My Fellow Atheist

[TimeDivider]

Before Reading: Do not start reading unless you plan to finish...this is going to be a long one. Also, try not to comment unless you have read the post in its entirety.

I became an atheist at the age of 16. I was raised in a semi-Catholic home, but my family members never took the notion very seriously. As I started AP biology, my views on evolution were solidified. I never doubted the scientific accuracy of the theory, but never really had a true understanding. That is where the primary issue lays. Accepting that God created man, or accepting the earth is 6000 years old is something that can be done with little or no effort. It is hard when having a debate, all a believer has to do is invoke the power of God, but we as Atheists have to give a science lesson. We also have to explain the simple fact that "hey buddy, god didn't write the bible, humans did." There is no extrapolation needed!

My main audience for this article are the agnostics out there. I have to say, I don't understand them. The inability to disprove something does not make it a fact. One of my favorite quotes is "The absence of fact is not evidence of fiction." - Mark Twain. I believe that if you do not believe in God or a spiritual force, than you should feel confident that you need not sit on the fence. It is not up to the atheist to disprove an existence, but more up to the believers who present the idea. Burden of proof should not keep anyone in the agnostic boat.

I am a confident atheist for one simple reason, and agnostics should pay close attention: To this point, humanity has absolutely no reason to believe there is, or ever was a god or gods. Keeping that in mind, why be agnostic? Why not just go with what is logical and maintain atheism until there is a good argument for the existence of a God? Just a thought. Fire back if you thinking I'm being too absolute.

[Tiberius]

I can't vote in the poll because I subscribe to all the positions in it.

I'm an atheist, I do not believe in gods. I'm an agnostic, I don't claim that my non-belief amounts to knowledge of the non-existence of gods. I'm a believer, I believe in many things, science, the enlightenment, logic, philosophy, etc.

You should go and read Huxley's essay on Agnosticism if you want to have a serious discourse about it. The agnosticism you refer to in your post is a horrible modern misconception and not one that any person I know of truly espouses.

[fr0d0]

You're arguing the facts of scientific discovery against theological conclusions TD - I don't see how you can logically make either meet.

Yep sure you can stand up against illogical biblical literalists and laugh at the myriad flaws there. To me that's simply avoiding the issue for an easy win.

[TimeDivider]

No matter how you slice it, you will never be able to prove that the bible was influenced by god. It was written by several people thousands of years ago. It has been revised, expanded, and changed over the centuries. Without the bible, there would be no knowledge of your god. I'm sorry, but your faith is not in god, your faith is in the bible. I am not trying to use science to disprove religion, that would be completely illogical. They exist in two completely different universes as far as I'm concerned. I love science, but I am an atheist because no human being has ever found 'god' without being told about it by another person or by a religious text that was, you guessed it!, written by man.

To Adrian:

ADDENDUM 3:38 PM: When I speak of agnosticism, I am referring to it as it is understood and practiced today by the general agnostic population. It may have a deeper philisophical meaning that is more complex, but I am not going to get into the history of word meaning and semantics.

I will definately check out that essay. The only reason I paint agnostics with that brush is that unlike you, those are the only agnostics I have ever met. What do you mean by enlightenment? Are you speaking of it in the buddhist sense? I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with. I just want to make it clear on a semantic level that lack of belief does not equal belief. Me not 'believing' in god requires no faith. I didn't add anything or replace god with another concept. I am not part of some new age fad 'thought school' that throws around metaphysical/string theory terminology and calls it enlightenment. (Not saying that you do either, kind of just went off on a tangent.)

[fr0d0]

The bible was written by man. This is my contention as a Christian. You wan't to prove the bible wasn't influenced by God... and how exactly do you propose to do that? Using methods found useful in science perhaps? I don't think you're listening.

How did so many wide and varied understandings of gods and deities come about then if it was all from one originating idea? I think you have it ass about face. The major religions are examples of theology matured. The understanding of my faith is from a honed system of theology, yes. that makes it invalid how?

