Atheism vs Agnosticism

[weltweit]

I thought:

Agnostics = there is no god
Atheist = there may be a god

Is that incorrect?


btw, what I believe is, I am sceptical:

1) there may be a god
2) there may be only one
3) I cannot be certain

So am I an Agnostic or an Atheist?

 

[Gromit]

I thought:

Agnostics = there is no god
Atheist = there may be a god

Is that incorrect?


btw, what I believe is, I am sceptical:

1) there may be a god
2) there may be only one
3) I cannot be certain

So am I an Agnostic or an Atheist?

Athiests say there is no god whatsoever. 100% sure that there is no god.

Agnostics are open to debate on the matter but don't have faith in a religion.

Therefore you are agnostic.

 

[kyser_soze]

2) there may be only one

 

[ska invita]

I take the view that nothiing is impossible - even Dawkins (whom I'm not a fan of) accepts that there is a probability that there is a God. However, atheism is really specific - someone who denies or disbelieves the existance of God or gods. Doesn't say I don't think that there could be hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings. Just says I don't think that there are gods; a being or notion that demands and/or gets worship.
I'm a TREKKIE FFS - I believe absolutely that a species of beings like Q could exist. Just not God or gods.

Well, first of, if there is a god or gods there is nothing to say that it/they require worship.

You are open-minded enough to think there may be hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings - thats right - who can say for certain - maybe - maybe not. Would be silly to rule it out.

But likewise lets think about what made the Big Bang and what came before it - it seems to me to be jumping the gun to uttely rule out the possibility that there was no conscious action involved in this - an action that we as humans cannot even begin to fathom, just as it is impossible for humans to even begin to conceive the size of the universe: absolutely impossible.

you know how in star trek all the aliens are derivative of humans? its almost impossible for us to make up an alien without relating it to ourselves. The task of picturing, imagining or comprehending what an intelligent force behind the big bang wuld be like is even more impossible - in fact its futile to try. But that doesnt mean that there isnt some sort of conscious root to existance. Doesnt meant there is, but doesnt mean there is isnt. Its a mystery and I just cant get how theists or atheists could be certain either way .

Atheist and theist claim to have "knowledge" about how the universe came to be (By god or gods, or definitely without god or gods - hence a belief in science/physics/chemistry as the causal reason). By doing so they automaticaly fall in the trap of "believing" something.

Agnostics dont claim to have knowledge on the subject - the truth is the truth, and whatever that truth it has nothing to do with our personal beliefs. In fact on a question so baffling as why was there was a Big Bang and what came before it it is quite likely that the truth will be so far away from any belief that a human could hold that its barely worth trying to guess - although it is fun to wonder.

I am pretty confident that it is not possible for humans to ever answer the question of the big bang - why and what came before - put away your science books and give in to the mystery!

 

[Belushi]

Atheist and theist claim to have "knowledge" about how the universe came to be (By god or gods, or definitely without god or gods - hence a belief in science/physics/chemistry as the causal reason). By doing so they automaticaly fall in the trap of "believing" something.

No they dont - Im an atheist and all it means is I think religion is bunk and that I consider the idea of 'god' to be as laughable as that of fairies, pixies or the flying spaghetti monster.

I neither know nor care how the universe came about.

 

[ska invita]

No they dont - Im an atheist and all it means is I think religion is bunk and that I consider the idea of 'god' to be as laughable as that of fairies, pixies or the flying spaghetti monster.

Thats your belief. You claim to know that the above isnt true.

You can imagine a pixie, a farie and a spaghetti monster - my point was that what made and preceeded the Big Bang is unimaginable - beyond human perception - and it could be conscious (or not). All the term "God" implies is some degree of conscious intent - the specifics of this are, as I said again and again, unimaginable - you actually cant consider the idea of god in any meaningful way, although you claim you not only have, but found it to be laughable.

I neither know nor care how the universe came about.

Of course you dont know - except you have limited the options with your beliefs by claiming to know what isnt behind it.

As for not caring - thats a bit sad - its nice to care and wonder.

P.S. You say "all religion is bunk" - for the record this is not an issue of religion (religion being something you practice) - its a question of what you believe or perceive to be true.

