@2headedninja: So strange isn't it? This is not some subtle distinction. Maybe it would be easier for people to grasp if they realize that (a)gnosticism doesn't have to be concerned with the existance of god at all. You can be agnostic with regard to any other question. Like "What macroeconomic policy is better in crisis?" of "What is the best hamburger joint in town?".
Talk about your faith/religion
Religion has always played a weird role in my life and I am endlessly fascinated by it. I identify as agnostic now though I was raised in a relatively strict Christian/Baptist household. My faith has waned back in forth until I was around 16-ish when I just renounced it altogether. I'm 24 now and have in recent years have changed my entire thinking on what religion even is. In my opinion there are two ways you can look at religion. Religion can be as complicated as the answer to everything or as simple as representing peoples connection to themselves and the universe they inhabit. If I had to choose one or the other I would choose the latter. Either way though religion in general is guidelines to a good life.
I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is holding us back as a species, I actually think it can be very beneficial to our growth. It all depends on how and why its practiced. As things are right now I think it's hurting us more than helping. Teachings based on hate and inclusiveness are detrimental to everything religion is supposed to help us with. The whole system needs to be seriously rebuilt from the ground up. It's my belief that the fundamentals of religion should be based on how we treat and care for each other. And that we can get more out of the universe if we are caring and helpful to humans growth as a whole and not just a small group of like minded people. Or maybe all of it is mumbo jumbo and its no point in thinking about it I don't know.
I find Buhdism really interesting and if my brain would allow me I would probably choose to follow that. Not believing in a central god figure and focusing on personal growth really appeals to me.
@notnert427: @existence: @bceagles128: I'd say agnosticism and atheism in it's basic definition are pretty much the same thing (atheism literally means "without belief" (a = no/without, theism = belief), which is different from "believing god does not exist"). The "militant atheism" thing would be antitheism or antheism (which means "against belief").
@fisk0: The "Theism" in atheism is from the Greek "Theos", which means "god" rather than "belief". The prefix "a" means without.
Agnosticism comes from the Greek "Gnosis", which means knowledge.
"Belief" has a separate meaning since all people, including agnostics, atheists and agnostic atheists, have beliefs.
"Militant atheism" is (to me) an unsuitable term which demeans atheists, as if proselytizing is only allowed (and encouraged) from the faithful.
Apologies if you think I'm nit-picking.
@notnert427 Oh absolutely, I'd love for people to expound on their personal experiences with faith, rather than simply going "hey, I'm a __________" and that being the end of it, a feeling I previously expressed by requesting that people treat those labels not as well defined categories laid in stone, but as descriptors for segments on the spectrum; I just wish, if they are going to use these sorts of terms to describe themselves, that they be aware of the meanings of said terms. There's this widespread misconception that the concept of agnosticism was put forward as this midpoint between atheism and religiosity, that it is the only stance a person of logic would take. While it is true that it is an expression of rationalistic thought, the principle of agnosticism can only be something that guides the formation and revolution of your worldview and faith, not be a replacement for it; atleast, that's my opinion.
As for militant atheists, I view them as not that dissimilar to evangelical christians. They have their worldview, and they want to press it upon everyone. I think they have their usefulness, since these are the people who go on talk shows and debate with people of religion, and these discussions can put people on the path of inquiry and critical thought, which that can never be a bad thing, whether it results in them losing their faith, or coming out the other side having their faith tested and be stronger than ever. They also have their cons though, since they tend to be, y'know, assholes about it.
@fatalbanana said:
I find Buhdism really interesting and if my brain would allow me I would probably choose to follow that. Not believing in a central god figure and focusing on personal growth really appeals to me.
I'm very much the same here, tho I would like to point out that due to the flexibility of Buddhism you CAN believe in a central god figure and still be associated with Buddhism. It's very much a spiritual philosophy.
That agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist thing seems to have sprung up on the internet within the last few years, it has almost no coverage whatsoever in any kind of formal literature on this subject. I also think its a profound misunderstanding of how most (not all) religious people understand their relationship with their religion, which most people would characterize as being a matter of faith, not knowledge. No one becomes religious because they read St Anselm's proof for the existence of God. The original "gnosis" was not knowledge gained through argument or logical deduction or anything, it was the knowledge that comes from a highly personal experience of the presence of the divine. How do you argue against something like that? Try and convince them they were hallucinating? Its a weird problem to solve.
