Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Like I said earlier, it depends on your definition, but if I define Atheism as an absence of belief in a deity then I can quite happily be both an Agnostic and an Atheist. I understand what you are saying but if you accept that the continuing expansion of our knowledge means that the door must be left open as to the existence of a God then I would say you are Agnostic. I just cannot see how, rationally, you can be Atheist because that assumes that we definitely have enough certain knowledge to say God doesn't exist for sure - and we do know that our areas of ignorance are vast. And if the language needs to be any clearer, I'm also a 'non believer' in any kind of religion. I think that makes my position known Presumably you are referring to those established religions of which you have knowledge? Those religions are not all there is to religion. I'm not sure what pro-faith types get out of the hair splitting. Is 'there is no god' vs 'there is very probably no god' really an important distinction to make compared to 'there is a god, you're made in his image and if you do naughty things you'll be punished for eternity'? We are back to the problem of "it all depends what you mean by". Sometimes the apparent hair-splitting is actually something very important. In my own case I do not go around thinking that if I behave in this or that way then a thunderbolt will come down and blow me apart or I will spend an eternity in hell stoking the furnaces. My notion of God is something that was created by and exists inside my head and if I behave in ways that contravene the behaviours which are part and parcel of that God then I may well suffer purgatory in the form of mental distress or agonies of conscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. I'm sure that your mind is not really so closed that you would not accept new convincing evidence if it were put in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I understand what you are saying but if you accept that the continuing expansion of our knowledge means that the door must be left open as to the existence of a God then I would say you are Agnostic. I just cannot see how, rationally, you can be Atheist because that assumes that we definitely have enough certain knowledge to say God doesn't exist for sure - and we do know that our areas of ignorance are vast. That really boils down to your insistence that any certainty has to be 100%. Nothing can be 100% certain everything is based on a multitude of assumptions and high levels of certainty. I'm certain the chair I'm sitting on won't suddenly turn to fart gas and I'll fall on the floor. I can't prove with 100% certainty but I currently believe in the chair enough to trust it with my bottom. I have as much certainty in the chair as I do about the existence of God. I'm not stupid enough to say if proof appears that I won't change my mind, but as things stand currently I'm very certain there is no god. Certain enough to say I have no belief in god, and the absence of belief is enough for me to be an atheist. As I've said repeatedly though, if you prefer I'll be a non believing agnostic atheist, as that definitely covers all bases and doesn't contradict. Presumably you are referring to those established religions of which you have knowledge? Those religions are not all there is to religion. We're discussing 'theism', the belief in the existence of a deity who is in control of the universe. I'm not talking about specific religions. We are back to the problem of "it all depends what you mean by". Sometimes the apparent hair-splitting is actually something very important. In my own case I do not go around thinking that if I behave in this or that way then a thunderbolt will come down and blow me apart or I will spend an eternity in hell stoking the furnaces. My notion of God is something that was created by and exists inside my head and if I behave in ways that contravene the behaviours which are part and parcel of that God then I may well suffer purgatory in the form of mental distress or agonies of conscience I don't see the distinction. Your god doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nothing can be 100% certain everything is based on a multitude of assumptions Exactly my point, Slim. I'm certain the chair I'm sitting on won't suddenly turn to fart gas and I'll fall on the floor. I can't prove with 100% certainty but I currently believe in the chair enough to trust it with my bottom. Bearing in mind Quantum Mechanics it might just happen - although it will probably take longer than the Universe exists! I have as much certainty in the chair as I do about the existence of God. I'm not stupid enough to say if proof appears that I won't change my mind, but as things stand currently I'm very certain there is no god. Certain enough to say I have no belief in god, and the absence of belief is enough for me to be an atheist. As I've said repeatedly though, if you prefer I'll be a non believing agnostic atheist, as that definitely covers all bases and doesn't contradict. Back to definitions of God. If we speak solely of ideas of God purely on the basis of the Deity of the OT, then we are in agreement. We're discussing 'theism', the belief in the existence of a deity who is in control of the universe. I'm not talking about specific religions. Theism may be part and parcel of most established religions but it is not an essential ingredient of any and all religions e.g. Buddhism. I don't see the distinction. Your god doesn't exist. You are restricting your view of the nature of God to necessarily being the OT-type deity. Just because something doesn't physically exist doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist in the sense of being able to impact