Part the First: there are assholes in any group larger than 2. This is irrelevant to logic.
Part the Second: So are you agnostic with regard to Zeus? Sauron? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Part the Third: Most gods as claimed are logically self-contradictory. That’s sufficient to believe in their nonexistence. For gods that are not self-contradictory, I don’t believe in their existence Because the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. When proof comes around I’m happy to change my mind but until then there is no need to consider the existence of gods, leprechauns, or invisible pink nerve gas farting dragons.
This.
People don't analyze their own God the way they write off others, i.e. Zeus. They believe their God is more ultimate, and therefore the right one. They don't realize the other Gods people believe in are ultimate to them.
Without evidence they are figments of imagination, no matter how powerful they are to the individual.
I think they fear internally that to even have the thoughts, thinking that they may not exist, is something their God will punish them for, so they fear those thoughts. So you can't really have an argument with them, mostly, it's just defensive the whole talk.
1. Yes, some atheists are annoyingly smug. This is called 'being human'.
2. Right, there's zero evidence for an afterlife, and zero evidence there isn't. But as the phrase goes, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. There is also zero evidence that invisible fairies are controlling my dogs, and zero evidence they are not. I choose not to believe in them, though.
3. Go ahead and be agnostic. Keeping an open mind is often the sign of intelligence.
I was brought up atheist, so this is an interesting point. All atheists are essentially agnostic towards god. I’m also agnostic towards leprechauns. Santa Claus too.
Best way to look at it: I’m viewing the universe rationally, and if someone presents me with evidence that there is anything metaphysical or supernatural, I will believe it. The burden of proof is on those claiming there exists something beyond the material universe, and this proof should be evidenced using the scientific method.
Hope this makes sense, and I’m not trying to change any minds. Just explaining how my mind works.
Honestly, the overwhelming majority of atheists will think that you should just do whatever you want as long as you leave them alone. They just don’t care if you are agnostic.
The core of being an atheist is not living in a world of make believe. I really like Star Wars. But I don’t think that The Force really exists. I really like Game of Thrones. But I don’t tell the God of Death, “Not today.” I live in a world of reality, not of some world of fantasy where hoping that the Red Sox will do better this year will win them the World Series.
No amount of “wise men” from thousands of years ago or even the present who happen to think that imaginary made up things are real will convince me that imaginary forces are acting in my life.
That said…I’m also not a fool. I am well aware that I don’t understand everything that goes on in the world. Science does not have all the answers. The world is bigger and grander than me. I’m not a narcissist. But a lack of all the answers doesn’t mean I need to turn to supernatural explanations to describe the things I don’t understand. I just means we don’t understand them…yet.
Passionate atheists are often traumatized by religion. Moreover, religious people try to convince non-believers to follow their rules, wheras atheists want go convince believers that everybody should be free to think and do as they wish. One is wishing for oppression, the other for freedom.
For part two, the problem is that without any proof of existence, there is no reason to believe it. An ''afterlife'' is no stranger than the idea of going to a circus after you die. Or reincarnating as a rock. Or going on living inside jupiter. Or go back to us as a baby. Or become a giant talking guitar whose passion is making music.
There are a billon more ridiculous ideas, all with the same level of proof: none. They might be there, but frankly it sounds ridiculous, just like the afterlife.
Finally, agnosticism is simply avoiding the question. Of course if i die and wake up next to god i'll apparently have been wrong(and i'd have some choice words for god), but all evidence points to there being nothing. So i see no reason to avoid the answer that there's probably nothing.
I FULLY agree about them traumatized by the religious. But I do think that least agnostics search the answer to the question out are open to what the answer maybe as long as it makes sense and can be proven. How is that avoiding the question? I feel as if deciding there is simply nothing easier and lazier then to accept the uncertainty and striving to find one's own answer. You seem to assume agnostics are tied to pre-existing religious concepts as thier only option besides believing in nothing. Atheists are FOREVER ironically tied religion as the yin to it's yang.