I think this mostly came about from online debates on the subject, since claiming that you are an agnostic atheist means you have to do no work whatsoever. In bygone days "atheism" indicated that you were making a metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe (there is no god). Now you can just say you are an "agnostic atheist", which is instead a description of a psychological state, shift the burden of proof on your opponent and wait for them to tire themselves out trying to entice you into making some kind of proposition that can be argued against. This probably wasn't intentional, the billions of man hours of keyboard warriors duking it out seems like the perfect breeding ground for evolving a frustrating, all encompassing ideology that makes no claims and offers no solutions, but is the most important thing in the world to thousands of people.
This rant is sponsored by my misspent youth on r/atheism. I'm better now, I swear.
I'm an atheist, having good understanding of physics, just don't understand the requirement of God. Like, if you saw a burger outside of Burger King, you would not jump to devine intervention, you know how it was made inside the restaurant. Anyway I try to treat others as well as I can, and if there is a God who would condemn me for not happening to believe in him, then I would not want to be his/her/it's follower anyway.
@duluoz said:
I think this mostly came about from online debates on the subject, since claiming that you are an agnostic atheist means you have to do no work whatsoever. In bygone days "atheism" indicated that you were making a metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe (there is no god). Now you can just say you are an "agnostic atheist", which is instead a description of a psychological state, shift the burden of proof on your opponent and wait for them to tire themselves out trying to entice you into making some kind of proposition that can be argued against.
Thats not really true though. Atheism still is a claim about the nature of ones view of the universe (I don't believe there is a god), being agnostic just states that that view could be proven wrong. I don't think thats a copout for not having to do any work. I still listen to arguments theists give, process them and consider the impact those claims have on my view. Thus far none of the arguments I have heard conviced me to change my position.
I also don't think it's weird that the burden of proof lies in the hands of theists. If I make a claim about something and expect you to believe it, it's my job to present you with evidence that convinces you. You can't prove that my claim is wrong, you could just say "I don't accept your claim because you didn't present any evidence" which immediatly shifts the burden of proof back to me. Thats just how arguments like that work.
This whole religion thing is just a highly interesting subject with a lot of potential landmines in any discussion. The problem is: Nothing any believer can say to me could hurt me ... there is no doctrine behind atheism, no leader, nothing to believe ... it's just stating the lack of believe in any god. But if I go and criticize someones religion there is an immediate attack on some potentially deeply held belives on a very personal level for that person. Potentially I'm telling someone that the believes he build his whole life on are wrong not logical, I can't fault any religious person for being offended by that.
[edit:] btw. I'm really proud of the GB community that this is (while not a HUGE) a very civilized debate/thread about the subject.
I was raised a non-denominational christian. It's funny- I still don't see many people mention non-denominational christianity online despite the fact that it still does exist. People tend to say "christian" because they want to believe all christians believe the same way, but in reality they don't. Like any religion there are many sects. I always saw (and still do) non-denomination christians as a sect of christianity that didn't like the rules of other forms of christianity, but very much adores it's teachings and philosophies. It's quite fascinating where it splits- often they tend to be the most logical thinking of christian beliefs (this does not, however, make them immune to the illogical among them, though).
But, anyway, despite all the brain washing parents do (the natural kind, not just religion but the framework of how you think now) I inevitably had to question the world and the way I saw it at some point (there is really a whole lot more to it, and my history, that I won't get into so this will have to suffice). Despite all the stories there was nothing that tied to me this ideal that an all powerful, invisible, God controlled anything in my life. As such, though, neither could it be disproven.
No matter how hard you try, and how much I follow science and logic, there are still things that will never be explained unless the answer turns out to be aliens.
As such I have considered myself an agnostic for about 17 years now. I find religion fascinating (and the most fascinating part of it is sometimes the people who practice it), but I see no purpose for it in my life. I can choose to do good things- I don't need an invisible being or a book someone wrote thousands of years ago that has been re-interpreted several times to tell me how to live. Sure, some choices in life are gray, but that doesn't mean I need an invisible being to tell me what to do. You're not going to always win, not everyone is going to survive an ordeal, and time will go on no matter the outcome. So, I choose to be a good person. I define that as someone who does not hurt others or themself in anyway and when I can I extend that to even helping others when it is feasible for me to do so.
