Has anything shaken your choice of atheism?

[LuisDantas]

Please forgive the intrusion, I just had to remark on this.

I find it fascinating that our stances are so similar while being diametrically opposed.

Atheism - and for that matter theism - are rarely choices at all. They rely on some conception of God, and such conceptions are anything but rational choices.

Actually, this is very much a matter of aesthetics, not of logic.

 

[jrbogie]

Atheism shouldn't even be in our vocabulary. You are agnostic about a great many things I would imagine... Fairies, Leprechauns, Hydras, Unicorns, Efreeti, Djinn, Daemons, Demons, Angels etc etc

indeed, agnostic about everything. but the op asked if anything has ever shaken my choice of atheism. i answered the question as to why i decided that it was not an atheist that i was but an agnostic. i'd often wondered how one could ever know about gods and the afterlife. should christianity be out of my vocabulary too. both the atheist and the christian are equally delusional as i see it. neither can ever prove thier point.

But none of those things if you disbelieve would ever get your tongue ripped out. People who devoutly believe in unicorns don't fly planes into our buildings to prove how devoutly they believe in horses with horns and magic powers.

huh?

I call myself an atheist to make the distinction clear. I dont believe in god, gods or anything of the sort. I am not agnostic about it. Any evidence I have seen for god is in short - ridiculous. The evidence against god seems overwhelmingly convincing that there is no god.

definitions again. webster defines an atheist as "one who believes there is no god". an agnostic is, "one who thinks god is unknowable". neither of us believe in god. but by definition, you BELIEVE there is no god.

Einstein was against the term atheism because of the stigmatism attached to it and what it represented. Most atheists he had known of were angry people hell bent on destroying religion and he wanted not to be associated with that.

nope, this from one of his letters:


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

and a later letter:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[

and:


"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

But to my original point, calling myself an atheist is like calling myself an afairist or an aunicornist.

couldnt find either in the dictionary so i'll assume you BELIEVE that there are no fairies or unicorns. i THINK that you can never know.

 

[Sententia]

indeed, agnostic about everything. but the op asked if anything has ever shaken my choice of atheism. i answered the question as to why i decided that it was not an atheist that i was but an agnostic. i'd often wondered how one could ever know about gods and the afterlife. should christianity be out of my vocabulary too. both the atheist and the christian are equally delusional as i see it. neither can ever prove thier point.

Many gods can be disproven out of hang logically. An omnibenevolent god can not exist in a world with even a little evil. The god gave us free will argument falls apart on many levels but notably on natural disasters. (Which have no affect on free will but cause untold suffering)

As far as not being able to prove their point I think that many disagree with you out of hand (e.g. Christopher Hitchensen, Geoff Henley) while others meet you on the middle ground. (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris)

In general terms there is a point to be made but if your talking about the god of the bible or a specific god then there can be formed both evidence against and for. When compared one can decide a position until new evidence is brought to light. If your idea of agnosticism is just to not look at the evidence or not make a conclusion I find that odd but serene in a way.

huh?

Horrible things have been done for and in the name of religion and against those that deny religion and because of religion. (Women are still stoned to death in parts of today's world if they get raped. etc etc) By contrast, saying I don't believe or do believe in unicorns is relatively harmless. (Cept it might be considered Pagan which would make it dangerous even today in parts of the world)

definitions again. webster defines an atheist as "one who believes there is no god". an agnostic is, "one who thinks god is unknowable". neither of us believe in god. but by definition, you BELIEVE there is no god.

There may be a god of sorts. I doubt it and find no evidence to believe such. But a personal god or Ra? Thor? Jesus? Yhwh? Laughably improbably imho. I would never believe such based on current evidence and in that sense neither would Einstein which you quoted those exact words: "I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

nope, this from one of his letters:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

and a later letter:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[

and:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

Einstein was against the term atheism because of the stigmatism attached to it and what it represented. Most atheists he had known of were angry people hell bent on destroying religion and he wanted not to be associated with that.

couldnt find either in the dictionary so i'll assume you BELIEVE that there are no fairies or unicorns. i THINK that you can never know.