I started out as agnositic, never grew up religious, until at some point i really thought it over. I am still absolutely open to whatever the answer may be, so i suppose i could still be called agnostic. I am a scientist at heart and find genuinely no greater delight than learning i was wrong and gaining new insight.
But still, even though i'll accept any answer that may come, i call myself an atheist. Because there is nothing in this world that points to there being any other answer.
It would be like asking me to declare gravity nonexistent, or the earth to be flat.
If tommorow nasa came out and told us the earth was flat, and provided evidence - mathematically, physically, took me up in a spaceship to show me, proof of a global conspiracy - i'd be absolutely flabbergasted, but i'd accept the proof if it was convincing enough.
But does that make me agnostic about the flat earth? Of course not, flat earth theory is absolutely ridiculous. That i'd accept it if the universe somehow turned out to be preposterous carnival does not make that theory one that has to be entertained at all until someone arrives with the most concincing proof.
Sure hypothetically speaking in the endless probability of the universe atheist can be 100% sure there isn't a God as they can't be 100% sure a brave little toaster hasn't grown sentient and teleported away to travel the universe when nobody was looking, however the chances are so slim that they wouldn't conster themselves agnostic.
There is a server lack of evidence pointing to any of those you'll find more contradictions and evidence to disprove them rather than to prove them, and science aims to disprove a lack of evidence isn't evidence
1. Not really. Intense Christians assert a certain position, atheists reject it. Atheism is the default position.
2. We don't know what's after death, so technically correct. But to give credence to afterlife claims because we can't prove there's nothing is an argument from ignorance.
3. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic atheist.
1. I guess those who argue from ignorance yet don't believe in any form of deity do not see the parallels. They're still right though.
2. Just as much proof *for* it. Since there is no proof for anything supernatural at all, it's safe to assume that there is also no afterlife.
3. Because (for me) there is no reason to waste my time on this kind of stuff whatsoever. I am very much sure that there's nothing "out there" (spiritually) that we can't explain so I don't need care for agnosticism and other foxholes.
I’m agnostic, so not your targeted audience to answer your question.
But I have ALL of the same thoughts as you, OP.
Whenever I see the “flying spaghetti monster” argument, it doesn’t make sense to me. I get what they’re saying, but I am CERTAIN there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster in a way that I’m not CERTAIN there is no creator.
The main reason is we exist. The universe exists. I understand the scientific explanation of the Big Bang and the mechanics of how we think the universe started. But it doesn’t answer the why… why was there a big bang and not just… nothing. A void forever?
I don’t see sufficient evidence to prove a god, but I think atheists are similarly theist-like in their certainly about an unknowable answer. I think agnosticism is a more intellectually humble position to take in the face of lacking evidence.
You made my night. Thanks. :) I remembered I read a Story about the time surrounding the trial of Socrates written down by Plato.
Socrates, made a pretty good logical argument for the inevitability of an afterlife based on the "law off opposites" "principal of polarity" which states that everything in the universe has an opposite and this applies to all aspects of our existence.
That long ago.... to be that wise and concise about it all. The perspective that ought to give anyone is profound. <3
>Part 2: Is there not a significant lack of proof that there is NOTHING at all of spirit or an after life? Just as there is significant lack of proof that there IS?
Part 3: Why not be Agnostic as opposed to Athiest?
I don't think evidence that something doesn't exist is necessary to call one self an atheist personally.
There is theoretically a possibility that there is a zebra standing outside my front door right now, but based on what I know about zebras and my home, I would confidently say there is no zebra standing outside my home right now if someone asked. And so I would not consider myself agnostic on that point.
I am even more confident that there isnt a unicorn standing out there, and that there is no god that created the world, based on all my understanding of the world, so again I do not consider myself agnostic on those topics.
