Agnostiscism and atheism

@andykelly,

I believe it takes just as much faith to believe there is not a god, as it does to believe that there is a god.

Agnostisicism has the beauty of saying they don't know, they are devoid of any belief on either side, so there is not necessity to have faith.

However, ateism requires that a belief is held. Faith is needed to hold together a belief that has paradoxes. There are paradoxes in the belief that there is no god. Therefore, atheism requires the presence of faith. (I think that is good logic)

0 Replies

@andykelly,

God is long death, but as the mad man anticipated in spite of this undoubtable realisation we cling to faith more than ever. Why? because otherwise the world is pointless and humans only viruses, animals with the course of consciousness, which may or may not be. When we killed god, with knowledge, agnosticism raised, because, a godless world is not as enticing as the promisse of eternal bliss. HOwever, religion never served to empower woman, on the contrary it served to strippe her from her self power by feeding her lies. The atheist has open her eyes to the absurdity of life, to the meaninglessness of it all, and only from this stand, having understood and overcome nihilism can she trully give some sense to an otherwise delusory existence. But atheism is a believe, that requires a lot of strengh and not every woman can be the uber woman, some will have to feed in the roses of illusion with the opium of the masses. Religion prevails because people refuse to understand.

0 Replies

@andykelly,

I would have to disagree, though it is assumed that in the modern west 'God is dead' where is the evidence for this? Say God does exist, for real, then if people chose to either not believe in him or turn to their own mastery I cant see how 'God' then would seace to exist. A world, on the otherhand with no God doesnt mean it has no meaning either. Because fulfilment is found in other areas, apart from serving a GOD. Such as your family, other people relationships, and your achievments when alive.

Knowledge also never 'killed' God either. Firstly, say Adam and Eve, if you will, gained knowledge of good and evil, God didnt 'vanish' only leaving the TORAH to be three chapters long,did He? Knowledge is a natural part of us, I mean we seem to be naturally designed to seek it, to develope it, to seek more and so on. As though it is our purpose. So why would a God create us and make it a charactoristic of ours, was it a flaw in our design, I think not. Ofcourse there is the topic of 'awakening' after the fall of Angels and man/woman, such as the account in the ancient book of Enoch, also called the book of Noah. This talks about how the fallen angels gave us the 'knowlege' of technologies and making jewelry ect which has developed until modern man. You can find an extended version of this in a book called 'From the ashes of Angels' by Andrew Collins.

Ferther, I know that all religions are down to personal interpretation, but I do however think that the notion of WOMAN always being left out or 'striped of her self power by feeding her lies' is a misinterpretation. Wicca, satanism, Christinity (the heart of it, at least) Goddess worship, new age (which is actually ancient) religions, all reveal women as an important and as very much as inclusive as any male is. The role of Women in Christanity, is equal to that of a man, it is just the influence of the Jewish traditions of Women and the early Roman Empires adoption of Christianity that has suppressed the Women. All based on Mans bias and fear of Women, not Gods. Smile

1 Reply

@pilgrimshost,

"This thread is to discuss agnostiscism and atheism. Although both are obviously non religious topics they are belief systems even if athiesm is to be considered a non-belief belief system."

I think this is a bit of a f-ckup!This would then mean I have a non-belief belief system about every premise I have ever rejected.I really don't think so,we have judgement,when I make any particular judgement it can simply mean,I am not going out in this rain, or that a statement is unfounded.Heaven knows I am not a master of logic,so if anyone out there can a clarify this blunder please help us here.If I say my cat thinks in German,and state that how I know this to be true is,I just know it,I have faith it is so.Does someone rejecting this unfounded statement form an instant non-belief belief system--this sounds fishy,there is here a hidden motive.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Metaphysical beliefs are not an option because we live in the wide universe and so atheism and agnosticism are identifiable metaphysical belief systems or groups which make certain metaphysical assumptions or assumptions regarding metaphysics which they generally share and if you are one of them then you are identifiable at least to a certain extent.

2 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Pathagorean,

I guess you have something at that Pathagorean,works for unicorns as well as gods!

1 Reply

@boagie,

What rules do atheists live by?" :confused:

It is important to realize that atheism is a negative position. It
is not a positive affirmation of belief. Atheism simply defines
what a person does not believe in. It says nothing at all
about a person's convictions aside from the issue of
non-belief. An atheist might be a noble humanitarian college
graduate with multiple doctorates, or a crack head, wanted
by the law, with 6 gigabytes of kiddie porn on his computer!
Atheism doesn't define the moral issues a person lives by,
only the major position of those who reject faith. However, all
decided, enlightened atheists I have ever known and worked
with have shown themselves to be tremendous people with
traditionally high standards. Wink

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

It is important to realize that atheism is a negative position. It
is not a positive affirmation of belief. Atheism simply defines what a person does not believe in. It says nothing at all about a person's convictions aside from the issue of non-belief.