In what sense do you think your can or can not know. There is a creature called the Psylagerin who is oderless, colorless, tasteless and invisible. He lives inside the fingernails of all living creatures that have fingernails. He is eternal and never dies. I just made this up. Its 100% bogus. Is your position that no one could ever know if this is true?

Science is done is a way as to ascertain what we can and can not know. If you mix X with Y you get Z. To say if you mix X with Y you just can't know what your gonna get sounds like a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

Granted I like fantasy as much as the next person but I know its fantasy. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Has anyone ever presented an argument that forced you to question your choice of being an atheist?

All the time ...

 

[jrbogie]

Many gods can be disproven out of hang logically. An omnibenevolent god can not exist in a world with even a little evil. The god gave us free will argument falls apart on many levels but notably on natural disasters. (Which have no affect on free will but cause untold suffering)

As far as not being able to prove their point I think that many disagree with you out of hand (e.g. Christopher Hitchensen, Geoff Henley) while others meet you on the middle ground. (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris)

In general terms there is a point to be made but if your talking about the god of the bible or a specific god then there can be formed both evidence against and for. When compared one can decide a position until new evidence is brought to light. If your idea of agnosticism is just to not look at the evidence or not make a conclusion I find that odd but serene in a way.

i'm talking about no specific god. i thing that gods of whatever kind, the afterlife and any supernatural phenomena cannot be known by the human mind.

Horrible things have been done for and in the name of religion and against those that deny religion and because of religion. (Women are still stoned to death in parts of today's world if they get raped. etc etc) By contrast, saying I don't believe or do believe in unicorns is relatively harmless. (Cept it might be considered Pagan which would make it dangerous even today in parts of the world)

belief in gods, unicorns whatever requires indoctrination. that's where the harm is done. harm to the freethinking mind.

There may be a god of sorts. I doubt it and find no evidence to believe such. But a personal god or Ra? Thor? Jesus? Yhwh? Laughably improbably imho. I would never believe such based on current evidence and in that sense neither would Einstein which you quoted those exact words: "I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

yep

In what sense do you think your can or can not know. There is a creature called the Psylagerin who is oderless, colorless, tasteless and invisible. He lives inside the fingernails of all living creatures that have fingernails. He is eternal and never dies. I just made this up. Its 100% bogus. Is your position that no one could ever know if this is true?

yep

Science is done is a way as to ascertain what we can and can not know. If you mix X with Y you get Z. To say if you mix X with Y you just can't know what your gonna get sounds like a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

well don't test me on quantum mechanics. i concede you the win.

Granted I like fantasy as much as the next person but I know its fantasy. :yes:

actually i'm really not into fantasy.

 

[Sententia]

i'm talking about no specific god. i thing that gods of whatever kind, the afterlife and any supernatural phenomena cannot be known by the human mind.

Define Supernatural. What about pre-life? What about the FSM?

actually i'm really not into fantasy.

Aww...

 

[jrbogie]

Define Supernatural. What about pre-life? What about the FSM?.

you want me to define supernatural? you don't have a dictionary? no clue what FSM is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Define Supernatural.

Define natural.

 

[Sententia]

you want me to define supernatural? you don't have a dictionary? no clue what FSM is.

Flying spaghetti monster... :fsm: :fsm: :fsm:

:fsm:

 

[Sententia]

you want me to define supernatural? you don't have a dictionary? no clue what FSM is.

What do YOU mean by supernatural. If your claiming the supernatural can exist but could could never be known by humans what are you implying? Earlier you seemed to be arguing that disbelieving in unicorns was irrational. So when you speak of the supernatural is haunted houses, angels, demons, devils, gods, fairies, undead, thundercats, destro, my little ponies etc etc.... What do you mean?

:fsm: FSM is a god. :fsm:

 

[jrbogie]

Many gods can be disproven out of hang logically. An omnibenevolent god can not exist in a world with even a little evil. The god gave us free will argument falls apart on many levels but notably on natural disasters. (Which have no affect on free will but cause untold suffering)

great. if you can prove god, prove god.