 

[ICB]

Agnostics are just atheists who haven't thought about it properly

 

[In Bloom]

But the really interesting thing is that if you replace all the circles with Jesus' severed head, the word "Belief" begins to flash

 

[In Bloom]

we are nothing more than ignorant savages baying at the moon.

Agnostics might well be, but that's because you're all dim enough to believe that there can only be absolute certainty or absolute doubt. Silly, simplistic, childish bollocks

I'm not an atheist because I claim to know that there definately, 100% certainly isn't a God. You can never be that certain of anything, except your own existence. I'm an atheist because I don't seriously entertain the idea that there's some cosmic superhero who created the universe for reasons unknown and then neglected to leave behind any evidence that he did it.

 

[weltweit]

Isn't it about time that we accepted that there are things that we, as humans, cannot know and that anyone who declares that they know the 'truth' is just fooling him/herself and anyone else fool enough to listen!!

There are things we know we know we know and there are things we know we know we don't know, then there are things we don't know we don't know we don't know. [1]

Truth and fact and evidence and proof are all words for the same thing: belief

Truth: something I believe to be a fact.

Fact: something I believe to be true perhaps supported by evidence.

Evidence: something I believe supports or proves that something is true.

Proof: something I believe perhaps through evidence supports that something is true

Not so long ago, the prevailing truth was that the world was flat and if you sailed your square rigger too near the edge you risked falling off. Neither religion nor science cracked that the world was round for many many years and when it was proven, a new age beckoned.

Therefore it is quite plausible to argue that there are other "flat earth" ideas (perhaps lots of them) in our current knowledge and that over time some more will be revealed for the errors that they are.

So what we know, we also know contains errors and omissions, and what we don't know or don't know we don't know may be vast.


[1] Donald Rumsfeld talking about Iraq.

 

[merlin wood]

There's no god as described in any religion, although in some ways the Hindu god Vishnu comes close to personifying a natural, universally acting cause that sends no-one to heaven or hell, does not wreak vengence or perform miracles, but otherwise has god-like significance for human beings.

 

[ska invita]

Truth: something I believe to be a fact.
Fact: something I believe to be true perhaps supported by evidence.

Disagree with you on that - things can be true or facts no matter what I believe.

For example 1+1=2, no matter what I believe. It is an absolute truth. There are obviously countless other examples of absolute truths - truths irrespective of opinion and belief - they remain true even if humans dont exist.

What is the truth of the Big Bang? What is the truth of what came before the big bang? There is one - fuck knows what it is - whatever it is it is true and it is a fact. As an agnostic I put my hands up and say I cant possibly know - an atheist has a definite opinion: namely it has no conscious elements, and usually also would speculate that is a process born of pure science.

what we don't know or don't know we don't know may be vast.

... infinitely so.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Isn't it about time that we accepted that there are things that we, as humans, cannot know

yes, it's "give up" o'clock

 

[weltweit]

Disagree with you on that - things can be true or facts no matter what I believe.

For example 1+1=2, no matter what I believe. It is an absolute truth. There are obviously countless other examples of absolute truths - truths irrespective of opinion and belief - they remain true even if humans dont exist.

Yes within the tight theoretical world of mathematics 1+1=2

But perhaps you could prove from first principles that 1 actually exists?
I can't prove it and yet it must exist because it is such a very basic building block of mathematics.

In the field in which I work 2+2=5.
It is called "synergy" and it makes just as much sense as saying 1+1=2

Synergy or 2+2=5 means that if you get four people in a team working together on a project, the resulting output is always 5, or greater than 4 people working on their own on the same project.

Then there is 1+1=3 when a heterosexual couple get together and make a third, a baby so .. 1 human + 1 human = 3 humans.

Both of these make just as much sense to me as 1+1=2

What is the truth of the Big Bang? What is the truth of what came before the big bang? There is one - fuck knows what it is - whatever it is it is true and it is a fact. As an agnostic I put my hands up and say I cant possibly know - an atheist has a definite opinion: namely it has no conscious elements, and usually also would speculate that is a process born of pure science.
... infinitely so.

I have an agnostic view of the big bang, but that does not mean I do not believe we will ever know, we appear to be learning more and more about the world around us, in micro and in macro, perhaps we are.

What we can be certain of is that our knowledge, whether as individuals or the sum of human knowledge, is riddled with errors and innacuracies and that it certainly omits significant facts that we should be aware of.

IMO it will always be that way.

