Exploring Atheism and Agnosticism

[Greg Bernhardt]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

 

[gschjetne]

I can't say I'm a true atheist. I tend to disregard my religion in politics and science, but I can't completely disregard it when it comes to philosophical issues.

If a person is brought up with no religion at all I guess he or she would require a substitute: science. Both science and religion tries to explain both nature and society. How can we distinguish religion and science?

 

[Flexor]

Most atheists are agnostic. But then, there will always be people who make atheism into a religion.

 

[Thor]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

If 'God' is defined as he who created the Universe, then I am truly an atheist. I have no doubt whatsoever the existence of the Universe is NOT the result of cause and effect. The phenomenon of 'Existence' is explained by a principle, not a process.

 

[Pensador]

I'm not sure what "true atheism" is, but if it is the notion that reason denies belief in God (a position commonly taken by people who proud themselves of being rational), then true atheism involves a contradiction.

In order to deny the existence of God, you must first acknowledge that the concept of God is meaningful. You can't possibly deny the existence of a meaningless concept, for meaningless concepts cannot "not exist" for the same reason they cannot exist. By acknowledging the meaningfulness of the concept of God and at the same time declaring it irrational, atheists are making the same categorical error they accuse "true believers" of making.

By the way, agnosticism suffers from the same kind of incoherence. To declare one cannot say anything about God is a self-contradictory statement. For one thing, it is a statement about God.

The only rational position on the God issue is to ignore it altogether.Talking about God requires transcending the realm of reason. Which is why God is a subject for faith, religion, and art, not for science and reason.

 

[Enos]

If I believe that there was never any creation, then what am I?

 

[Icebreaker]

Depends how one defines "God". I do not believe in most common definitions of "God".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends how one defines "God". I do not believe in most common definitions of "God".

I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.

 

[rygar]

By the way, agnosticism suffers from the same kind of incoherence. To declare one cannot say anything about God is a self-contradictory statement. For one thing, it is a statement about God.

huh? how do you figure?

for one, you're not really talking about 'God', you're talking about your knowledge in regards to human concept of 'God'. they are not the same thing.

but does any agnostic really declare that you can't say anything about God? at best, i think they would declare that you can't know anything about God. and it's certainly possible to claim that you can't know anything about God!

it may not be possible to say that "God is something which cannot be known about", but that would be a characteristic of God. saying "you can't know anything about God" only makes a claim about a characteristic of humans, not God.

 

[Icebreaker]

I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.

By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.

 

[rygar]

there are many atheist buddhists, and many jewish buddhists. even some christian buddhists, but I'm sure they're a minority.

anyway, i consider buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion, at least the way i view it... there are many forms of buddhism.

religion is pretty vague. a lot of people strictly take religion to mean theism, so buddhism wouldn't be a religion. of course, some people have extremely broad definitions of religion, and they can call almost anything a religion!

 

[Dayle Record]

There are a lot of people who are true atheists. There are many children who are brought up without any mention of god in their lives, by people who were brought up without any mention of this. If religion is mentioned it is mentioned as a social phenomenon that other people engage in. Viewed from the outside, it is absolutely a different phenomenon, than when viewed from the inside.

I tend to think that people are atheists because there is no god, rather than because they don't believe in god, or they fell away from god, or they haven't been properly introduced. I think that church is where children first learn that adults tell lies. They have their choice of accepting this abuse of reason and playing along, or they step outside and find their own way of seeing the world.

I don't have any problem stating that I think that the practice of religion is a delusional activity. The fact that the religions that stem from the old testament are still perpetuated, is an indication of the horrific nature of the abuses that existed in those societies early on, so grave were they, that the religions that ensued, constitute the longest running case of post traumatic stress reaction, or Stockholm Syndrome, ever.

These statements are not fraught with hatred, or even much energy or interest, atheists just look at things differently. It is difficult to see the biosphere destroyed because religions ban birth control, or because fictional historical accounts give man "dominion" over this world. I just see that stuff as self-serving nonsense, drivel. There are a lot of people that feel exactly this way.