As far as not being able to prove their point I think that many disagree with you out of hand (e.g. Christopher Hitchensen, Geoff Henley) while others meet you on the middle ground. (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris)

fortunately i still form my views without seeking the agreement of others.

In general terms there is a point to be made but if your talking about the god of the bible or a specific god then there can be formed both evidence against and for. When compared one can decide a position until new evidence is brought to light.

i'm not talking about any specific god. i'm talking about the ability to know. agnosticism really has nothing to do with gods or the afterlife. agnosticism has to do with the human mind being incapable of knowing anything absolutely.

If your idea of agnosticism is just to not look at the evidence or not make a conclusion I find that odd but serene in a way.

how could you come to the conclusion that that is my idea of agnosticism??? i look at and study evidence often. what i pay little attention to is testimony.

Horrible things have been done for and in the name of religion and against those that deny religion and because of religion. (Women are still stoned to death in parts of today's world if they get raped. etc etc) By contrast, saying I don't believe or do believe in unicorns is relatively harmless. (Cept it might be considered Pagan which would make it dangerous even today in parts of the world)

indeed. your point???

There may be a god of sorts. I doubt it and find no evidence to believe such. But a personal god or Ra? Thor? Jesus? Yhwh? Laughably improbably imho. I would never believe such based on current evidence and in that sense neither would Einstein which you quoted those exact words: "I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

again, your point???

In what sense do you think your can or can not know. There is a creature called the Psylagerin who is oderless, colorless, tasteless and invisible. He lives inside the fingernails of all living creatures that have fingernails. He is eternal and never dies. I just made this up. Its 100% bogus. Is your position that no one could ever know if this is true?

in what sense? i only think that i can not know. yes, no one can know if that is absolutely true. sounds rediculous to me and i'll look at any evidence you might bring that will make what you say about your creature more credible and then rethink it. but i don't do hypothetical.

Science is done is a way as to ascertain what we can and can not know. If you mix X with Y you get Z. To say if you mix X with Y you just can't know what your gonna get sounds like a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

indeed i do not understand quantum mechanics well at all. if you do i congratulate you. but science has no more to do with what we can and cannot know than does religion. science is merely the study of evidence that can withstand the severe scrutiny of scientific methodology to transpose a hypothoses into a working theory. the theory can never be proven absolutely.

Granted I like fantasy as much as the next person but I know its fantasy. :yes:

ah too bad for you. look at the fun you're missing out on. lol

 

[Sententia]

great. if you can prove god, prove god.

My goal is not to prove god. This response seems disconnected to the statement you are quoting but lets breifly revisit.

i'd often wondered how one could ever know about gods and the afterlife

I don't think this is true in all cases as you uniformly appear to apply it . While many concepts are unknown some are outright inventions or logically inconsistent. A round triangle or a Square Circle. And Omnibenovelent god in a world with Evil. An example I stated was the Psylagerin who even when told is completely made up you still argue it could exist and be real. Its imaginary in the sense that I just made it up and its properties are logically inconsistent. A single eternal creature that inhabits the fingernails of all creatures that have fingernails? Can you explain why you think this creature could or could not exist? It would seem in your world you are arguing there is no way I could know if water or sulphuric acid is good for me to drink. I would think it is clear we do know that suphuric acid is bad to drink while water is good. (If certain conditions are met obviously.) Flying Spaghetti Monster is another example a completely fabricated entity.

fortunately i still form my views without seeking the agreement of others.

My point in that was not to imply you must seek the agreement of others. I think that is clear in my statement since I posted there are people who agree and disagree with you. My point is that many, in my opinion, suceed is disproving many various gods out of hand. That said:

In general terms there is a point to be made but if your talking about the god of the bible or a specific god then there can be formed both evidence against and for. When compared one can decide a position until new evidence is brought to light.

again, your point???

You define Atheism as such:

definitions again. webster defines an atheist as "one who believes there is no god". an agnostic is, "one who thinks god is unknowable". neither of us believe in god. but by definition, you BELIEVE there is no god.

Einstein was against the term atheism because of the stigmatism attached to it and what it represented. Most atheists he had known of were angry people hell bent on destroying religion and he wanted not to be associated with that.