The problem with this view is that any negative position can easily be viewed as a positive position for another position. In the case of atheism, the positive position is that atheism advocates formal unity (see, for example, the SEP article on pantheism):

Quote:

So, I would agree with this article that atheism is different in that it argues for just formal unity existing in the world. It doesn't argue for a stronger sense of unity (e.g., pantheism), and it certainly doesn't argue that physics leaves some important physics left out as it describes the world. Thus, formal unity being the case is a positive proposition that uniquely identifies atheism.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

Harvey,

I find this a little puzzeling,the problem was to establish that disbelief is not a belief system in and of itself.Which I think should be self-evident to anyone without an emotional investment in finding a commonality between disbelief and their own belief.Disbelief or a silly belief---just kidding!!.How does the numerical complexity of a unity address what a system is and what is not system.I apologize if I misunderstand you here,but I believe you are making it much more complex then is necessary.

3 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I find this a little puzzeling,the problem was to establish that disbelief is not a belief system in and of itself.Which I think should be self-evident to anyone without an emotional investment in finding a commonality between disbelief and their own belief.Disbelief or a silly belief---just kidding!!.How does the numerical complexity of a unity address what a system is and what is not system.I apologize if I misunderstand you here,but I believe you are making it much more complex then is necessary.

Hi Boagie. I was responding to your point:

Quote:

It is important to realize that atheism is a negative position. It is not a positive affirmation of belief. Atheism simply defines what a person does not believe in. It says nothing at all about a person's convictions aside from the issue of non-belief.

I disagree with this. My point is that atheism is a belief about something just as much as it is a disbelief about something. I think this is true of all philosophical beliefs.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

Hi havey1,

So you would say that,just as Christianity is a belief system, so to is disbelief a system? Please expound upon this complex disbelief system. Are they of equal complexity? Can we pehaps consider if they are open systems or closed system--this is a good one for Christianity. Are they indeed the same kind of system? If Christianity is a system,it is rather a complex one,would it not logically mean that its disbelief,is also complex.If I had never heard of Christianity,but believed in another religion,would my system of disbief be my belief in said religion? Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,insided a dog it is to dark to see!!-------just kidding! There are times when philosophical questions start to sound a little insane. Very Happy

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

So you would say that,just as Christianity is a belief system, so to is disbelief a system?

Sure it is. It is a disbelief on non-Trinitarian beliefs about God. It is a disbelief system on those beliefs that do not believe in an afterlife. Etc. Etc.

boagie wrote:

If I had never heard of Christianity,but believed in another religion,would my system of disbief be my belief in said religion?

Yes, I think so. If we have a disbelief ~C*, then ~C* can just be labeled as belief R. Another person might disbelieve in Christianity, but their disbelief is slightly different, say: ~C^, or ~C`, etc. These too are labeled as their own belief system. Buddhism might be ~C^ and Taoism might be ~C`.

boagie wrote:

There are times when philosophical questions start to sound a little insane.

But, this strikes me as just applied math. We can label a non-belief just as easily as we can label a belief. And, that's all a belief or disbelief is, it's just a label used to identify a domain (of propositions) that are not in union with each other.

Theism=~Atheism
Just Formal Unity=~Theism

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

Sure it is. It is a disbelief on non-Trinitarian beliefs about God. It is a disbelief system on those beliefs that do not believe in an afterlife. Etc. Etc."

Perhaps there is a difference between a particular disbelief as apposed a general belief.One does not of necessity need to be as complex as the other.In other words I do not need to know Christianity well in order to reject it as supernatural fiction.

"Yes, I think so. If we have a disbelief ~C*, then ~C* can just be labeled as belief R. Another person might disbelieve in Christianity, but their disbelief is slightly different, say: ~C^, or ~C`, etc. These too are labeled as their own belief system. Buddhism might be ~C^ and Taoism might be ~C`"

If this is so,then I have a system of disbelief which rejects the existence of the unicorn as well as Christ.It is the same system of disbelief,the disbelief of the supernatural,so it is not even particular to Christianity,I do not believe in gosts or the devil either----you do see what mean? Disbelief of the supernatural is a generalization which rejects particular examples of the supernatural,I reject miracles on the same bases.So,no there is no equality between your belief and my disbelief,unless it is brought down to a binary level--yes and no.

"But, this strikes me as just applied math. We can label a non-belief just as easily as we can label a belief. And, that's all a belief or disbelief is, it's just a label used to identify a domain (of propositions) that are not in union with each other. "

Yes,I think I do see what you mean,it is a way of creating catagories,but there is something wrong here for they are not catagories of equality.You might run circles around me with math, but I call upon your intellectual integrity.I think there is a strong modivation on the part of believers to bring down the atheist to their level,but don't you see they never can. Belief,faith is forever irrational and disbelief forever rationally points it this out.The positive and the negative are they equal, would you rather have a one dollar,or minus one dollar.Not sure I've made my point, but I shall be interested in your reply.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

If this is so,then I have a system of disbelief which rejects the existence of the unicorn as well as Christ.It is the same system of disbelief,the disbelief of the supernatural,so it is not even particular to Christianity,I do not believe in gosts or the devil either----you do see what mean? Disbelief of the supernatural is a generalization which rejects particular examples of the supernatural,I reject miracles on the same bases.So,no there is no equality between your belief and my disbelief,unless it is brought down to a binary level--yes and no, with no subject

It doesn't have to be a bijective map. It can be a many-to-one map or a injective map. Be that as it may, there is a positive proposition that because one believes it causes that person to reject the positive propositions of another belief system.

boagie wrote:

I think there is a strong modivation on the part of believers to bring down the atheist to their level,but don't you see they never can. Belief,faith is forever irrational and disbelief forever rationally points it this out.The positive and the negative are they equal, would you rather have a one dollar,or minus one dollar.Not sure I've made my point, but I shall be interested in your reply.