Theists would like to condemn them, or bring them onto their playing field to do battle, but they aren't going to armageddon with the theists.

Atheists don't believe in any of that stuff, and they don't have to. They just get to say, I want to talk about something else.

I don't think that there is an express human need to have a belief in a "guy god" that atheists are going to sublimate, with the study of science. I don't think there is a religious explanation for which science will be a subsitute. The chicken came first and layed the egg, and before that, a bird that was a great deal like a chicken layed the egg. We weren't around for the beginning of the process. Scientists continue to do a very good job of picking through our past, better than historians, by far.

I hope we all do a better job in the future.

 

[hypnagogue]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

Of course people can be 'true' atheists. An atheist is just one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing to really constrain what people can believe or not believe. Justification of belief is another issue, but really, what is to stop anyone from merely believing (or disbelieving) anything? If I were suitably deceived (or suitably insane), I could believe that a talking banana follows me wherever I go, or that I don't have hands, or pretty much anything else.

I think you may have intended to ask a more substantial question, but it didn't quite come through. If that's the case, you might want to rephrase your question more precisely.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.

The basic dictionary definition of a theist is one who believes in a god or gods but I don't think it neccisarily needs to stop there. Most Buddhists believe in some sort of higher order as far as I understand it, they just don't label it "god". As far as my own personal beliefs go I woundn't label what I believe in "god" but nor would I consider myself an atheist. The particular word "god" has certain conotations to it that do not translate into many religious views. Simply because a religion does not project their higher power/order into a male or female personafied form does that make them atheists? It seems to me that the "god" problem is far more complex and diffuse than most people give it credit for. If it isn't boiled down to an argument against christianity it's still usually one pointed toward monotheists in particular.

 

[ShawnD]

<----- Agnostic but continues to blame god for putting the whole universe against me

Agnostic = God's existence is doubtful (scientist perhaps?)
Atheist = OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS NO GOD!1 (angry used-to-be christian?)


Sure, athiests exist. They're just as annoying as Christians.

 

[hypnagogue]

Agnostic = God's existence is doubtful (scientist perhaps?)

That's not quite what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the position that we can never know whether or not a god or gods exist. Basically, agnosticism is an epistemological position (we cannot know if god/gods exist), whereas atheism is an ontological one (disbelief in the existence of god/gods). Being an agnostic is compatible both with being a theist and with being an atheist.

 

[infidel]

I'm going to try to explain it as I see it...hope this comes out ok. :D

Theists think god exists without proof.
Agnostics think we cannot know whether god exists.
Atheists think god does not exist without proof.

I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I 'know' any more than a theist 'knows.' No one seems to say theists can't exist since they can't know. So is it just 'faith' that there is no god? To me, it's more like science than faith. I 'believe' in quantum mechanics, too, but if a reliable experiment came along to prove it wrong (or incomplete) I'd have to accept it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. I believe there is lots of evidence the universe could become what it is without a god. I do not have 'proof.'

Ultimately, this is an argument that produces a lot of heat but no light. Saying there are no atheists is really splitting hairs. If I can't be an atheist without proof god doesn't exist, I'm sunk, since you can't prove a negative. I still refer to myself as an atheist and I think it describes my personal belief much more accurately than agnostic. People know what I mean. If you want to split hairs, go for it, but I don't have to pay attention to you. (You here being the rhetorical 'you', BTW, not anyone in particular.)

And really, it's up to the believers to prove god does exist. No one has ever shown evidence that a process can, for example, violate the conservation of angular momentum, so I believe no such process exists. If someone does create a reliable and repeatable experiment that shows a process that does violate CAM then I must accept it and seek a more accurate theory. It would certainly be a refinement and not a whole new theory. Meanwhile, God is a concept I have no need for. So I'm comfortable with my atheism.

The idea that atheists are 'angry ex-Christians' is just a stereotype that stifles discussion, IMHO.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I consider my self a complete atheist.

Atheist = OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS NO GOD!1 (angry used-to-be christian?)

Sure, athiests exist. They're just as annoying as Christians.