[Tiberius]

When I speak of agnosticism, I am referring to it as it is understood and practiced today by the general agnostic population. It may have a deeper philisophical meaning that is more complex, but I am not going to get into the history of word meaning and semantics.

The general agnostic population are wrong, that's my point. There isn't a "deeper" meaning to the word; agnosticism has always meant what Thomas Huxley defined it as. The current modern usage (which luckily is falling out of use given debates like this) is inaccurate and more closely related to apatheism that anything else. To give agnosticism as a position in a poll opposed to atheism (and "believer") is ambiguous. You either believe or you don't...theism or atheism. If you want to incorporate agnosticism, you must extend the poll in 4 directions:

Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
Gnostic Theist

I will definately check out that essay. The only reason I paint agnostics with that brush is that unlike you, those are the only agnostics I have ever met.

Then I suggest you look around the atheist community online. They all seem to know what they are talking about...well, most of them.

What do you mean by enlightenment? Are you speaking of it in the buddhist sense?

I believe in the enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with.

Science requires a belief in empiricism, materialism (at least weakly), the scientific method, etc. If you don't believe in all these, science is based on nothing at all. These are the core assumptions at work for science to operate. They've done quite well so far (in terms of technological advancement) but they are still assumptions nonetheless.

I just want to make it clear on a semantic level that lack of belief does not equal belief. Me not 'believing' in god requires no faith.

I'm well aware of that...I never argued otherwise.

I am not part of some new age fad 'thought school' that throws around metaphysical/string theory terminology and calls it enlightenment.

(Bolding mine). If you haven't heard about the enlightenment, and you equate it to some throwing around of new age ideas, I suggest you actually read up on the subject. Most of the technological, social, and economical development of the last 200 years is based around enlightenment ideals.

If you won't change the poll, I'll just vote agnostic since it is a good descriptor of how I view the world, more so than atheism. Atheism describes something I don't believe in. Agnosticism describes something I do believe in.

[TimeDivider]

The bible was written by man. This is my contention as a Christian. You wan't to prove the bible wasn't influenced by God... and how exactly do you propose to do that? Using methods found useful in science perhaps? I don't think you're listening.

How did so many wide and varied understandings of gods and deities come about then if it was all from one originating idea? I think you have it ass about face. The major religions are examples of theology matured. The understanding of my faith is from a honed system of theology, yes. that makes it invalid how?

I'm sorry, but I am not the one presenting the idea that God's word is printed within a book. There is no proof that it is influenced by god, other than within the text itself, so the ball is in your court to prove it. You assert the idea, back it up. Its not my responsibility to prove something wrong that has no foundation to begin with. You are the one who isn't listening. It has been the habit of Christians for too long to try and pass the work onto non-believers. We aren't claiming some intangible intelligence, so we have no responsibility to try and disprove something that 'is invisible and non existent, but TOTALLY there.'

How do you suppose we understand god? Because we have made up more socially applicable worship strategies? Its because we have created gods that appear more human. (Christ, Allah, etc) That isn't 'Theological Maturity', it is merely taking a ridiculous idea and repackaging it into something more tangible. It is all MAN MADE. I cannot stress that point enough. I am not interested in converting Christians, I'll make that abundantly clear. I am interested in keeping Christians from affecting my society with their beliefs, and I take comfort in the fact that your numbers appear to be dwindling. Unless you are going to make a counter argument that is more than just your opinion, don't waste my time frodo.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

My main audience for this article are the agnostics out there. I have to say, I don't understand them.


So what ?

Agnosticism is not an overly complex idea.But perhaps have a go at defining what you mean,your post suggests you may have a rather individualistic notion of the word. Also,from reading your post, your claim that you do not understand seems disingenuous. You seem to at least think you do,and disagree.

It is not up to the atheist to disprove an existence, but more up to the believers who present the idea. Burden of proof should not keep anyone in the agnostic boat.

The burden of proof belongs to anyone who makes a claim about anything. The atheist who asserts "there is no god" has a burden of proof. I assert "I do bot believe" I have no burden of proof. My position is called 'weak' or 'agnostic atheism'. It is one I share with Richard Dawkins and most members on this and other atheist forums I've visited.