on the World - ideas exist but not physically (OK - maybe they do in the form of electrochemical pathways in the brain). Anyway, when you get down to it nothing at all really exists outside of our heads. Next thing we are going to be back to arguing with LDV and China about the nature of the existence of things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Exactly my point, Slim. Right, so if nothing can ever be proved 100%, nobody can ever be an atheist (by your definition of atheist). That's silly. So I'd rather adopt the sensible definition of atheism as a non-believer (literally the opposite of a believer) and everything works out nice. An agnostic, in my view, is someone who neither believes or disbelieves. This isn't the way I feel, I definitely do not believe, I'm not on the fence, I'm not open to persuasion, I have made my mind up. If there's proof that comes along in future I may change my view because I'm not stupid, but otherwise I'm an atheist. I have no belief in a deity. Theism may be part and parcel of most established religions but it is not an essential ingredient of any and all religions e.g. Buddhism. No, well, Buddhism doesn't know what it is itself most of the time. I don't believe in the 'supernatural' either in the general definition, so don't believe in most of what Buddhism and other similar religions teach. There are deities in Buddhism. You are restricting your view of the nature of God to necessarily being the OT-type deity. Just because something doesn't physically exist doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist in the sense of being able to impact on the World - ideas exist but not physically (OK - maybe they do in the form of electrochemical pathways in the brain). Anyway, when you get down to it nothing at all really exists outside of our heads. Sure, but then I'm being challenged on the definition of what an Atheist is so that seems appropriate. I'm not going to argue about what you believe exists in your brain, you're on your own in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I do not believe in any Gods as they are currently delimited/defined. I am open to the fact that I could in the future believe in some form of God - however that is defined - dependent upon a rational evidence-based exposition of what this God is/does. I am a defacto atheist but ultimately agnostic. Erm - I think I include Spinoza's/Einstein's God in this, though that gets interesting - as far as I'm concerned Spinoza's God isn't a god as I'd define a God!! The fact God can have such an unclear definition is really part of the problem! The main point though is that I see no evidence that there is an intervening God active on the Earth at this point in time. I see all the manefestations of religion as being human constructs disconnected to any tenable interpretation of reality. I think it is a fact (as defined by Gould - something 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent') that the universe is old and that life and conciousness have evolved and end with the death of the body and hence there is no such thing as a soul or essence which gets judged and sent to Heaven, Hell or reincarnated as something else. The idea that such beliefs are reasonable scenarios from the evidence we have of the world is frankly ridiculous and the only reason they are still current as explanations of our world is conservatism and authority and they are not a good reasons to maintain beliefs! Woolley, may I ask - you've made a case for agnosticism, which I think I basically understand, but beyond that what do you actually believe. Saying you are uncertain of lots of things isn't particularly useful. My uncertainty about the non-existence of fairies isn't enough to make me consider for a moment that they exist. Same with Angels, Demons, Genies etc. What claims of religion do you think are worthwhile provisionally considering? I think there are very very few which are not covered by secular philosophy and ethics. What does adding a supernatural superstructure bring to the discussion: my opinion, nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I have no belief in a deity. Of the convential sort. No, well, Buddhism doesn't know what it is itself most of the time. I don't believe in the 'supernatural' either in the general definition, so don't believe in most of what Buddhism and other similar religions teach. There are deities in Buddhism. The deities in Buddhism are additions to the original teachings, where the Buddha himself was not a Deity and said nothing about the origins of the Universe as he considered them unknowable. Original Buddhism is more a philosophy of life than a religion. I'm not going to argue about what you believe exists in your brain, you're on your own in there. We are all imprisoned in our own heads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. Yes, that's also my problem with most of the people happy to call themselves agnostic. They see it as open minded. I see it as not committing and dodging the issue. I just don't get that at all. It isn't fence sitting or dodging the issue if we don't have the information we need to form a reasoned view. You may as well toss a coin for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I am open to the fact that I could in the future believe in some form of God - however that is defined - dependent upon a rational evidence-based exposition of what this God is/does. Depending on what you consider the nature of God and bearing in mind that Gods are a creation of the human mind it could be difficult to always find rational evidence-based expositions, as the "evidence" will be inside people's heads. I am a defacto atheist but ultimately agnostic. I think that is actually a good description of where an awful lot of us sit