atheism vs. agnostic

[Oneironaut]

I am an atheist, and I concur that this does not imply that I have 100% absolute belief in the non-existence of all entities which could be called a "god".

First of all, from a philosophical standpoint, I cannot claim to be 100% sure of anything. Even when I am pretty certain of something, I have to technically acknowledge the fact that I may be mistaken. I am pretty damn sure, for example, that the Sun exists. But it could just be an elaborate hoax set up by a race of super-advanced aliens (or even humans, like in The Truman Show). Or we could be living in a Matrix-like simulation of a world and in the real world there is no such thing as the Sun. Or I may just have been dreaming for the past 21 years and not known it. These are all distinct possibilities, and although I have my reasons to doubt them, I cannot be absolutely sure that my current belief about the Sun's existence is true.

Likewise, I cannot be absolutely sure that something I disbelieve in does not exist. It could very well be the case that Santa Claus does in fact exist, and that there has been some massive conspiracy to keep this information from me. There is a small possibility that there is a race of leprechauns living in a remote cave in Ireland; if the evidence is presented to me, I will accept it. However, this does not mean I won't say I believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist. I do in fact believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist, even though I acknowledge the infinitesimally small possibility that I am wrong about that.

Same goes for God. I think the case against the Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is stronger than the case against Santa Claus and leprechauns, and here's why. We can logically disprove some entities, because they contradict basic laws of logic or physics. For example, we can prove there is no such thing as a square circle, or a perpetual motion machine, because we know there is no logical way these things could possibly exist. They defy the fundamental laws of our universe upon which all of existence is based. The traditional Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is logically impossible in this way. It is impossible, for example, for an entity to be both omniscient and omnipotent; if it knows all its future decisions, it lacks the power to change its mind. Therefore, we can conclude that no omniscient, omnipotent entities exist in the universe, just as we can conclude that no square circular entities exist in the universe.

But as for other conceptions of God, it really depends on what you're talking about. Everybody, it seems, has their own personal idea of what God is, and very few of them are willing to actually define what they mean by the word "God" before they go out bashing atheists for not believing in it. I am an atheist with respect to all the gods that people have defined for me. If they actually take the time to give a clear definition of their God, it pretty much always ends up describing some entity with logically contradictory attributes (i.e. God is omnibenevolent, but he's also willing to wipe out thousands of children in a tsunami), or it's just a bunch of gobbledygook that doesn't make any sense (God is ENERGY...oh, but not the physical kind Einstein was talking about that can actually be observed and measured).

Oneironaut Reviewed by Oneironaut on 03-29-2007. atheism vs. agnostic I always wondered how people could be atheist. How can you be totally sure there are no gods if there is no proof? I dont necessarilly believe in god, but I believe in the chance that there could be a god, I just have no proof. So I guess I define myself as agnostic. Sorry if this is a repeated thread. Just thinking. Rating: 5

[peacetrain]

I think Atheists see the probability of God being so minuscule it's not worth it to search for one. Agnostics see the probability of a God as being much higher, but aren't sure how to define it or whether to follow it. Religious people obviously aren't thinking about probabilities at all. (do you know how many fucking religions there currently are/have been...and only one could potentially be correct, if any)

[Oneironaut]

I think Atheists see the probability of God being so minuscule it's not worth it to search for one.

Wow, you actually took the time to learn the correct spelling of the word "minuscule". I haven't seen it spelled correctly in a loooong while. Thumbs up! :thumbsup:

[Polymirize]

Are you just convinced that my tendencies toward analytical explanations means I have no explorative philisophical side Polymerize? I wanted to explain atheism, so i did.

Not at all. I just found your definition of "proper atheism" to be amusing. It's a rather common problem for religions I suppose, to have an diseparate number of followers without a unified belief. "These people do not represent true fill-in-the-blank", they'll say to one another.
Christians intolerantly killed another homosexual? well, they weren't really christians then were they? Obviously, a proper christian would never do something like that. Such individuals are merely a stain on the good name of christianity.
So how do you separate the intolerant and illogical atheists from the remarkably humanist and loving individuals described in Breuk's post (for example)? Definition paints with a broad brush and bold strokes. And ultimately it still tells us nothing.
Individual belief always differs from doctrine. What does christianity mean to the christian? What does atheism mean to the atheist? Regardless, if you choose to pigeonhole yourself into a defined category, you can hardly be surprised when you get lumped in with the rest of those who do as well... can you?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....Definition paints with a broad brush and bold strokes. And ultimately it still tells us nothing.
Individual belief always differs from doctrine....

just as each religious person's relationship with a higher power is unique, so too is each atheist's belief that no such being exists. for many, atheism is nothing more than a rebellion against the religious nature of established society. for others it is the final step in taking ultimate responsibility for their own actions, no omnipotent creature to blame for their own failings. then there are those that fall between those two poles, a thousand shades of grey as with any other faith.

where to draw the line between agnosticism and atheism? for me it was an exact moment, in a church believe it or not, when i felt that my questions had been answered well enough for me to make the necessary conclusions. as an agnostic i sought to define the power behind the workings of the universe, as an atheist i realized that if that power exists it has no direction. as an agnostic i searched for some merit to the belief in an omnipotent being, as an atheist i found religion to be nothing more than a stumbling block on the road to man's moral evolution.

[halfassedjediknight]

I feel that much of the A&A population is completely fake. Much of the A&A populations are people who are around 20 years and under, I complete agree with smoke it for the persons im describing above. Many are just people who think, oh, well, I dont like what 'God' stands for, therefore Ill choose not to belive in him. Well, that makes a few A&A's look bad, and add a fakeness to A&A.

it has nothing to do with whatever it might be that 'god' stands for. it has to do with substantial evidence. if theres no evidence of god, of course there isnt any evidence for what he/she stands for.

and im sure you base your age theory on just that..theory. do you really know?

[smoke it]

of course there isnt any evidence for what he/she stands for.

there can be evidence of what a person stands for if they dont exist now. the bible is what god stands for. (well, mostly anyway)

think of Martin Luther King Jr. he dosent exist, but what he stood for is clear.

[halfassedjediknight]

there can be evidence of what a person stands for if they dont exist now. the bible is what god stands for. (well, mostly anyway)

think of Martin Luther King Jr. he dosent exist, but what he stood for is clear.

oh man.

the bible is the story of god, and mainly the rules of religion. not what god stands for.

and martin luther kind did exist, so thats why we all know what he stood for. dargh.

[halfassedjediknight]

im buzzed so sorry if this sounds dumb..

..but id like to propose an inquiry to all the believers of deities and other religious gods to humor myself..

..i have heard that 'god' has no beginning, and neither an end.

while i could care less for the no end part..how can you have no beginning? if you have no beginning, how can you exist in the first place?

it is unfathomable and illogical.

humor me please.

[couch-potato]

Also, if God was real, what did he do for the eternity before he supposedly created the universe? What disturbed the equilibrium there, a perfect being does nothing but exist, so his creation of everything is logically impossible. Was he bored? Lonely? A perfect being cannot have emotions, yet in the bible God clearly has our human-like emotions. If God knew everything, then there would be nothing that he could emotionally react to. When mankind came up with the idea of God, they gave him human traits, which an omnipotent being cannot have.

Finally, if God is perfect, then evil should not exist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?