I also believe there is no true meaning to life beyond the aforementioned being good to others and not hurting anyone. I actually find it unrelatable that people need one because I do not, again, need a purpose as such. My purpose is to do the best I can, but life is just the act of being born, getting to some point in time and then life ends. There is no real further meaning.
Obviously the framework of my beliefs and the history behind it is much more extensive, but ultimately I believe everyone has the choice to believe whatever they want. As long as they aren't hurting anybody then it makes no difference to me. Christian or otherwise, I have seen all kinds break this often which is what mainly bothers me about religion, and some people who practice it, but this doesn't make all believers in some God more or less right/wrong. There are fanatics everywhere.
Edit: I guess I should add that the media I consume is based more on personal morals than religious ones. If a form of media (movies, TV, games, whatever) is straight up attacking a person for the way they live or whatever then I have a problem with it. If it's not, but it's using stereo types I like to analyze it, but I don't consider it "bad" per say, and I don't have a problem indulging in it. Just as an example: I like the idea of video games as catharsis so I consider violent video games an important part of the medium (this extends to movies and such as well).
I was raised Christian and attended church til 14 when I decided I'd like to stay in on Sundays. I can't see myself returning to the fold but I've since taken on the idea that God's such a huge concept that, (s)he / it could be something beyond human comprehension. Its all a sense of scale. Our universe could be in a jar on a creator's desk.
That'd be the coolest endgame. If we used science over billions of years to finally discover God.
I was raised and confirmed Lutheran, started falling off in my late teens, and have happily been Buddhist for about seven years now. I was initially drawn to Buddhism in high school, but right after my best friend committed suicide I connected with a group of Buddhists in the area practicing a branch of the Thai forest tradition but set in a fairly western context. Two books, Dharma Punx and Against the Stream (both by Noah Levine) became fairly instrumental in helping me define what role Buddhism could play in my own life.
That said, I'm not really into the "faith" aspects of Buddhism insomuch as there are said to be about 66 glasphillion incarnations of the Buddha and various people who were good at Buddhism throughout time. I know my Maitreya from my Guan Yin by virtue of having been around the block, but I don't particularly believe in them. I'm more down for the basic Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, and metta practice.
Should also probably note that at various point I had considered attending seminary, was an officer in a theological studies society, and minored in Religion with a focus on East Asian religious movements. I've dated neopagans, Christians, atheists, Wiccans, and folks unsure of what exactly they believe. I just really enjoy the topic of religion.
Personally I dont believe that there is a god. On the other hand I cant really be sure that a god or gods dont exist. My problem basically with the idea of a god is that if he/she/ it is all powerful and all knowing why does it matter what people wear, eat or to whom they make love to.
If a being such as a god exists why would he really care so much for human beings if he has created the vastness that is universe? What makes us so special especially when there is a high chance that there are other intelligent beings in the universe besides us.
I think that everyone is free to believe in whatever he or she wants to believe as long as their beliefs dont violate basic human rights (like nazism, communism etc.). In a truly democratic society people can be christians, muslims, buddhists, hinduists or whatever else they want to be as long as people arent forced into a certain religion or into a certain way of thinking.
After considering a lot of arguments, discussions, and debates from many people of many religions and philosophies, I've settled on agnosticism. The reasoning behind it is the sheer number of arguments supported by unverified evidence or logical fallacies. There's no excuse for the fallacies but the unverified evidence I can understand. It's called "faith" for a reason: it hinges on trust. Personally, I'm not comfortable assuming there is or isn't a force(s) of nature pulling cosmic strings in (or against) our favor, although I'm not opposed to the idea of either. My answer to "Is there a god?" is "I don't know."
@duluoz said:
That agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist thing seems to have sprung up on the internet within the last few years, it has almost no coverage whatsoever in any kind of formal literature on this subject. I also think its a profound misunderstanding of how most (not all) religious people understand their relationship with their religion, which most people would characterize as being a matter of faith, not knowledge. No one becomes religious because they read St Anselm's proof for the existence of God. The original "gnosis" was not knowledge gained through argument or logical deduction or anything, it was the knowledge that comes from a highly personal experience of the presence of the divine. How do you argue against something like that? Try and convince them they were hallucinating? Its a weird problem to solve.