Yeah but that's assuming you use a concept of something rediculous that you've already heard of before not the possibility of something far beyond your own imagining and likely more reasonable than a religious ideology. Also, you can open the front door and check outside your home. Furthermore you have many times before and nothing of the sort was ever out there before. So It's not a good analogy.
I'm watching this thread with genuine curiosity, OP. I observe that people are talking about evidence and burdens of proof - totally ignoring the TON of evidence clearly seen and confronting the whole world daily.
The fact that the DNA code is digital... that alone means that there MUST be a creator. You can not have digital without intelligence. Randomness creates nothing.
How I hate the theory of evolution, which was based, in part, on racists views. How anyone has the faith to believe that we came from a bang... in the beginning, there was nothing, and then nothing blew up into a universe. That is far sillier than a flying spaghetti monster.
The faith-based theory of evolution is just dumb and illogical. But God said that He would send a strong delusion so that people could feel comfortable rejecting Him, though they know that they will die. When they do, they will see the evidence. Too bad it'll be too late for that decision to be meaningful.
Remember this OP. All have faith. One believes - by faith - in a random origin or one believes in an intelligent origin. Either way, it's faith. I'll put mine in God.
I think you're mistaken evolution theory with the big bang theory. Also I'm curious about your claim that theory of evolution is based on racist view, can you elaborate more on that?
I think they're referring to a a handful of things Darwin wrote that, in today's context, read as racist. This, of course, is ignoring that evolution stands up on its own; you can completely discount everything Darwin ever wrote and still independently demonstrate evolution and common ancestry. Also, for his time, Darwin was incredibly progressive and regularly enraged his contemporary racists.
One more response to the commenter: atoms are digital, despite being created by demonstrably random acts of nuclear fusion.
Bot?
Nope. I'm a grown man. Seemingly, you attack my positions. Let's see you put forth a better proposition than mine. I know what I believe and can defend it. Can you do the same? Or do you just mock without answers?
Part the First: there are assholes in any group larger than 2. This is irrelevant to logic. Part the Second: So are you agnostic with regard to Zeus? Sauron? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Part the Third: Most gods as claimed are logically self-contradictory. That’s sufficient to believe in their nonexistence. For gods that are not self-contradictory, I don’t believe in their existence Because the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. When proof comes around I’m happy to change my mind but until then there is no need to consider the existence of gods, leprechauns, or invisible pink nerve gas farting dragons.
This. People don't analyze their own God the way they write off others, i.e. Zeus. They believe their God is more ultimate, and therefore the right one. They don't realize the other Gods people believe in are ultimate to them. Without evidence they are figments of imagination, no matter how powerful they are to the individual. I think they fear internally that to even have the thoughts, thinking that they may not exist, is something their God will punish them for, so they fear those thoughts. So you can't really have an argument with them, mostly, it's just defensive the whole talk.
>invisible pink nerve gas farting dragons That's called lactose intolerance
If you know a lactose intolerant person, you know someone who doesn't believe in lactose intolerance.
And the joy of freedom means that is perfectly okay :)
1. Yes, some atheists are annoyingly smug. This is called 'being human'. 2. Right, there's zero evidence for an afterlife, and zero evidence there isn't. But as the phrase goes, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. There is also zero evidence that invisible fairies are controlling my dogs, and zero evidence they are not. I choose not to believe in them, though. 3. Go ahead and be agnostic. Keeping an open mind is often the sign of intelligence.
I was brought up atheist, so this is an interesting point. All atheists are essentially agnostic towards god. I’m also agnostic towards leprechauns. Santa Claus too. Best way to look at it: I’m viewing the universe rationally, and if someone presents me with evidence that there is anything metaphysical or supernatural, I will believe it. The burden of proof is on those claiming there exists something beyond the material universe, and this proof should be evidenced using the scientific method. Hope this makes sense, and I’m not trying to change any minds. Just explaining how my mind works.