You disagree:

nope

So Using your definition of Atheist and And Agnostic quoted by you I point out that you stated and quoted Einstein saying he does not believe in a personal god. In this respect he is an atheist. He did not say a personal god is unknowable, he said he doesn't believe in one. That point is neither here nor there as I was attempting to clarify why I think Einstein felt the way he did about the term Atheist. However then you change up on what you mean by agnostism.

agnosticism really has nothing to do with gods or the afterlife. agnosticism has to do with the human mind being incapable of knowing anything absolutely.

So I know you are trying to make a point and it has to do with your choice of agnosticism. In your case it would seem nothing has shaken your choice of agnostism and that you, ironically, are not Agnostic that agnosticism is the choice for you.

 

[GiGi Lindsey]

Has anyone ever presented an argument that forced you to question your choice of being an atheist?

In the four horsemen this was asked and it was presented that perhaps it is because of the way the west has respected faith and religion that you dont see what is happening on the other side of the pond. That is interesting if you support a milatant or more active atheist argument but has anything ever caused you pause in your beliefs?

Newbie here. I know what a militant is. I know what an Atheist is. What's a militant-Atheist (your definition)? Where do I sign up?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Has anyone ever presented an argument that forced you to question your choice of being an atheist?

In the four horsemen this was asked and it was presented that perhaps it is because of the way the west has respected faith and religion that you dont see what is happening on the other side of the pond. That is interesting if you support a milatant or more active atheist argument but has anything ever caused you pause in your beliefs?

I suppose the term anyone would have to be referred over to as myself in regards as to what forces changes in choice. Since I was forced to accept an atheist view from a theistic view, manifested through various factors, the possibility of a second reversion is there and vise-versa, even once again ad infinitive.

So I am the only one with an argument that can cause such a change. Ironically, I hold both sides to this particular pond, as well as acknowledging all others who have swam to both ends as well. -NM-

 

[Sententia]

Newbie here. I know what a militant is. I know what an Atheist is. What's a militant-Atheist (your definition)? Where do I sign up?

There is no where to sign up. There is a great video of Dawkins who spoke about militant atheism at TED here:

Richard Dawkins on militant atheism | Video on TED.com

Great video.

 

[GiGi Lindsey]

There is no where to sign up. There is a great video of Dawkins who spoke about militant atheism at TED here:

Richard Dawkins on militant atheism | Video on TED.com

Great video.

Thanks for reminding my of this! The first time I saw it I rolled!!!

 

[themadhair]

has anything ever caused you pause in your beliefs?

WHAT beliefs??

 

[Imagist]

Has anyone ever presented an argument that forced you to question your choice of being an atheist?

In the four horsemen this was asked and it was presented that perhaps it is because of the way the west has respected faith and religion that you dont see what is happening on the other side of the pond. That is interesting if you support a milatant or more active atheist argument but has anything ever caused you pause in your beliefs?

Your two paragraphs ask two different questions.

I have questioned my beliefs, but I have never paused, because the answer to the question has been rather immediately obvious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Has anyone ever presented an argument that forced you to question your choice of being an atheist?

In the four horsemen this was asked and it was presented that perhaps it is because of the way the west has respected faith and religion that you dont see what is happening on the other side of the pond. That is interesting if you support a milatant or more active atheist argument but has anything ever caused you pause in your beliefs?

I haven't found an argument that's made me question whether atheism is correct yet, but I have a general tendency to stop and re-think things if intelligent people who I respect have come to different conclusions than I have... about anything. Whether it's issues of politics, religion or other things, when I encounter reasonable people who seem to have thought through their positions, I tend to think to myself that it's at least worth considering that there's something to it.

 

[Yerda]

I haven't found an argument that's made me question whether atheism is correct yet, but I have a general tendency to stop and re-think things if intelligent people who I respect have come to different conclusions than I have... about anything. Whether it's issues of politics, religion or other things, when I encounter reasonable people who seem to have thought through their positions, I tend to think to myself that it's at least worth considering that there's something to it.

I feel exactly the same. Some would probably think it insecurity, but when there are people who dwarf me intellectually coming to different conclusions than myself, I think it must be prudent to give it some thought.