That's because atheism is a religion. The atheists have more in common with the believers, than they do the scientists. A scientist is at best an agnostic. The cardinal rule of science is that nothing can be proven, only results can be confirm a theory. Atheism and Christianity/Judaism/Islam all assume that they are correct, science proposes an idea and then identifies a pattern. As a scientist, and a believer in God, nothing angers me more than people who link science and atheism.
I don't wish to anger you further or to disrespect your faith, but there's a lot of space between atheism and agnosticism. How would you characterize someone that felt (and thought) the idea of God was not only impossible but virtually inconceivable and yet conceded that he could not pretend to knowing everything? Wouldn't that person be very much like a scientist, by your own stated cardinal rule of science that says "nothing can be proven, only results can be confirm a theory?" And wouldn't that person be an atheist? If someone hands me a scratch-off lottery ticket (that I don't even know is real) am I really agnostic about my chances of winning a trillion dollars or am I more an atheist on this matter? What if we change the stakes (leaving out so much of the Bible which requires a much more profound suspension of disbelief) and simply ask how I might feel about winning a trillion on the card and then being carried away to Heaven by angels? I do not believe I will win the trillion and I certainly don't believe I'll be carried away by angels, but can I say definitively that I will not? No, because I can't say anything definitively. Just like scientists. But if I cannot be sure of angels not carrying me away, for lack of an ability to know anything for sure, am I an agnostic? No, I don't think so. Being that I believe the existence of God would constitute the greatest imaginable example of wish fulfillment, I think I'm much more on the atheist side of the spectrum than the agnostic. If you don't mind, let me know how my feeling of atheism is different than a scientist with a theory. How it is even different from so agreed upon a theory as the one that tells us water is wet? You don't have to be an absolutist to be an atheist anymore than you have to be in order to be, let's say, Christian. And listen, I promise you the vast majority of non-believers like myself have no interest whatever in being right or proving the idea of God to be wrong. Most of us like the idea of a loving God and a sweet afterlife quite a lot but just can't manage to believe in it. I would never disabuse anyone of his own such wonderful belief. Even so, is not believing in God more rigid than believing in Him? If you think so, I hope you'll explain to me why that is.
If someone hands me a scratch-off lottery ticket (that I don't even know is real) am I really agnostic about my chances of winning a trillion dollars or am I more an atheist on this matter? What if we change the stakes (leaving out so much of the Bible which requires a much more profound suspension of disbelief) and simply ask how I might feel about winning a trillion on the card and then being carried away to Heaven by angels? I do not believe I will win the trillion and I certainly don't believe I'll be carried away by angels, but can I say definitively that I will not? No, because I can't say anything definitively. Just like scientists. But if I cannot be sure of angels not carrying me away, for lack of an ability to know anything for sure, am I an agnostic? No, I don't think so. Being that I believe the existence of God would constitute the greatest imaginable example of wish fulfillment, I think I'm much more on the atheist side of the spectrum than the agnostic. If you don't mind, let me know how my feeling of atheism is different than a scientist with a theory. How it is even different from so agreed upon a theory as the one that tells us water is wet? You don't have to be an absolutist to be an atheist anymore than you have to be in order to be, let's say, Christian. And listen, I promise you the vast majority of non-believers like myself have no interest whatever in being right or proving the idea of God to be wrong. Most of us like the idea of a loving God and a sweet afterlife quite a lot but just can't manage to believe in it. I would never disabuse anyone of his own such wonderful belief. Even so, is not believing in God more rigid than believing in Him? If you think so, I hope you'll explain to me why that is.[/QUOTE] For me the line between agnostic and atheist/religious person is the profession of knowledge. A religious person has a tendency to state they know God exists, in the same manor that most atheists claim they know God doesn't exist. To say that you believe God exists, or believe he doesn't puts you in the agnostic category (that's why it's literally translated without knowledge). The problem that stems from this is that a lot of people stretch the notion of belief into knowledge, or falsely equate the two. People will constantly say they believe something, but cannot even begin to see the other person's viewpoint. That isn't belief, that is knowledge and therein lies the problem. In my opinion belief isn't unwavering, it can be stretched, strengthened and weakened. Knowledge is unbending, constant and rigid. To me, the only things that can be known are what our senses tell us, the rest is purely belief. You seem much much more agnostic than atheist, despite the fact that you do not agree. Of the atheists I've known, they all have stated that they know there is no God. If you say you know that God doesn't exist and abandon the notion that nothing is truly known is when you delve into atheist territory (at least in my opinion). Atheism is a belief that there is no way possible God can exist. I need to believe that there is a God. I can't explain why, it just is. At the same token, I've never heard his voice, seen an angel, or actually had any contact with him. I can accept the possibility that he is nothing more than a construction of mine to help me cope with the world. I will never, ever, ever say that I know God exists, I would just like him to. That seems agnostic. In the same way, I feel like you feel the same way but from the opposite end of the spectrum. The fact that you accept that nothing can truly be known instantly puts you under the agnostic umbrella, or so that's the way I see it. If you see yourself as an atheist, then please do not be insulted by my classification, because as you can see I do not classify you as an atheist.
