Athiests: Why not agnostic?

Thanks for the chart. I guess I fall in the middle between the two lower quadrants.

 

monotheism and polytheism are different approaches to religion though?

 

Most people do anyways.

 

That would be a pretty decent definition, yes. It's not terribly complicated.

 

In other words:

 

And there it is. Your "certainty" is simply your personal belief that there is no Krishna, Muhammad, or Christ, and you base it on little evidence for such. Although the last two probably ought not make that list, as they are real, actual people with ample historical evidence indicating such.

You confuse faith and belief with certainty and knowledge.

 

I went from being apathetic to atheist to whatever to using atheist just cuz, but my view of things religious/philosophical tend to be best described by "Absurdism" which I first heard of in a Joss Whedon interview about 5 years ago. Admittedly, I haven't delved deeply into it, but on the surface I find it intriguing.

On God:

Spoiler

All quoted from Wikipedia

 

Er, no, I don't think you understand what I am saying. "There is no xxx" is a statement that can only be made when there is 100% certainty - not just in the absence of sufficient evidence. It is an absolute statement that can only be true if perfect knowledge exists. Anything short of that is a statement of belief one way or another. This is Logic 101 stuff.

Not a single living soul can say with certainty whether or not God exists, every single one of us is guessing. Either believing or not believing. Anyone who pretends to know with certainty either way is not being honest with themselves.

 

So, you're saying Thor might really be the cause for thunder?

 

I would personally say it's unlikely. Are you saying that you know it not to be the case?

In the most absolute sense none of us knows anything. In common language we use the term all the time to denote a reasonable certainty, but in the most absolute logical sense we don't even know if we exist, despite Descartes best efforts. We don't even really know what we observe, because our modes of perception and information processing invariably taint our ability to truthfully interpret our observations.

All that said, we generally let it slide when someone says that they know something that we all observe and agree to be true. We know that the sun is going to rise in the east and set in the west on a daily basis without fail until long after all life is extinguished on this planet because we have observed it to do so, without fail, for all of human history. But in the truest absolute sense, we do not know that it will do so, we simply believe that it will because that it what it has always done. And we all agree on that, so we let the know claim slide.

When it comes to the existence of God, any claim of knowledge either way is really not logical. Our dataset regarding God's existence or nonexistence is, unlike the likelihood of the sun's rising and setting, quite small. TOur understanding of this universe and reality itself is miniscule - there is SO MUCH that we don't know about it that it would be premature to assume knowledge either way.

All that we can do is hold our own personal opinions on the subject. Anyone who claims to knowwith certainty either way is claiming knowledge that they cannot *possibly* have at this point.

So, although none of us knows with certainty that Thor is not responsible for all of the lightning hitting trailer parks across this nation, I think we can all agree that it's not likely the case.

 

I don't agree. Faith, to me, has a very different meaning. Its a supreme confidence that something is true without physical evidence. For example, being convinced that Jesus was God or rose from the dead requires faith, because there isn't any real evidence for it.

On the other hand, just believing that there is a higher power of some sort who created all things, but not making any further claims as to the nature of that higher power or its relationship with mankind, to me, is not really faith. Its more of a philosophical position. And I would actually put atheism in that category. 2 people with those positions can actually debate each-other using reason and maybe even science. Again, it doesn't mean they know their position to be true, but rather they arrived at it based on a consideration of the evidence and using their own reasoning powers.

With faith, there is really nothing to debate. When one makes a "leap of faith" there are jumping to a position not based on reason or evidence, but because they want it to be true.

 

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Krishna, Muhammad, or Christ exists is strong evidence that they don't.

I don't think you know what the word faith means.

 

I don't agree with this logic, few decades ago there was absolutely no evidence that bacteria exists, it does not mean that it is a strong evidence that they don't... same for gravity, microwaves, etc...

sometimes its just a matter of time before we really begin to understand somethings...

Actually there is more evidence that Christ exists than lets say Caesar...

ok I will end here, as I really don't want to enter into this debate in the first place, as it is pointless, end of the day, people will believe what they want to believe...

 

Sure - than anything is possible. Why not believe that god is a big marshmallow sitting in a chair outside the galaxy? I mean, you can make anything up and claim it's true since there is no evidence against that.

 

Given that we actually have direct firsthand writings from Julius Caesar, which are in fact some of the best military histories ever written, no your statement is not remotely true. A comparison to say, Socrates may have been more appropriate.

But you are right in that there is evidence that a man named Jesus Christ ran around the Middle East around 30 AD, did a lot of preaching, and got crucified by the Romans. I think most historians accept that.

But that's not what Christians really mean when they say "Christ existed". The loaves and fishes, walking on water, and that whole nine yards? That almost certainly didn't happen.

 

I definitely agree with this standpoint, heck, I don't think we can prove that our individual existences aren't a cruel form of mental punishment enacted on prisoners in the year 14,923. But I think we can all agree that a judeo-christian god is not likely to exist.

 

And that's a terrible example, as we know from historical record that both Muhammad and Jesus Christ were real, actual people.

I don't think you know what the word faith means.

faith [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Mkay?

 

And why would we agree on that? The whole point is that we don't know enough about the subject of whether or not God exists so say that we "know" either way. After you decide whether you believe in a deity or not, the rest is really just personal preference.

 

That is my point. We know that whatever we are we are part of this physical framework we call the universe that is currently and has been governed by the laws of physics for about 14 billion years. We're certain of this much.

Is there more? Absolutely. There has to be. What is that more? Well, we know that there had to be something behind the big bang. And we know that there is some reality that transcends existence that goes beyond time and space.

But the gods mankind has created are not this. These gods man has invented are more a reflection of our limits than the truth of what the nature of reality is. Religion is interesting because it stems from a desire to know the truth about reality and what it means for us. Science is just an unending question to know the truth without having to worry about meaning.

If these religions would embrace the search for truth, instead of preaching dogma around stories and myths from thousands of years ago -we'd all be better off in my opinion. Yes, people can believe in whatever makes them happy - that's awesome.

But if you are someone who searches for the truth - which is unattainable admittingly - if you are someone who truly searches for the truth, than you aren't going to be very religious because to search for the truth, you have to be willing to question everything - in other words - you have to be willing to abandon the concept of faith and embrace uncertainty and test all constructs over time.

And that basically leaves on being an atheist. That yeah, something is going on, but no one really knows what the heck it is. But there is definitely something.

 

same reason as: