Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

I think this says it all. Thomas Huxley - - good buddy of Darwin - - coined the phrase Agnostic.

Basically he states: "God can not be proven or dis-proven". Any honest Atheist is also Agnostic as described by Huxley.

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. atheists.org...

What you describe in the op is not a god, rather an advanced race of beings understanding and utilizing the laws of nature.. God as he is depicted in the Bible, Koran ect, suspends or transcends the laws of nature to create. There is a huge difference

I call myself an Atheist to save time.

I know realistically, you have to be 'unknown' about the subject. In these times, I find it easier to label myself as an Atheist, because it seems to be, now a days, that the term Agnostic is reserved for those who are 50-50 split on weather or not there is a God.

I am not on a 50-50 scale, so that's why I go for the stronger term of Atheist. If I had to write it down, I would say I am 90 - 95% certain there is no God, but I leave some room for doubt, because I am not foolish enough to say with 100% certainty there is NO God. I don't think there is, but I like surprises.

(When talking about God above, I am talking about a Theistic God. As far as the Einsteinian God, I am more open to the first cause. That is a God in a sense, but that is a different matter all together.)

Why do some people feel the need to revert to scripture, when we've built and improved our knowledge base in the last few thousand years? If we're asking scientific questions relating to God, the Universe, etc. scriptures are about the most obsolete and ambiguous source there is.

Basically he states: "God can not be proven or dis-proven". Any honest Atheist is also Agnostic as described by Huxley.

People of faith do not generally propose that God can be proven or disproven, either. So, any honest theist is also an agnostic as atheists.org, with a lot of help from Scottish anti-agnsotic theist and theologian Robert Flint, tries to position the word.

English doesn't need another word for everybody who understands what a common and frequently encountered English question asks. Conclude: agnsotic means something else.

It is uncontroversial that Huxley's intention was to distinguish himself (literally himself as an individual human being) from both atheism and faith. Other people adopted his word, much to Huxley's expressed chagrin, not because they believed what he believed in general, but because that one distinction, not atheist and not theist, is something that people besides Huxley wanted.

There has been tremendous progress in knowledge about human belief formation and evidentiary reasoning since Huxley died. The word agnostic has survived in the English-speaking community because its has kept pace with changes in knowledge about beliefs.

In particular, we just don't use the word knowledge the way Huxley did back in the later Nineteenth Century. As we use the word today, no living human being knows the answer to the question of God. Many people have uncertain beliefs about the subject, held with whatever personal expereince of confidence, including reported certainty.

I am agnostic, and confident that the underlying store of evidence and argument reduces the matter to a pioristically adopted personal opinion. That formulation was unavailable until long after Huxley coined his word. Nevertheless, I believe that if Huxley had had the knowledge that we have today, he would have described his beliefs in more or less that fashion.

Whether he would or not is irrelevant, however. He is not a current member of the community of Enlgish speakers, and agnostic has never in our lifetimes meant "Huxleyan" anyway.
-

Originally posted by eight bits

Basically he states: "God can not be proven or dis-proven". Any honest Atheist is also Agnostic as described by Huxley.

People of faith do not generally propose that God can be proven or disproven, either. So, any honest theist is also an agnostic as atheists.org, with a lot of help from Scottish anti-agnsotic theist and theologian Robert Flint, tries to position the word.

They should be.

Doubtful you'll get many believers to agree.

reply to post by jiggerj


Believing in a god is not a problem. Believing that we understand the first thing about said god...that's the problem. We think we know anything, we think we even know what it wants and what it will do if we don't please it...our desperation for control through understanding has lead us to fabricate an entire personality for something that we can't grasp with our finite knowledge of the universe.

That's the problem. The Christian god is not the only definition for a god. You don't have to be on the Christian side to believe in a god. You don't have to be with the Christians or any belief system at all to believe there is a god. You can say that there is probably a god, we just don't know **** about it.

But that's all on you guys.

reply to post by Daemonicon


For people who are uncertain or just don't care, agnostic is the best term. It pretty much means "don't know, don't care." Rather than acting like "Oh, I know for a fact there is/isn't, blah blah blah..." It's a more honest and accurate label.

But why label it anyway? Every time we label someone, we've divided ourselves further by creating an opportunity to set that someone apart, for better or for worse. And generally, it turns out for the worse, especially in matters of religion.

Can't we all agree that we should focus on where we're going instead of where we come from? Is the answer really going to change how we feel about peaceful coexistence? Whether or not there is a god, the only way to survive is by getting along. Having a god won't change that, it'll just alleviate our fear for ourselves.

God or no god, we're all together in this world, and we're not going anywhere any time soon. We share everything, and we're about to destroy everything. We want to survive? Let's do it on our own steam, together and not divided. We're the best evolution has to offer, apparently. It's time we acted like it. And that, friends, is MY religion.

reply to post by randomname


And therein lies the problem. You and those like you refuse to accept an alternative and ultimately provable explanation for life. Explanations that rely on verifiable evidence instead of written word on a page. Your comment shows ignorance of the highest order. Just in this post there have been intelligent comment and retorts yet you refuse to acknowledge them. You can only spout what amounts to the party line.

reply to post by jiggerj


Ahh philosophy

I've often wondered if God does exist what it's perception of good or evil is. You always hear people saying "Well if God is real why is there so much suffering in the world?" Or, if not that, then it is "God has a plan for everyone". Both statements kind of cover both ends of the spectrum. Yet, what if, and this is entirely plausible, God does not perceive evil and good actions, but simply actions themselves?

If my hand gets cut off from an evil man, and I am left suffering..how does God itself perceive this situation? Perhaps it simply views it as an experience, neither good nor evil, and moves on?