For me the line between agnostic and atheist/religious person is the profession of knowledge. A religious person has a tendency to state they know God exists, in the same manor that most atheists claim they know God doesn't exist. To say that you believe God exists, or believe he doesn't puts you in the agnostic category (that's why it's literally translated without knowledge). The problem that stems from this is that a lot of people stretch the notion of belief into knowledge, or falsely equate the two. People will constantly say they believe something, but cannot even begin to see the other person's viewpoint. That isn't belief, that is knowledge and therein lies the problem. In my opinion belief isn't unwavering, it can be stretched, strengthened and weakened. Knowledge is unbending, constant and rigid. To me, the only things that can be known are what our senses tell us, the rest is purely belief. You seem much much more agnostic than atheist, despite the fact that you do not agree. Of the atheists I've known, they all have stated that they know there is no God. If you say you know that God doesn't exist and abandon the notion that nothing is truly known is when you delve into atheist territory (at least in my opinion). Atheism is a belief that there is no way possible God can exist. I need to believe that there is a God. I can't explain why, it just is. At the same token, I've never heard his voice, seen an angel, or actually had any contact with him. I can accept the possibility that he is nothing more than a construction of mine to help me cope with the world. I will never, ever, ever say that I know God exists, I would just like him to. That seems agnostic. In the same way, I feel like you feel the same way but from the opposite end of the spectrum. The fact that you accept that nothing can truly be known instantly puts you under the agnostic umbrella, or so that's the way I see it. If you see yourself as an atheist, then please do not be insulted by my classification, because as you can see I do not classify you as an atheist.[/QUOTE] Crap, the closing code for the quote got moved when I typed, haha.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." I assume you are agnostic concerning fairies, ghosts and flying teapots as well. Some take a stand against those (Impossible to disprove) notions of ridiculousness.
There is no god, in the way that religious books refer to god, in the mind of an atheist. Now, you want to talk about an Einstein-esque "god", atheists have a much different opinion on the matter. Atheists do not count out a creator, they count out a loaded term, and the silly religion that comes with it.
Pizza_Da_Hut, your posts sound way off base to me. First, atheism and agnosticism are not two points on the same scale. They are not mutually exclusive labels. Gnosticism deals with knowledge (do you or can you know there is a god?), while theism deals with belief (do you believe there is a god?). I would guess that most theists are actually agnostic theists, and I'd definitely say that most atheists are agnostic atheists, based on my experience. I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that ALL of them claim to know for a fact that there is no god. I personally know dozens and dozens of atheists, and that's a fairly rare stance for them to have.
Really nice posts from Pizza_Da_Hut and ClutchCityReturns. Just wanted to thank you both for them. Da_Hut's was understanding and kind. CCR's expressed far more eloquently than I ever could why I feel both agnostic and atheist and still do not believe I know, or even could know, anything for sure.