I think this mostly came about from online debates on the subject, since claiming that you are an agnostic atheist means you have to do no work whatsoever. In bygone days "atheism" indicated that you were making a metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe (there is no god). Now you can just say you are an "agnostic atheist", which is instead a description of a psychological state, shift the burden of proof on your opponent and wait for them to tire themselves out trying to entice you into making some kind of proposition that can be argued against. This probably wasn't intentional, the billions of man hours of keyboard warriors duking it out seems like the perfect breeding ground for evolving a frustrating, all encompassing ideology that makes no claims and offers no solutions, but is the most important thing in the world to thousands of people.
This rant is sponsored by my misspent youth on r/atheism. I'm better now, I swear.
I remember reading the justification of agnostic atheism about 15 years ago in literature from the BHA (British Humanist Association). It was first documented by Robert Flint in 1888 though. I wouldn't subscribe to this position as a response to what religious people think, but only in terms of my own understanding and of my approach to the metaphysical.
An agnostic atheist would surely make the same metaphysical claim about the nature of the universe (that it is godless). However they would further justify it as a belief rather than as an absolute truth. Ideas about burden of proof on any metaphysical claim are ultimately fruitless - whatever your position: Not least due to problems in defining and agreeing what constitutes proof.
I wonder why you see the position an agnostic atheist would take as being more frustrating than that of any other sort of atheist, since they would both surely argue about what they believe rather than what they claim to know. I also wonder what solutions other sorts of atheism have over atheism that is based on agnosticism (in the same way that the scientific framework is agnostic and skeptical), or whether it is even an ideology, rather than a lack of belief.
For solutions, there are pseudo-political structures embracing secularism that have greater societal significance than mere self-identification. Although, to become a secularist and understand it's importance, one might go on a personal journey through comparative religion, atheism and/or agnosticism to get there.
I was one of the first kids in my school to say I was an atheist. It was probably around 5th grade where I decide that shit was dumb. Kids at that time were SHOCKED when I would tell them. It was pretty funny. Luckily that means I got over the practice of telling everyone I was an atheist constantly pretty quickly too so I avoided being "that guy" for very long.
So, yeah, atheist, I guess. Don't really think about it much beyond that, thankfully.
Oh dear. I can anticipate this not ending well. But I'll chip in.
I'm an atheist/agnostic. I don't "believe God doesn't exist", I do not believe he does. I cannot say for certain that there is no God, but I have seen no evidence myself that there is one. There could be one, but if so, I am ignorant of its existence and I have not found good proof in any of the religions currently or formerly practised (and I regard all existing religions as cultural creations, created by humans for humans).
I do not hate the religious. I do not think religious people are stupid. I have worked alongside many Medical Officers of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Bahai faith (and even a Zoroastrian believe it or not, they are super rare!) - they were all fiercely intelligent folks. There are stupid believers out there. There are stupid atheists as well. Religion is a deeply personal thing, and intelligent people can be religious for all sorts of reasons - it may be part of their culture, it may be an important emotional focal point in their life, it may bring them real comfort. I think they are wrong when it comes to the truthfulness of their religion, but I don't think they are stupid for believing in it. Wishful, perhaps, but not stupid.
My atheism is borne out of a desire to live a life based on what I can know. I know I do not know everything. I am aware that science "does not have all the answers" - most scientists know this as well, which is why they are still researching. But I am sceptical whenever religion claims that it has all the answers, especially when looking at history, it's often been quite wrong. Now, scientists have been wrong too - and other scientists correct them! Science is a process by which knowledge is accumulated, checked, re-checked, and tested against reality. Science may get things wrong, but in the long run, it is a self-correcting process that aims to identify useful information and, given the abundance of technology around you, I'd say it's pretty gosh-darn good at it. Science TESTS things - it's not just based on what people say.
Religion, is, unfortunately, based on faith and words. But anyone can SAY anything. Why should I believe the Bible to be sacred? What proof do I have that its contents are correct? There is none - it's based on Faith!
I don't have Faith. Everything I "believe" in, I base on evidence. And yes, I can never be 100% sure on anything (except my own existence, thanks Descartes), and I'm OKAY WITH THAT. I have doubts. I learn to live with it. I can tolerate not being 100% certain. I can tolerate the fact that I might not have all the ultimate answers, but I also know that I, and many others, are looking for those ultimate answers. We may never find them, but by golly, we're going to TRY. We don't think ultimate truth is easy to find - it's going to take a lot of damn hard work over many, many, many millennia.
I was born a Muslim, and still am. Religion doesn't really affect my choice in gaming, neither do contents in a game related to religion affects me.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment