Intro

[erniesam]

Hi there,

I've been on several atheist forums. I'm always interested in a discussion about religion, atheism and everything concerning life.

I'm from Holland, 33 years of age, graduated in art history and currently employee of a company promoting young artists (in every field). I'm also a member of a humanistic organisation. This organisation entails atheists and religious humanists as well. We have always interesting and sometimes heated discussions. The main current in this organisation is atheistic though. We try to evaluate our opinions in the open. Since we're in Holland, atheism isn't a hot topic. But religious tendencies rule our society nevertheless. Our organisation tries to open the debate on this religious political influence.

My interests are: movies, music, literature, painting, philosophy, astronomy, nature (well, just about everything that makes you feel alive!)

My beliefs: I'm not a theist, I'm not an atheist. I do not believe in agnosticism, because it's a cowardly and undecided position. I'm simply saying; we cannot say anything about the unknown that makes any sense. Atheism states that there is no god or God, but by stating this, atheism is saying something about the unknown. You just can't say anything sensible about what beyound our senses. All that we can do is be silent. But...that's not a sympathetic view of life. And I like sympathy! So, instead of projecting religious doctrines on to the unknown I project my own cherished fantasies. Why believe in religious doctrines, while there is so much more and more beautiful to cherish?

That's me in a nutshell. I'm looking forward to debating all kinds of issues on this forum.

[Giff]

Welcome to the forum erniesam!

As long as their is not evidence of a God or Gods, then we have to assume that something like that doesn't exists. Which is the most logical thing to think. Since it's just fantasies and not something that theoritical can exist then I don't see why people say that there is a higher power.

The unknown will allways be explored sooner or later by and with sience, not philosophy or religion. But it depends what you define the unknown to be.

Great to have you here by the way

[Tiberius]

My beliefs: I'm not a theist, I'm not an atheist. I do not believe in agnosticism, because it's a cowardly and undecided position. I'm simply saying; we cannot say anything about the unknown that makes any sense. Atheism states that there is no god or God, but by stating this, atheism is saying something about the unknown.

Read a dictionary sometime, you are ignorant.

Atheism: Disbelief in gods or belief that gods do not exist.
Theism: Belief in gods.
Agnosticism: Philosophy that contends that certain truths are unknown or unknowable.

Agnosticism is not a cowardly position, it is actually what you subscribe to (you said we cannot say anything about the unknown). Atheism is likewise not stating absolutes, it is stating disbeliefs (or sometimes beliefs). Belief does not equal knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist (yes, the two are not mutually exclusive!) which means that atheism describes my beliefs (i.e. I do not believe in gods) and agnosticism describes my philosophy (i.e. I do not think gods can be proven or disproven since they are by definition unknowable beings).

I implore you to actually do a bit of research. I used to be like you, I thought that agnosticism was a pathetic view to have, that agnostics were "on the fence". Only when I set out to write a blog article on why agnosticism was foolish did I realize that Huxley was talking perfect sense, and in actual fact agnosticism is the only philosophy concerning knowledge that actually works.

[erniesam]

Hi Giff,

Thanks for your message.

I agree with you, that within the natural world (the world which we experience) there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. You can argue that what is within the reach of our senses is the only reality that exists. There's simply nothing more. Even when we "experience" somthing supernatural, it's simply a phenomenon which we do not understand yet. But, as soon as something is within the reach of our senses, it becomes part of the natural world, although we may not understand it yet.

My question is: since the world of our experience grows by the day (mostly thanks to science), there must be elements in the unknown perhaps "waiting" to be discovered. But we don't know if there are elements, because we can't see into the unknown. Based upon our growing of the world of our experience we logically can assume that this world is likely to grow further. However, there will always be a limit to our knowledge and experience, i.e. there will always be a border surrounding us. I like to see this border as a projection screen for our fantasies and desires.



So, I am an atheist, for I do not believe in a god. Furthermore, I flatout dislike the idea of a god watching over us, who decides what's right and wrong etc. I like my own imagination which include my family and friends. I'd like to make my own movie to project on the screen, instead of a prewritten doctrine which is violent, discriminatory, racist, harmful and inconsistent. Still, I do believe that the border of our sensory world and the unknown (a border which moves forward) will always remains a mystery. Any claim you make about this mystery doesn't have any meaning in the natural world whatsoever. You simply can't say anything of the unknow, because if you do, it means you know something about it.

I thank you for your message, because it urges me to take a stand, which is atheism.

---

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your message. I must say, you have thought about it. I think you are right about the fact that atheism itself does not deny the existence of a god perse, but that it is simply a lack of belief in a god. Although there are ateists who do deny the existence of a god, the term itself does not refer to such a claim. I guess you are right about the fact, that atheism doesn't make any claim whatsoever.

You said something interesting about agnosticism: it isn't a cowardly position, but on the contrary a very sensible one: you believe that the existence of a god can't be proven or disproven, since it is supposed to be in the unknown. I agree with that. Still, I do have a question: if a god, which supposedly finds itself in the unknown, is unknowable to us, how can you speak of it in the first place. By stating: you can't prove or disproven the existence of a god you are saying something about the unknown.

I hope you do not take this as an arrogant commentary, for I do find your position very interesting. I'm curious about how you perceive your own position and maybe can tell me a bit more about it.

---

[Tiberius]

Still, I do have a question: if a god, which supposedly finds itself in the unknown, is unknowable to us, how can you speak of it in the first place. By stating: you can't prove or disproven the existence of a god you are saying something about the unknown.

Agnosticism is more than a position about the unknown though, it is a position about the unknowable. Yes, we are asserting something about the unknown, but we do this through logical inference. Logically, gods are unknowable beings, there is no way, scientifically, that you can prove or disprove the existence of beings that are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, because all those attributes combined produce something that defies science. In other words, let us suppose that a God does exist, and has all three omni- attributes. We can deduce therefore that this being has the knowledge and ability to hide itself from detection, even though it is omnipresent. In this way, there is no difference (that we can tell) between a non-existing god and a god that hides itself willingly.

On the other hand, if this being existed and made itself detectable, it is thwarted by the same constraints that make it God. There is no way to prove to humanity that you have omniscience, or omnipotent, or even omnipresence since all of them involve infinities which are inaccessible by science. A good example of this is a story my friends and I like to go over, which involves an advanced alien arriving on the planet Earth, descending in a beam of pure light whilst trumpets and angelic voices ring out all across the world. To most people, this figure would be as a God, but my friends and I agree that the first thing we would ask it is "Can we have some of that technology?!?!?". Suitably advanced aliens are indistinguishable from gods, and so agnosticism is the only logical position to take.

As for saying something about the unknown, I hardly think it is a bad thing. You yourself say something about the unknown by calling yourself a "non-theist". You do not believe in theism, and theism is the belief in gods, which are (as I have already explained) unknown entities. Thus your rejection of theism is ultimately a stance on the unknown, only a more logical one.

Anyway, I apologise for calling you "ignorant" in my first response it wasn't polite and was uncalled for. I've just had some bad news about a student group I'm involved with, so I was more than a bit pissed off. Plus, I'm always annoyed when people misrepresent positions such as atheism and agnosticism, even though in your case it was unintentional.

What I should have said was "Welcome to the forums!"

[erniesam]

Thanks for the welcoming.

Your story about advanced aliens, which for us would be indistinguishable, coming to earth, led me to think of another story I came across sometime ago.

Suppose scientists discover a note somewhere in the universe, stating that God did make the universe and has all the attributes religious people claims he has. With the note, the scientists find a copy of God's licence of creation, so they can verify his handwriting, of course. This would be indisputable evidence that God does exist.

But what if the scientists would find another note, somewhere in the distance future, with the same handwriting and also a copy of the licence of creation that states: "Ha, ha, it was just a joke!" Would religious people believe this note (or both notes) would come from Satan?

The point is, we cannot verify the truth of this evidence, because the meaning of it stretches beyond our senses. Even if God would present himself to us from heaven, this will not be sufficient proof of whatever statement he makes about the future or what lies beyond death. We shall not be able to verify anything he says, because it isn't within our reach. Above all, when God presents himself he is no longer supernatural: he becomes part of the natural world.

You said that saying something about the unknown is hardly a bad thing. I agree. Of course you can say something about the unknown, but we have no way of verifying the things we say about it. Some things are more logical than others, when it is based upon our present knowledge and empirical evidence. For instance, i cannot understand how Christians can attribute characteristics as omnipotence and omnibenevolence to an unknowable God. I understand that a favorite Christian principle of knowing something about God is by analogy. For instance: when we say: "That is a good person' we mean something different with the word "good" when we say "that is a good dog." The things Christian apologetics come up with! For if you assume that God has a different nature than humans or the human experience, you must know something about the nature of God, namely that it isn't the same as humans. So, we're right back where we started.

You said that I say something about the unknown too, when I'm stating that I consider myself a nontheist. I guess you're right. We cannot escape saying something about the unknown when we try to distance ourselves from theism. Isn't it unfair to atheists that they can only separate themselves from theists by stating something? I like to see atheism as a lack of believe. Theism just isn't an issue in my worldview. It's like basketball or any other sport. When you do not play basketball, they don't call you an antibasketball player. I believe the same should apply to atheists. Maybe it's time to invent another, more appropriate term for it. What do you think?

You apoligised for calling me ignorant. Well, I think that's polite, but it isn't nessecary. I can imagine when you're bothered by current issues, this will affect your reply to anything. I myself can get sometimes carried away by my emotions. This will have effect on my reaction to whatever comes on my path. As long as the reaction does make sense, i do not blame the other, or myself. It's only irrational and, indeed, ignorant reactions I cannot cope with. Your reaction was thoughtful and, I must say, very well put.

[Tiberius]

Suppose scientists discover a note somewhere in the universe, stating that God did make the universe and has all the attributes religious people claims he has. With the note, the scientists find a copy of God's licence of creation, so they can verify his handwriting, of course. This would be indisputable evidence that God does exist.

Well I'd dispute even this part of the story. I don't think this would be "indisputable evidence" that God does exist. The note could have easily been a hoax, placed there by either someone on Earth or an alien observer.

I think the only thing we should say about the unknown is that it is that, unknown. If someone suddenly forces some attributes on the unknown, it makes sense to say we reject these attributes, because as previously stated, the unknown is just that, unknown.

Thus agnosticism and atheism are compatible and go very well together. Agnosticism in this sense might even lead to atheism, since any theistic claims about the unknown can automatically be rejected.

As for another name, I think we already have too many. I like atheism when it is defined properly as a disbelief, or even as a lack of belief as you put it. I don't think we need anything else, certainly not the "Brights" or any other attempt to make the name better. In all honesty, I think it would be easier to change the image surrounding the "atheist" label than to create another one that nobody knows about.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Hi ErnieSam,

Welcome to the forum.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Welcome Erniesam!

And I have thus far enjoyed reading your discussion with Adrian on this thread

Welcome to the forums.