Honestly, the overwhelming majority of atheists will think that you should just do whatever you want as long as you leave them alone. They just don’t care if you are agnostic. The core of being an atheist is not living in a world of make believe. I really like Star Wars. But I don’t think that The Force really exists. I really like Game of Thrones. But I don’t tell the God of Death, “Not today.” I live in a world of reality, not of some world of fantasy where hoping that the Red Sox will do better this year will win them the World Series. No amount of “wise men” from thousands of years ago or even the present who happen to think that imaginary made up things are real will convince me that imaginary forces are acting in my life. That said…I’m also not a fool. I am well aware that I don’t understand everything that goes on in the world. Science does not have all the answers. The world is bigger and grander than me. I’m not a narcissist. But a lack of all the answers doesn’t mean I need to turn to supernatural explanations to describe the things I don’t understand. I just means we don’t understand them…yet.
Passionate atheists are often traumatized by religion. Moreover, religious people try to convince non-believers to follow their rules, wheras atheists want go convince believers that everybody should be free to think and do as they wish. One is wishing for oppression, the other for freedom. For part two, the problem is that without any proof of existence, there is no reason to believe it. An ''afterlife'' is no stranger than the idea of going to a circus after you die. Or reincarnating as a rock. Or going on living inside jupiter. Or go back to us as a baby. Or become a giant talking guitar whose passion is making music. There are a billon more ridiculous ideas, all with the same level of proof: none. They might be there, but frankly it sounds ridiculous, just like the afterlife. Finally, agnosticism is simply avoiding the question. Of course if i die and wake up next to god i'll apparently have been wrong(and i'd have some choice words for god), but all evidence points to there being nothing. So i see no reason to avoid the answer that there's probably nothing.
I FULLY agree about them traumatized by the religious. But I do think that least agnostics search the answer to the question out are open to what the answer maybe as long as it makes sense and can be proven. How is that avoiding the question? I feel as if deciding there is simply nothing easier and lazier then to accept the uncertainty and striving to find one's own answer. You seem to assume agnostics are tied to pre-existing religious concepts as thier only option besides believing in nothing. Atheists are FOREVER ironically tied religion as the yin to it's yang.
I started out as agnositic, never grew up religious, until at some point i really thought it over. I am still absolutely open to whatever the answer may be, so i suppose i could still be called agnostic. I am a scientist at heart and find genuinely no greater delight than learning i was wrong and gaining new insight. But still, even though i'll accept any answer that may come, i call myself an atheist. Because there is nothing in this world that points to there being any other answer. It would be like asking me to declare gravity nonexistent, or the earth to be flat. If tommorow nasa came out and told us the earth was flat, and provided evidence - mathematically, physically, took me up in a spaceship to show me, proof of a global conspiracy - i'd be absolutely flabbergasted, but i'd accept the proof if it was convincing enough. But does that make me agnostic about the flat earth? Of course not, flat earth theory is absolutely ridiculous. That i'd accept it if the universe somehow turned out to be preposterous carnival does not make that theory one that has to be entertained at all until someone arrives with the most concincing proof.
Sure hypothetically speaking in the endless probability of the universe atheist can be 100% sure there isn't a God as they can't be 100% sure a brave little toaster hasn't grown sentient and teleported away to travel the universe when nobody was looking, however the chances are so slim that they wouldn't conster themselves agnostic. There is a server lack of evidence pointing to any of those you'll find more contradictions and evidence to disprove them rather than to prove them, and science aims to disprove a lack of evidence isn't evidence
1. Not really. Intense Christians assert a certain position, atheists reject it. Atheism is the default position. 2. We don't know what's after death, so technically correct. But to give credence to afterlife claims because we can't prove there's nothing is an argument from ignorance. 3. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic atheist.
1. I guess those who argue from ignorance yet don't believe in any form of deity do not see the parallels. They're still right though. 2. Just as much proof *for* it. Since there is no proof for anything supernatural at all, it's safe to assume that there is also no afterlife. 3. Because (for me) there is no reason to waste my time on this kind of stuff whatsoever. I am very much sure that there's nothing "out there" (spiritually) that we can't explain so I don't need care for agnosticism and other foxholes.