with regard to traditional deities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The deities in Buddhism are additions to the original teachings, where the Buddha himself was not a Deity and said nothing about the origins of the Universe as he considered them unknowable. Original Buddhism is more a philosophy of life than a religion. I know very little about Buddhism, but feel there is more than a little post hoc rationalization in what you are saying here EG! Or do you disown the Aggañña Sutta? I have a sense that "no true Scotsman" would claim the Buddha was anything other than a philosopher - but feel that is cherry-picking the ideas of a mind with a 5th Century BC cosmology which did not have a distinction between the natural and supernatural and felt the spirits and hungry ghosts were just as real as the idea you could be reincarnated as a slug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ... that's ... my problem with most of the people happy to call themselves agnostic. They see it as open minded. I see it as not committing and dodging the issue. I just don't get that at all. It isn't fence sitting or dodging the issue if we don't have the information we need to form a reasoned view. You may as well toss a coin for it. Which brings us back to my question just a few posts back - what issues do you think are worth provisionally considering? Miracles? Resurrection? The judgement of souls? The answer to prayers? I am afraid I find these ideas are based on such a baroque cosmology with no basis in reality I really question why it is thought reasonable to consider them. My only answer is conservative authority. Woolley, what parts of religion as practiced on the Isle of Man (from the mainstream to the cultish!) do you think you do not have the information to form a reasoned view upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Evil Goblin: Buddhism seems to be a whole mess of religion and philosophy, if it can't work out what it is, I'm not going to try. Might be safer to say I'm irreligious so it's included in things I don't believe in. I just don't get that at all. It isn't fence sitting or dodging the issue if we don't have the information we need to form a reasoned view. You may as well toss a coin for it. But we do have the information. We have centuries of bollocks with no supporting evidence so I can form the reasoned view that it's all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Woolley, may I ask - you've made a case for agnosticism, which I think I basically understand, but beyond that what do you actually believe. Saying you are uncertain of lots of things isn't particularly useful. My uncertainty about the non-existence of fairies isn't enough to make me consider for a moment that they exist. Same with Angels, Demons, Genies etc. What claims of religion do you think are worthwhile provisionally considering? I think there are very very few which are not covered by secular philosophy and ethics. What does adding a supernatural superstructure bring to the discussion: my opinion, nothing at all. I am agnostic about this because we simply don't have the knowledge about the universe to form a view on creation. That isn't a cop out. It's the only reasonable conclusion we can draw. I appreciate that it isn't useful or convenient but that is just the way it is. We are looking at an infinitely complex situation through a fog of ignorance so it really astounds me that otherwise sane and level headed people can, at one extreme, claim that their god is omnipotent, or at the other extreme totally deny the possibility of the existence of a god. The world of particle physics and quantum mechanics for instance is so bizarre to our perception that literally anything is possible and we, and everything in the universe are formed of these particles that actually consist of nothing more solid than energy. Against such a chaotic backdrop, how can we make such sweeping assertions about the nature of existence? I don't believe that we can. Yes, we can have an opinion but that's all it is and it is not based on anything more solid than our own feelings, upbringing (whether following it or rebelling against it) and learned prejudices. Organised religion as passed down through the ages does of course have much to answer for and I certainly don't support that. Hijacked down the millennia as a way of controlling restive populations I would say. Now and then however, there is resonance in the scriptures that really hits home with things happening in the here and now. As a quick very recent example, I read about the research into the telomeres of the worms that reproduce asexually being potentially immortal against those that reproduce sexually aging like ourselves. It struck me that there is a strong parallel there with the Garden of Eden story and human sexuality. The original was a bit heavy going but here is a link to a press release if anyone is interested: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2012/february/immortal-worms-defy-ageing.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 What parallel are you drawing with the Garden of Eden story ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 But we do have the information. We have centuries of bollocks with no supporting evidence so I can form the reasoned view that it's all wrong. I can understand holding that view, but in the grand scheme of things "centuries" isn't very long and as I've said elsewhere things are much more complex than we can understand. I would agree with you that lots of stuff spouted in the name of religion is just so much tosh but I think that is a different thing altogether to the study of how we came to be here and what the driving force behind all of that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.