The God, The Believers and the Unkown

In the words of Steven Weinberg "Most scientists don't think enough about God to be called atheists", so would the statement be true about all atheists, and if you are an atheist and you think about god allot then does that make you an agnostic, as surely thinking about the subject would mean you are insecure in your belief!

Does an atheists position mean that they do not believe in the survival of the consciousness after death as surely the experience is subject to what is perceived by the individual!

Friedrich Nietzsche once said "Faith means not wanting to know what is true. ", would this statement be the same for atheists as it is too the believer.

Personally i find the believer and the atheist to be opposite sides of the same coin, both demanding their stance to be correct without actually looking into their opposites position, and without any serious thought. Atheism is indeed like a cool modern stance, while deism is like the insecure warrior type fighting for their own insecurities.

So folks i suggest you all become agnostics like me and let the world become a happy place.

I find religion interesting more from a human psychology and cultural psychology point of view than anything else.

I am not sure if there is such a thing as an agnostic.

real life wrote:

I am not sure if there is such a thing as an agnostic.

You seem to have a very polarized view of things, so this isn't a complete surprise, but it's something I hadn't considered before.

Care to expand on that idea?

It is as witless to assert that all atheists "believe" (or rather disbelieve) the same things as it is to assert that all theists believe the same things. The subject of god never enters my head except when i am posting here. I never discuss it "in real life."

Only you , ros, could take a statement like 'I'm not sure...' and find it a 'very polarizing view'

I am not sure if there is such a thing as an agnostic.

An agnostic is someone who who has failed to understand that "proof" has nothing to do with religious belief, or its absence.

"Existence" is relative to "observers" who define "data".

Existence of "God" is relative to those whose "selves" have coherence with respect to such a concept. Such coherence involves "a purposeful external creative deity" such that all of "reality" constitutes "proof" !

Yes !

"Existence" is relative to "observers" who define "data".

Existence of "God" is relative to those whose "selves" have coherence with respect to such a concept. Such coherence involves "a purposeful external creative deity" such that all of "reality" constitutes "proof" ! Those whose perception of "self" requires no such basis for its coherence, or indeed adopt a sceptical position regarding such coherence are sufficiently distanced from the requirement of a fixed "reality" to reject all axiomatic statements about reality based on deities as arbitrary...hence "proof" based on such axioms becomes an academic abstraction or tautological.

Rosborne,

You may not rest your "agnosticism" on "proof", but I suspect you have not taken on board my non-dualistic position in which "observer" and "reality" are co-defined. In other words, it is only on the assumption that "reality" is separate from "self" that we might need to "account for" the "existence" of either.