That is the same is if I say:

THEIST: OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS A GOD!1

 

[sneez]

Just to remind ourselfs that God can not be proven using science => it then goes it cannot be disproven => belief necessary either for existence of nonexistence.
Agnostics may oscilate but they oscilate between faith so it makes no difference.

I do not see it any more diffilcult than this.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Agnostic means believing that one cannot know the nature of god. ("a+gnosis"=without knowledge). An atheist does not have a theology ("a+theist"). Antitheists are a subset of atheists who believe that there is no god. I am an antitheist..."truly"

 

[Evo]

Agnostics may oscilate but they oscilate between faith so it makes no difference.

I do not see it any more diffilcult than this.

That's incorrect, agnostics do not have any faith, nor do they "oscillate" between faiths.

Hypnagogue, infidel, and Dissiident Dan's definitions above are correct.

I am agnostic.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm an atheist and I have enough reasons to write a dissertation. My procrastination is enough reason not to :)

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Agnostic means believing that one cannot know the nature of god. ("a+gnosis"=without knowledge). An atheist does not have a theology ("a+theist"). Antitheists are a subset of atheists who believe that there is no god. I am an antitheist..."truly"

oh, then I'm an antitheist atheist.

 

[sneez]

I believe that if anyof you claim that your agnostics or atheist, your personal state of mind with all its emotions and stimuly, dogma and tradition and etc goes beyond the webster definition of the word. If not that we are lying to ourselfs.

Lets not miss the point again. Do antitheist or atheist PROOF for what they claim? They may think so but so will think the theist => given above all of you have a faith in what you beliefe (and as much as this word may trigger negative emotions it is so). You genuenly believe that there is no god. Well the keyword is believe!
Faith -strong conviction of ones belies ! Therefore the more you claim that you are antitheist atheist and what have you the more you are reinforcing belief => building faith.

Therefore agnostics as much as i like the definitions above by reason is "oscillating". He does not reject (by faith) nor does he conform (to existence of god). He/she is not sure in other words. But that is not definition to be put in dictionary but rather my thought so don't get mad, get HAPPY :)

 

[cronxeh]

The burden of proof is on believers, and you are confusing principle we call Atheism with religions we call Zen Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

 

[sneez]

Well, like i said in my many other post. The "burden" is not really a burden. God cannot be proven empirically. Religion is not trying to do so. Its a hype that some ppl got into their head that God must be proven (meassured) and predicted.

On the same token atheism and theism are both belief systems. Can we dispute that?

 

[eNathan]

If 'God' is defined as he who created the Universe, then I am truly an atheist. I have no doubt whatsoever the existence of the Universe is NOT the result of cause and effect. The phenomenon of 'Existence' is explained by a principle, not a process.

Will you still be certian once you die? Perhaps you should study things before you make a conclusion.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

On the same token atheism and theism are both belief systems. Can we dispute that?

yes we can. atheist deny the existence of god. Theist aprove the existence of god.

I think there is a clear difference. But as I know that you will say that we have to look feather in I'l do so.

You say that atheism and theism are the same because both create believes (faith).

Well, theism is religion, and there is an important fact you all are forgeting...

Religion (or theism) isn't only about god and his existence. Religion gives dogmas that the followers of those religions are supposed to follow.

Whiles atheism is completely against that. Like Dissident Dan wrote, atheism is not having theology (religion, dogmas...).

So atheists are completely againsts and different to theist.

Antitheism is the deny of god existence. But again, it doesn't create the believe of god's un-existance in the way of creating faith, antitheism leaves each to think what they want about why/how god doesn't exist.

 

[sneez]

You are right that religions created! dogma. However, you are wrong in the assumption that religion aims at that. Pppl did that to the religion . Neverthelless dogma is in religions by human desires not by nature. But atheist will not escape that easy either. They too have dogma and traditions. I come from a country that is called the paradise for atheist. The system is absolutelly atheistic and that affects progams in tv, education, work place relations, etc. WHat i see in this is dogma, there was even a time when religion was prohibited completely.