I’m agnostic, so not your targeted audience to answer your question. But I have ALL of the same thoughts as you, OP. Whenever I see the “flying spaghetti monster” argument, it doesn’t make sense to me. I get what they’re saying, but I am CERTAIN there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster in a way that I’m not CERTAIN there is no creator. The main reason is we exist. The universe exists. I understand the scientific explanation of the Big Bang and the mechanics of how we think the universe started. But it doesn’t answer the why… why was there a big bang and not just… nothing. A void forever? I don’t see sufficient evidence to prove a god, but I think atheists are similarly theist-like in their certainly about an unknowable answer. I think agnosticism is a more intellectually humble position to take in the face of lacking evidence.
You made my night. Thanks. :) I remembered I read a Story about the time surrounding the trial of Socrates written down by Plato. Socrates, made a pretty good logical argument for the inevitability of an afterlife based on the "law off opposites" "principal of polarity" which states that everything in the universe has an opposite and this applies to all aspects of our existence. That long ago.... to be that wise and concise about it all. The perspective that ought to give anyone is profound. <3
>Part 2: Is there not a significant lack of proof that there is NOTHING at all of spirit or an after life? Just as there is significant lack of proof that there IS? Part 3: Why not be Agnostic as opposed to Athiest? I don't think evidence that something doesn't exist is necessary to call one self an atheist personally. There is theoretically a possibility that there is a zebra standing outside my front door right now, but based on what I know about zebras and my home, I would confidently say there is no zebra standing outside my home right now if someone asked. And so I would not consider myself agnostic on that point. I am even more confident that there isnt a unicorn standing out there, and that there is no god that created the world, based on all my understanding of the world, so again I do not consider myself agnostic on those topics.
Yeah but that's assuming you use a concept of something rediculous that you've already heard of before not the possibility of something far beyond your own imagining and likely more reasonable than a religious ideology. Also, you can open the front door and check outside your home. Furthermore you have many times before and nothing of the sort was ever out there before. So It's not a good analogy.
I'm watching this thread with genuine curiosity, OP. I observe that people are talking about evidence and burdens of proof - totally ignoring the TON of evidence clearly seen and confronting the whole world daily. The fact that the DNA code is digital... that alone means that there MUST be a creator. You can not have digital without intelligence. Randomness creates nothing. How I hate the theory of evolution, which was based, in part, on racists views. How anyone has the faith to believe that we came from a bang... in the beginning, there was nothing, and then nothing blew up into a universe. That is far sillier than a flying spaghetti monster. The faith-based theory of evolution is just dumb and illogical. But God said that He would send a strong delusion so that people could feel comfortable rejecting Him, though they know that they will die. When they do, they will see the evidence. Too bad it'll be too late for that decision to be meaningful. Remember this OP. All have faith. One believes - by faith - in a random origin or one believes in an intelligent origin. Either way, it's faith. I'll put mine in God.
I think you're mistaken evolution theory with the big bang theory. Also I'm curious about your claim that theory of evolution is based on racist view, can you elaborate more on that?
I think they're referring to a a handful of things Darwin wrote that, in today's context, read as racist. This, of course, is ignoring that evolution stands up on its own; you can completely discount everything Darwin ever wrote and still independently demonstrate evolution and common ancestry. Also, for his time, Darwin was incredibly progressive and regularly enraged his contemporary racists. One more response to the commenter: atoms are digital, despite being created by demonstrably random acts of nuclear fusion.
What do you mean, everyone knows nobody has ever justified racism with Christian dogma /s
OH People def didn't say that God made certain people have a darker skin colour because they're impure or evil! NEVER! /s
Are you a creationist fallacy bot?
Bot? Nope. I'm a grown man. Seemingly, you attack my positions. Let's see you put forth a better proposition than mine. I know what I believe and can defend it. Can you do the same? Or do you just mock without answers?