad he shoved me off the fence.

Maybe someday some of you will have an open mind enough to ask him to show you he is real and true, it's a beautiful experience. It starts with humbling yourself and admitting that you do not know everything the way you may think you do.

Shalom.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


There could't be another explanation for your wife's health other than jesus? I don't want to push this thread to an argument but please just concede that you can't be certain.

I take the stance of athiesm.... For now, there is no way of knowing, but if evidence presents itself to convince me otherwise, i will make the change accordingly. more than likely theism is incorrect. There is simply no way of knowing for sure.

Originally posted by Klassified

Originally posted by Garfee
An agnostic cannot be wrong by the word's very definition.

Good point. But I don't know many agnostics who are waiting for a savior. An event maybe.

ETA: Actually, I retract that. An agnostic could be wrong that it is impossible to know, if he finds out he can know.

Yes, but know what?

I would not worry too much. About all everyone is going to discover is life on other planets and the humans of old called those distant travelers gods.

We all might find some rather highly intelligent beings that we always knew were there.

I recommend not calling them gods.

I agree with OP.

If there is a "God," then there is no telling what kind of God it is, or which one of the millions of deities worshiped by Humans it is -- if it is one of them at all. Since God only "shows itself" through circumstantial evidence weakly interpreted as "proof" by those who already have the desire or inclination to believe, there is no worthwhile definition of God that fits the facts. All we have to go on for a definition of God are the beliefs, words, and actions of those who believe in it. And frankly, if God is anything like the people who believe in it, I want absolutely nothing to do with God. Even the nice ones are willfully ignorant and harshly critical of anything they don't understand, and we're all aware of how awful the mean ones can be.

If there were some all-powerful, all-knowing Creator out there, I have a very hard time imagining that it is very worried about the details of what we believe about it, or whether we believe at all. And if "God" really is so petty that it expects us to believe in it based on the second- or third-hand accounts of kooks, then I exercise my inalienable right to shun that God and give it no more respect than it gives me.

reply to post by Klassified



Theism - the belief in a God as the creator and ruler of the universe who has given the world some kind of revelation about its existence (a book usually) and it is asserted (its earthly representatives) that it helps out its followers if they pray/believe in the god enough or give money to its earthly representatives

If you examine the books associated with theistic belief then it becomes clear that it’s just a lot of non-sense that cannot stand up to any kind of real analysis

So no I don’t see a-theists being wrong

Deism - belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation or belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

I don’t think you will find many a-deists but if there is such a thing as an a-deist then yes they could be wrong

I am guessing most atheists (people who don’t follow a theistic religion) are open to the possibility of a deistic god

reply to post by racasan


No, they are not open to it or they would not be athiests. This is where the mistakes are made. Athiests are as certain there is no god as the religious are that there is.

One who claims to be agnostic is not so arrogant to believe they can know for sure either way.

reply to post by Garfee


I am trying to point out what I see as the difference between theism and deism

So an atheist, as in someone who takes possibility of a theistic god as seriously as the possibility of Santa Claus might have a more relaxed view of the possibility of a deistic god (deistic god as in an intelligent first cause)

So in my case
theistic god – not a chance
deistic god – well I suppose its at least possible

reply to post by racasan


en.wikipedia.org...

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

EDIT: Would deism be defined under 'agnostic theist' maybe, only slightly more specific in their 'beliefs'?

Originally posted by Klassified

If our archaeologists and scholars are correct, humans have believed in a god, or gods, as far back as we can find evidence of a cultures beliefs. Whether it be written in metal, stone, wood, clay, hide, or papyrus. Almost without exception, these cultures spoke of the existence, and subsequent return of a god, or gods. And frequently, in the role of a savior in one form or another.

Animism, Polytheism, Humanized Polytheism, Monotheism, Spiritualism.

It's a gross oversimplification to just that that they all felt that had reason to believe in god or gods. It was as widespread as can be. Only when trade and travel caused people to collaborate on stories, did any near similar stories work their way about.

If there was one or more gods, it'd seem rational to conclude that the same beliefs would pop up all over the world but inspired people or what not. Instead, individual religious beliefs appear to be a human convention, and only spread when people spread it. There's no gods inspiring or showing themselves to people throughout history forming the same religion in many different places.

Originally posted by Klassified
So atheists/agnostics, could we be wrong? We have thousands of years of written and verbal testimony from a vast number of witnesses that something, or someone, IS going to happen. Are we, the “uber” minority wrong to believe that the only savior or event that is ever going to happen is us? That the only cure to our problems is us? Individually and collectivity? Are we the fools? And everyone else has it all figured out but us?

Nope, I cannot be wrong. I'm of the stance that there is no evidence of any deities existence that's been presented to me, so it's irrational to believe in it. I'm not making any claims, just refusing to believe ones made without base.

A god could exist, I wouldn't be wrong. Evidence could come forth, but I wouldn't be wrong that there was no evidence prior.

I do not claim that no god exists, though it appears very likely, and can't be wrong if I don't make that claim. I also don't claim there's no such thing as magic sandwiches and cosmic teapots. They're all in the same category to me, unlikely, unproven, dismissible, but I'd be willing to accept if proven to me.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by racasan

 

EDIT: Would deism be defined under 'agnostic theist' maybe, only slightly more specific in their 'beliefs'?

edit on 28-5-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)

I think Theism/Deism are two ways to look at the god(s) question -there are probably loads more but- whatever

Theism - the belief in a God as the creator and ruler of the universe who has given the world some kind of revelation about its existence (a book usually) and it is asserted (its earthly representatives) that it helps out its followers if they pray/believe in the god enough or give money to its earthly representatives

So a theistic god is one that answers prays and reveals his existence to the world usually with a book

Deism - belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation or belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.


Would be an example of a deistic belief

Have you seen this?
en.wikipedia.org...
Dawkins has suggested a scale of theistic belief he says he about a 6.5 (if I remember correctly) – I guess I am about the same

I think what’s happening is some people dismiss the whole theist thing (because it makes no sense) but are open to the deistic thing at lest as a possibility but perhaps not as a high probability

I have also seen this work the other way – in that christians can either have faith in the whole of the bible or they dilute that view with some Deism

reply to post by racasan




It is the most refreshing thing to have a nice, civil and comfortable conversation about the subject. I don't have time to go through very much right now but will re-visit the thread.

Thank you