So therefore creating (artifitially) atheist from child to adult, ie, set of beliefs with rules and regulations enforced by authority => "religion" ?. THerefore I am comfortable calling atheism a belief system comparable to the theistic notion of religion.

Unfortunatelly i must disagree with you that atheism does not create believe of god's un-existance. I does and it is highly exploitable by ppl. I agree with you that not all atheist if put in power are going to enslave humanity into some atheistic dogma but there are certain ppl who will do so and entire nations (Russia) were beaton to death by atheistic dogma.

 

[The Rev]

The existence or non-existance of God is arbitrary, since there is no evidence either way. To say, "God does not exist" is just as much a matter of faith as saying, "God exists." It just seems more sensible since there's no evidence of any other powerful supernatural entities prowling around.

I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW.

$$\Phi$$

The Rev

 

[sneez]

"I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW"

Absolutelly Rev.

 

[Evo]

"I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW"

Absolutelly Rev.

I disagree. Here is the dictionary explanation of "faith" from Meriam-Wester

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

(2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Aetheists do no fall into any of these categories.

Aetheists have no belief in something for which there is no proof You will not find this in the definition above of faith.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I disagree. Here is the dictionary explanation of "faith" from Meriam-Wester

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

(2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Aetheists do no fall into any of these categories.

Aetheists have no belief in something for which there is no proof You will not find this in the definition above of faith.

More definitions of faith...

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

It would seem that having a belief that "god" does not exist when there is no proof would require some form of faith. Logically without faith in "god's" lack of existence you could then only, honestly, be agnostic. There is no proof (no knowledge) and so no means to decide.
I don't get why people want to argue whether or not being an atheist requires faith. I have a very atheist friend who will fully admit that his belief requires faith since there is no proof.

 

[Math Is Hard]

If someone is a "true atheist" does that mean that he/she believes that the statement "God does not exist" is necessarily true in the same way that "Round squares do not exist" is necessarily true? It seems that there is a level of 100% certainty required in the first statement that would be difficult for anyone to assert.
"True theists" would face the same problem. "God exists" must be necessarily true to them, or appear to be true in all possible worlds, to the extent that saying "God does not exist" would produce a logical contradiction.
I don't think either side has a good case for 100% certainty.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

You are right that religions created! dogma. However, you are wrong in the assumption that religion aims at that. Pppl did that to the religion . Neverthelless dogma is in religions by human desires not by nature. But atheist will not escape that easy either. They too have dogma and traditions. I come from a country that is called the paradise for atheist. The system is absolutelly atheistic and that affects progams in tv, education, work place relations, etc. WHat i see in this is dogma, there was even a time when religion was prohibited completely.

So therefore creating (artifitially) atheist from child to adult, ie, set of beliefs with rules and regulations enforced by authority => "religion" ?. THerefore I am comfortable calling atheism a belief system comparable to the theistic notion of religion.

Unfortunatelly i must disagree with you that atheism does not create believe of god's un-existance. I does and it is highly exploitable by ppl. I agree with you that not all atheist if put in power are going to enslave humanity into some atheistic dogma but there are certain ppl who will do so and entire nations (Russia) were beaton to death by atheistic dogma.

What country are you referring to as the "atheists paradise"?

You are confusing law or moral (in the filosofical context) statements with dogma.

At a first loook they might seem the same, but no. Dogmas are religion statements that are to be followed and un-broken to be a correct believer.

Atheism doesn't have statements to be followed, atheists are free, can't you stop and read for a moment the posts of many atheists in this thread. Some are atheist that believe that there is no god for no empirical prove, there are atheist that believe there is no god because its illogical, there are atheist that believe there is a god but not to be followed by religion or theology, there are agnostica theist that believe there isn't a god but that they can't prove it...

Comparing, in all cases you have to follow the fact that god exist. But not only that, but in religions they HAVE to follow the dogmas and HAVE to believe they are correct and obey them. If not, you would be called a heretic or blasfemer...But in atheism, you wouldn't.

Resuming, atheism is a (meaning no) theism. not a (meaning one of the) theism.