 

[chainsaw cat]

my main problem with atheism is that it doesn't go far enough, it's a bit of a cop-out - antitheism is more satisfying, ie. there is no god and never has been, but if there were, He would properly be despised as a monster.

personally i find agnostics to be feckless excuse-monkeys who effectively turn a blind eye to every horror visited on humanity by organised religion.

"oooh i can't know anything for sure", they whinge, wringing their hands. "i'm not even absolutely sure if this chair i'm sitting on is a chair. maybe it's a chair, maybe it's not. maybe i'm not even sitting. maybe i am. who knows? it will always be outside of direct human experience".

zzz. they're almost worse than god-botherers. at least the god-struck engage with their delusions.

I love you. Is the above copyright?Can I nick it? Can I add 'Believers are dickheads. And no, I don't need to justify that'?

 

[chainsaw cat]

Not the ones I know and none of them act as you claim they do either.
Conclusion: Your views are somewhat troubled.

salaam.

Mr Aldebaran - am I right that your view is that there's an invisible deity what made everything? And will punish/reward you after you die? Aren't you the troubled one sunshine?

 

[chainsaw cat]

can we stop using that as an argument against religion?[NO!] Sorry but it just doesnt cut it. Name 100 'horrors' caused by religion and I could name 100 more caused by non-religious things.[So? Religion still sucks mate] Equally I could name 100 good things done by religions, and 100 good things done by non-religious people. [And?]

Wars are caused by people, not religions;[religions are used by intelligent bad people to use dim good people] if there weren't religions we'd still find something to fight about. [Maybe something worth fighting about] Surely a better argument would be to attack religion on a more, er, theological basis....?[No, 'cos then we'd be arguning in the terms of the loonies... theology is really just fairy stories.]

....
..

 

[In Bloom]

religions are used by intelligent bad people to use dim good people

That's a lot of stupid and evil people in the world, maybe they need some kind of leader, somebody really clever, like you.

I mean, yeah, obviously wars are caused by religion, that's why Bush has been carpet bombing Salt Lake City until they admit the indivisible unity of the trinity

 

[Fruitloop]

What religion provides is certainty, which is one of the reasons actually being a proper atheist (i.e. thinking about it as seriously as religious folks do) can be just as much effort as being a theist; it certainly requires that you at least consider rejecting the whole notion of certainty, that everything can be easily defined and everything can be answered.

What science does for me is provide handy information on how specific bits of the whole fit together - I've got my own personal theory about evolution and biological systems that a buddhist friend of mine reckons is quite close to some Buddhist ideas (but I suppose there's always the point that Buddhism isn't a religion in the normal sense).

Having spent a good few years thinking about this, my main beefs with people who follow God/s are that it precludes them from thinking flexibly (or indeed for themselves); that religions are almost always dogmatic and refuse to countenance other versions of reality; that they seem to refuse the notion that humans can create and stick to their own moral and ethical codes without fear of damnation or condemnation - that I can be good simply because I know something to be good, that I don't need a God to tell me it's 'good' or not.

That's a good point. What characterises the rationalist mindset for me can be observed in the change from the picture of a universe whose expansion is slowing to one where it is accelerating. Once the incontrovertible evidence of the acceleration of the universe's expansion was in, there was no weird group of hold-outs who continued to believe in a universe expanding at a decreasing speed because they had some emotional or epistemelogical investment in it - everyone simply switched to believing that the universe is now getting bigger, faster. It's this acceptance of the provisionality of 'true' belief that makes a nonsense of the 'science as religion' argument IMO.

 

[ska invita]

edit

 

[ska invita]

It's this acceptance of the provisionality of 'true' belief that makes a nonsense of the 'science as religion' argument IMO.

For me the science as religion argument boils down to the approach that the Big Bang can be explained away as a rational product of physics, and avoids asking or answering any more profound philosphoical questions such as how or why or what came before.

It's not about stubborn righteous belief in science - its about explaining everything with the laws of science, at the expense of any imagination or possibility that the truth may be beyond our human ability to understand (by scienetific method or otherwise).

Hence scienctific understanding becomes a dogma, particularly for the atheist, who not only rules out organised religion from the answers (probably a very good move) to any solution that cannot be immediately explained by the science of the day - in particular emphaticaly denying any role for consciousness in the process, a view based and motivated by little more than a hatred of organised religion.