An agnostic does not necessarily have a burden of proof.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but do not believe in any.[15]
Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Ignosticism
the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[16][not in citation given]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[fr0d0]

I'm sorry, but I am not the one presenting the idea that God's word is printed within a book. There is no proof that it is influenced by god, other than within the text itself, so the ball is in your court to prove it. You assert the idea, back it up. Its not my responsibility to prove something wrong that has no foundation to begin with. You are the one who isn't listening. It has been the habit of Christians for too long to try and pass the work onto non-believers. We aren't claiming some intangible intelligence, so we have no responsibility to try and disprove something that 'is invisible and non existent, but TOTALLY there.'

You made the positive assertion that religion is invalid. I have no interest in defending the idea that the book is 'God's words'. To say an idea influenced a book is completely valid. But of course you're just confusing your rhetoric. My responsibility is to prove any claim of God being existent. As my belief doesn't presume any 'existence' as such I have no responsibility to answer that. But then you aren't addressing my theological position, you are challenging an unmade scientific claim.

How do you suppose we understand god? Because we have made up more socially applicable worship strategies? Its because we have created gods that appear more human. (Christ, Allah, etc) That isn't 'Theological Maturity', it is merely taking a ridiculous idea and repackaging it into something more tangible. It is all MAN MADE. I cannot stress that point enough. I am not interested in converting Christians, I'll make that abundantly clear. I am interested in keeping Christians from affecting my society with their beliefs, and I take comfort in the fact that your numbers appear to be dwindling. Unless you are going to make a counter argument that is more than just your opinion, don't waste my time frodo.

So you are opposed to individual thought.

Yes MAN worked out a clear understanding of his belief system. It's a bit chicken and egg isn't it. On one hand, you champion science because it's a developed system to understand this physical reality. On the other hand, you dismiss intellectual consideration of the human condition. Personally, I take both and use them fully. You are a concentration camp type character who doesn't want to entertain anything that doesn't fit into a small box you've created. I'll stick with freedom thanks.

[TimeDivider]

I'm sorry, but I am not the one presenting the idea that God's word is printed within a book. There is no proof that it is influenced by god, other than within the text itself, so the ball is in your court to prove it. You assert the idea, back it up. Its not my responsibility to prove something wrong that has no foundation to begin with. You are the one who isn't listening. It has been the habit of Christians for too long to try and pass the work onto non-believers. We aren't claiming some intangible intelligence, so we have no responsibility to try and disprove something that 'is invisible and non existent, but TOTALLY there.'

You made the positive assertion that religion is invalid. I have no interest in defending the idea that the book is 'God's words'. To say an idea influenced a book is completely valid. But of course you're just confusing your rhetoric. My responsibility is to prove any claim of God being existent. As my belief doesn't presume any 'existence' as such I have no responsibility to answer that. But then you aren't addressing my theological position, you are challenging an unmade scientific claim.

How do you suppose we understand god? Because we have made up more socially applicable worship strategies? Its because we have created gods that appear more human. (Christ, Allah, etc) That isn't 'Theological Maturity', it is merely taking a ridiculous idea and repackaging it into something more tangible. It is all MAN MADE. I cannot stress that point enough. I am not interested in converting Christians, I'll make that abundantly clear. I am interested in keeping Christians from affecting my society with their beliefs, and I take comfort in the fact that your numbers appear to be dwindling. Unless you are going to make a counter argument that is more than just your opinion, don't waste my time frodo.

So you are opposed to individual thought.

Yes MAN worked out a clear understanding of his belief system. It's a bit chicken and egg isn't it. On one hand, you champion science because it's a developed system to understand this physical reality. On the other hand, you dismiss intellectual consideration of the human condition. Personally, I take both and use them fully. You are a concentration camp type character who doesn't want to entertain anything that doesn't fit into a small box you've created. I'll stick with freedom thanks.

Wow, the conclusions you draw are...well...interesting. You are about the most melodramatic dipshit I have ever met haha. "I'll stick with freedom.." hahah you are hilarious.