If atheism is a religion than I'll sign up because: 1.) I don't have to go to an atheist temple every week and pay 10% of my salary to hear somebody who went to atheism school remind me of why I believe in nothing. 2.) I don't really remember any collection of radical atheists blowing up buildings or doing ethnic cleansing in the name of their beliefs because atheism commanded them to eradicate all who believed otherwise. 3.) I most likely won't encounter a collection of atheists coming together to protest, condemn and deny basic human rights on the grounds that they go against atheist beliefs. 4.) If my entire family were devout atheists and I converted to another religion, I have a hunch that they would handle it in a different manner than if I was from a strong religious family and told them I was converting to atheism. Your move, counselor.
I see atheism as not believing in a belief system. As posted agnostic has more to do with being against the idea that there is religious knowledge to whichone should subscribe. Atheism is more about rejecting extant theology. You can say you don't know what is out there but you reject organized religion because of various reasons. I don't care, though. Booyaah!
Christianity isnt a religion... its a relationship that guarantees a promise... as a christian i can never show up to church ever again and never pray or donate money or anything... and still be "saved" if you believe just having you're good deeds outweighing your bad then you're closer to being a muslim than a christian.. to answer the praise question.... Jesus died... we all know that about christianity... and he died for everyone.. as cliche as it sounds... because he was the perfect man.. and none of us are... if someone died for you and you saw it happen, you would praise him.. so why shouldnt we praise god? this is why im not an athiest... <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4HeLYQaZQW0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> we cant put hope in ourselves... cause we'll continue to let ourselves down... accomplishments are bull****... i was in the top ten percent in high school, 5A football varsity captain.. best beer pong player in texas amazing girlfriend... but it was depressing that it was never enough... and as cheezy as it is.. and i know alot of you wont get this at all... but, god is enough.
Your description of Christianity contradicts what many other Christians believe, write about, talk about in church, Etc.. Not to mention it contradicts the vast majority of historical Christian practice.
I've just skimmed through this thread and am curious about how exactly is "free will" being defined in Christian thought? Is free will an absolute that either every decision we make is free will and thus ultimately our fate in the hereafter or are some decisions free in regard to God's will, such as if I chose to wear a red or grey shirt this morning, and some decisions not? Regarding our ultimate fate if that is predestined then does anything we do now matter? Also how does cause and effect work in Christian thought? The reason why I ask is because in Buddhist thought there really isn't such a thing as good and evil but cause and effect that acts through Karma. In that sense free will is constrained by Karma and our actions are the product of a chain of causality.
Good post. My own feeling is that we are both rational and spiritual beings in that acceptance of the methodology of science need not conflict with a faith in something higher. As I've said many times the existence of God(s) isn't a scientific question and its a mistake to try to prove or disprove using scientific methods as much as trying to prove or disprove scientific principles using religion.
I am neither Muslim or Christian but my understanding of the term "Islam" is that it means "submission" in the sense of to God. To me that sounds like faith in Islam is as important if not more so than deeds. If a Muslim can elaborate on this or correct me please go ahead.
Atheism might not have specifically commanded it but Mao and the Khmer Rouge considered themselves atheist regimes and and attacked the religious and religious institutions.
Joseph Stalin would probably disagree with you on this one. Soviet led pogroms against the Russian Orthodox Church and state-sponsored violence throughout the periphery of the Soviet Union (Poland, the Eastern states, etc..) were absolutely brutal. Not to mention Soviet confiscation of land, money, homes, etc.. (all explicitly in the name of athiesm) Certainly violence in the name of religion is bad but oppositional politics is dangerous and tragic. The anti-religious sentiment of the Soviet Union manifested itself in the form of violent and horrific massacres of Christians and Jews alike. Not to mention the examples Rocketsjudoka pointed out.
This argument again? Really? You can skip to 3:20 for the relevant portion, though the whole thing is good. <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rLIKAyzeIw4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CRBW6BpWcTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MHYmYzTjPpw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iyYwo7X4zck" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TRhczvtmbWE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
free will is an illusion. We make choices but if you think about it really what are we but servants to our DNA. Even the notions of morality stem more from a cultural context we learned over any kind of free thinking. We are all ruled by our desires, fears, instinctual programming, and social norms beat into us. If you can overcome all of that stuff, then maybe you do have free will. But than you really are the Buddha too.