 

[ska invita]

personally i find agnostics to be feckless excuse-monkeys who effectively turn a blind eye to every horror visited on humanity by organised religion.

Nonsense. Give me some concrete examples of that - that is just you being reactionary to organised religion and pinning your bad feeling on agnostics.

Agnosticism doesnt necesseraly have anything to do with religion. You may have some agnostics who struggle with organsied religion, but it it is a position that goes way beyond human culture (religion) into the territory of what can be known about the nature of the universe. Many anti-religious scientists are agnostics.

"oooh i can't know anything for sure", they whinge, wringing their hands. "i'm not even absolutely sure if this chair i'm sitting on is a chair. maybe it's a chair, maybe it's not. maybe i'm not even sitting. maybe i am. who knows? it will always be outside of direct human experience".

Thats taking it way too far - agnosticism doesnt lead to "can I know anything" - clearly there is much that humans can know with confidence. Science has given us a lot of useful knowledge.

For example science has shown pretty conclusively that the Big Bang took place - I'll go along with that - the evidence is impressive.

But can you tell me why the Big Bang happened? Can you tell me what came before the Big Bang? If you reply to this post I am sure you will avoid answering this question - no atheist-tubthumper on this thread has yet done so. The best attempt so far is "I don't even care why".

As an agnostic you do find a position relative to this question. Come on atheists, where do you stand on it?

zzz. they're almost worse than god-botherers. at least the god-struck engage with their delusions.

There's no delusion in being agnostic - far from it - it is being realistic and open-minded and recognising the limits of human knowledge on matters such as how the universe came to exist.

By contrast atheists take their righteous fury against organised religion, puff up their chests and deny anything other than an impersonal, unconscious science can be used to understand the nature of how the universe came into being. Mispalced emotion clouding their better philosphical judgement. The psychological make-up of such a stubborn and arrogant position is clear as day...

 

[Fruitloop]

For me the science as religion argument boils down to the approach that the Big Bang can be explained away as a rational product of physics, and avoids asking or answering any more profound philosphoical questions such as how or why or what came before.

It's not about stubborn righteous belief in science - its about explaining everything with the laws of science, at the expense of any imagination or possibility that the truth may be beyond our human ability to understand (by scienetific method or otherwise).

Hence scienctific understanding becomes a dogma, particularly for the atheist, who not only rules out organised religion from the answers (probably a very good move) to any solution that cannot be immediately explained by the science of the day - in particular emphaticaly denying any role for consciousness in the process, a view based and motivated by little more than a hatred of organised religion.

Well, a lot of physicists (still the majority, although not all of them any more) think that it's a meaningless question to ask what came before, because our notion of causation (which is itself pretty problematic) starts at that point, and any question of what happened before to cause it is like asking 'what's north of the North Pole', to quote Stephen Hawking.

I am an atheist and I am also completely prepared to accept the idea that human conceptualisation and cognition may (in fact probably does) have limits that may prevent us from understanding everything, but it doesn't bring me an inch closer to believing in any human-invented deities.

The role of the observer (in terms of measurement) in determining outcomes is pretty much the scientific orthodoxy at the moment, although the question of how that plays out on larger scales is still pretty much open.

 

[Crispy]

Hence scienctific understanding becomes a dogma, particularly for the atheist, who not only rules out organised religion from the answers (probably a very good move) to any solution that cannot be immediately explained by the science of the day - in particular emphaticaly denying any role for consciousness in the process, a view based and motivated by little more than a hatred of organised religion.

The reason I, personally, don't think that there is a 'magic' element to consciousness, or that consciousness is somehow inherent in the universe, is because there is no evidence. Show me the evidence, test it, and I will trust it.

 

[ska invita]

Well, a lot of physicists (still the majority, although not all of them any more) think that it's a meaningless question to ask what came before, because our notion of causation (which is itself pretty problematic) starts at that point, and any question of what happened before to cause it is like asking 'what's north of the North Pole', to quote Stephen Hawking.

I am an atheist and I am also completely prepared to accept the idea that human conceptualisation and cognition may (in fact probably does) have limits that may prevent us from understanding everything, but it doesn't bring me an inch closer to believing in any human-invented deities.