As for Aetheist's believing a God is impossible: Ask yourself if YOU are possible. After billions of years, years which took place inside a cozy bubble known as the universe, you popped up. Now, I'm sure you all believe you exist, because you can prove it. So I am sure you all believe the universe exists, because you can prove that too. So, how does it exist? Any of it, down to the smallest quark. I'm not saying it is God, but what I am saying is the fact we exist (or matter exists) is just as impossible as the idea of God. Yet we all dawdle along, comfortable in the fact we are discovering things and knowing more, without even knowing the first thing - how. How is it anything is?

Originally posted by hidden0

As for Aetheist's believing a God is impossible: Ask yourself if YOU are possible. After billions of years, years which took place inside a cozy bubble known as the universe, you popped up. Now, I'm sure you all believe you exist, because you can prove it.

Not really - - everything could be an illusion existing only in thought energy.

I've always found the "I am because I exist" argument baseless.

I believe that a being of a higher order probably exists somewhere in our Universe. I believe that the likelihood that this being is capable of creating life is reasonably high. What I do Not believe is this childish view that our every action and intention is being weighed and measured against some yardstick. Any being of a high enough order to create worlds would barely have an interest in the creatures spawned on said world. Do YOU acknowledge every amoeba on your kitchen table. Do you weigh the actions and intentions of every bacterium on the face of your cell phone? Of course you don't. They are so far beneath your concerns as to barely even exist. So why would you ever think that any being as powerful as god supposedly is would even notice us? We simply aren't big enough or powerful enough to warrant that level of dedication. It is silly to think that every person on Earth is so important as to demand the attention of a "Godlike" being. Why is our species so arrogant?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by eight bits

Basically he states: "God can not be proven or dis-proven". Any honest Atheist is also Agnostic as described by Huxley.

People of faith do not generally propose that God can be proven or disproven, either. So, any honest theist is also an agnostic as atheists.org, with a lot of help from Scottish anti-agnsotic theist and theologian Robert Flint, tries to position the word.

They should be.

Doubtful you'll get many believers to agree.

I would agree with it. I am confident that God exists, but it ends there -- I neither proffer tangible proof, nor do I require it. As I often say, "I have no concrete proof of God's existence and I'd be kind of disappointed if I did."

reply to post by adjensen

As I often say, "I have no concrete proof of God's existence and I'd be kind of disappointed if I did."

Why would you be disappointed?

I have often wondered why near death experiences have not been looked at closer by atheists as evidence for life after death and a creator. These NDE's have been documented thousands and thousands of times and have been experienced by a lot of non religious people. The story's are very similar and most all include lifting out of the body, going through a tunnel, coming out of the tunnel into a place of indescribable light, meeting loved ones, having a life review (where you judge yourself), and being given the option to stay or return. That's obviously the cliff notes version, but those are some of the most common experiences.

What is really impressive is that these people change the way that they live life when they return, they often become spiritual and not religious, they get away from destructive addictions and vices, relationships with friends and family improve, etc.etc..

The topic is a fantastic one, but what gives even more credibility is the fact that many of these NDE books are written by highly skeptical physician's, with zero belief in an afterlife. After doing the research and seeing the almost unbelievable symmetry in people's account's, coupled with the fact that there are cases that just defy logic. Such as the people who recount conversation's between staff after they have flatlined, could describe the procedures being done after flatline, in some cases there have even been specific descriptions of the hospital that would only be seen from the air.

To see physician's change the way that they see this subject based on the investigatory work that they did tells me that there is definitely something here to look at.

So I guess my question to atheist's is.....does this constitute evidence of a creator, if not why?

Originally posted by jaws1975
I have often wondered why near death experiences have not been looked at closer by atheists as evidence for life after death and a creator.

Short answer: Brain Chemicals.

Or - all living things have a way of protecting themselves. Even creating illusions to ease death.

reply to post by jaws1975


Ever heard of '___'? It's a highly hallucinogenic chemical that our brain only produces twice in our life: at birth, and at death. It will show you all sorts of spiritual visions, none of which is real but all of which will, at the very least, disturb you.

This chemical creates impressions of an afterlife, and of a creator waiting on the other side. I'm not saying that every experience is caused by '___'; however, I would very much hesitate to say that these visions from near-death experiences are proof of anything like what you're saying.

The simple answer is, we JUST DON'T KNOW.

reply to post by jiggerj

I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?

Already happened a few years ago, old news.

Scientists create self replicating synthetic bacteria

Creating synthetic life isn't hard, we're using Yahuwah's Elohim's knowledge and we can do that because we were made in his image. We have knowledge but lack the wisdom to wield it correctly. Instead of using the knowledge to His Glory, mankind takes that knowledge and does evil with it, turns it into weapons to kill with, or to make a few people filthy rich at the expense of others and that will never change by the actions of men alone.

The fact that we can create life just lends credence to mankind being created, because the act of creation is not limited to nature alone but by outside influence.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

The simple answer is, we JUST DON'T KNOW.

That really is the answer - - - to EVERYTHING.

Even in science - - all we know is what we know - - which could change tomorrow.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Yes, but we're still years away from designing a tree from scratch. And honestly, I don't think we should even try. The day we recreate the work of Source, is the day we decide we no longer need Source. The day we decide we no longer need Source, is the day we decide we are better than Source. The day we decide we are better than Source, is the day we forget Source. And the day we forget Source, is the day we are all truly damned.

We are not yet ready to be gods. And still, we will try. Whether for better or for worse, whether salvation by miracle or disaster by design, remains to be seen. And if we do fail spectacularly, I hope we die along with that dream, like rabid dogs. We are too dangerous for anything else to happen.

And yes, I do come up with these epiphanies by myself. :/