I am not asking you to invent a deity - far from it - that would lead you to theism. I am asking you to consider why the Big Bang took place, contemplate what may have come before, and consider all posibilities to this question -and come to the conclusion that there are countless possibilites that are simply unknowable or even imaginable by us.

I've been explicit that I dont think humans will ever be able to answer it, and the blustering from Hawkins et al just backs that up - physicist have decided it is meaningless (in fact it is deeply filled with meaning) because physics meets its dead-end at the big bang.

I am willing to say that the Big Bang may have taken place as a result of a conscious act, whatever the fuck that may mean. The implications of that mean that I cannot call myself an atheist, as an atheist rules out any such possibilty. Their may be a whole nother concept such as consciousness but utterly different that as humans we are unaware of - as an agnostic I acknowledge and give weight to that too.

As an agnostic I can say with some pride that the start of the universe is a mystery and as a human who can barely contemplate the size of our sun, never mind the size of our universe, how can I possibly begin to imagine what would have created an "explosion" out of which this expanding universe as born?

 

[ska invita]

The reason I, personally, don't think that there is a 'magic' element to consciousness, or that consciousness is somehow inherent in the universe, is because there is no evidence. Show me the evidence, test it, and I will trust it.

You presuppose many things here :

• That consciousness must be "magic" -what does that mean?
• That consciousness need be inherent in the univerese - if there was conscious intent behind the big bang it wouldn't necessary mean that it is inherent in the universe
• That were consciousness to be inehrent in the universe we as humans could test for it with our little instruments

Really in your post you are asking me to prove "it" - my position is that not only can i not prove it, it is unlikely that as a human i can conceive of what it is that might require proving! Its just too wonderous that a universe the scale of which none of us can even begin to conceive of would have originated from a tiny spot so small that again we would struggle to conceive of it.

Its a mystery and a wonder - so wonderous that to my mind anything is possible regarding its true cause and nature.

 

[Fruitloop]

The big bang if the more generally accepted model is correct is the beginning of both time and causation, so it logically cannot have a cause. There may well have been all kinds of stuff that happened before it, but it appears to be a singularity event that seals us off from any information from beyond it (and thus influence from 'before' it). In this sense it's just a limit, like Godel's limit to the completeness of formal systems.

The thing is that we live in a very small part of a universe that is largely made up of very weird stuff, and there are many (perhaps infinite) different scales. It's only because what we experience is not reality but a mental representation of some aspects of reality on a particular scale that we are led to believe that everything must have a cause that came before it, and that the idea of the creation of time and space at the same instant bends our brains so badly.

 

[Fruitloop]

Actually, consciousness or proto-consciousness may be inherent in the universe. I lean towards this interpretation about two days a week.

 

[weltweit]

.... For example science has shown pretty conclusively that the Big Bang took place - I'll go along with that - the evidence is impressive.

But can you tell me why the Big Bang happened? Can you tell me what came before the Big Bang? If you reply to this post I am sure you will avoid answering this question - no atheist-tubthumper on this thread has yet done so. The best attempt so far is "I don't even care why".

As an agnostic you do find a position relative to this question. Come on atheists, where do you stand on it?

I don't understand your obsession with the big bang?
Why are you obsessed with it so?

Science believes something called a big bag ocurred and so far they have not yet decided everything about it and what they think came before it. Christians believe earth was made by god in 6 days work followed by a day of rest, they do not have a concept of the big bang at all. Again why the interest?

Why should an atheist be able to explain all the details behind something so theoretical and tenuous as the big bang when even science is not embarrased that it cannot yet explain the happenings around the so called big bang.

There is no shame in not being able to explain everything.
Some would argue that Christians clinging on to their tenuous beliefs in the bible as an answer to everything are just as deluded as science or scientists who are trying to prove rationaly what they think hapenned.

It is not ignorant to know that one is ignorant about something. To know that one is ignorant at something is the first step towards knowledge about something. Again why are you so fascinated by the big bang, some years ago science had not even theorised that a big bang existed at all, that situation was arguably even more ignorant than the situation today.

There will always be things that we know we don't know about and there will always be things that we don't know we don't know about.

 

[Crispy]

Its a mystery and a wonder - so wonderous that to my mind anything is possible regarding its true cause and nature.

I underrstand you now - sorry I thought you were getting a bit mystical

Personally, I find the wonder in the things we do know.