I'm not wearing my "religious hat" in this particular thread. I'm only pointing out what I think is a point of sound logical reasoning. "Every negative proposition can be rephrased into a positive proposition." When you say you don't believe in supernatural phenomena, we could restate that by saying that you are a believer in metaphysical naturalism.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

It doesn't have to be a bijective map. It can be a many-to-one map or a injective map. Be that as it may, there is a positive proposition that because one believes it causes that person to reject the positive propositions of another belief system.

You may well be right on these grounds but we both know what modivates this struggle,and it is not logic.The fact the I can make up something utterly fantastic, claim I believe it, and attribute to others disbelief, a belief disbelief system, rather links them to me like it or not,and isn't really that the game.So what of your belief in my disbelief ,your right it is a totality,goes full circle does it not.We both know this isn't really the question,perhaps it should be stated, what is believed though irrationality meaning having no foundation in reality, is denied through reason, grounded in the real world.I know believers want their irrationality to be considered as legitimate as reason,but it will never fly,not even if they can train it to fetch a bone----a real bone that is.

"Since all opposites are interdependent, their conflict can never result in the total victory of one side, but will always be a manifestation of the interplay between the two sides." -Fritjof Capra The Tao of Physics (p. 146) :eek:

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

You may well be right on these grounds but we both know what modivates this struggle,and it is not logic.The fact the I can make up something utterly fantastic, claim I believe it, and attribute to others disbelief, a belief disbelief system, rather links them to me like it or not,and isn't really that the game.So what of your belief in my disbelief ,your right it is a totality,goes full circle does it not.We both know this isn't really the question,perhaps it should be stated, what is believed though irrationality meaning having no foundation in reality, is denied through reason, grounded in the real world.I know believers want their irrationality to be considered as legitimate as reason,but it will never fly,not even if they can train it to fetch a bone----a real bone that is.

I would agree that most people who engage in this discussion just want to invalidate atheism by saying that it is a belief and therefore no better or no worse than theism as a belief. I definitely disagree with theists who make that kind of argument.

On the other hand, there's also atheists who try to justify their position as a defacto standard whereby atheism is the only justified belief system. I definitely disagree with that too.

For me, every belief must be justified based on argument and sound reasoning. I think there is an important role for faith, but not when it comes to substantiating one's belief in philosophical or theological propositions.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1 wrote:

I would agree that most people who engage in this discussion just want to invalidate atheism by saying that it is a belief and therefore no better or no worse than theism as a belief. I definitely disagree with theists who make that kind of argument.

On the other hand, there's also atheists who try to justify their position as a defacto standard whereby atheism is the only justified belief system. I definitely disagree with that too.

For me, every belief must be justified based on argument and sound reasoning. I think there is an important role for faith, but not when it comes to substantiating one's belief in philosophical or theological propositions.

Harvey1,

I find myself in full agreement with you---no one is more greatly surprized than I,but it feels pretty good too.Once again,it has been my pleasure! Smile

1 Reply

@boagie,

Yes, I really enjoy your logical thinking on issues. It's always enjoying talking to you.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Greetings Fellow Forum Members:)
I have always hated words like agnostic and atheist.:mad:
Agnosticism - Without Knowledge, no belief in God, in Latin "ignoramus".
Atheism - Non-existence of God, rejection of Theism.

People in religions seem to divide humankind into two camps. On one camp are those who have religion. On the other are those who don't belong to any religion. The status of a person does not change because he has or has not religion. We can find good people in or out of religion.

I have to say at this time that it is not my goal to hurt anyone's feelings by what I write but to examine this with perhaps another view in mind.

But it seems that science and religion are always at loggerheads against each other.

I must say that I don't believe in "belief", I "believe" (if I may use the word) in experience. You see we all work within our paradigm, our knowledge gained from our experience in our "universe". None of us have quite the same "experience". We join groups because of our "harmony" with their ideas according to our experience.

Religion as well as science have their beliefs some believe in Math others their particular religion. Their paradigm has led them to it. But "belief" means to take another's experience as true and hence follow that belief.

Now another group has emerged, those who want to experience for themselves and not merely accept another's experience. Science has a boundary of the invisible, religion of the direct experience. Man like Jesus have transformed themselves by seeking the direct experience with "?" and found Mind. Science is now coming closer to "understanding" of Mind with "The Theory of Everything" or String Theory.

Walter Russell was one such man that experienced Mind or God as most of us say. At that time we become dissatisfied with both religion and science for we are satisfied with Mind.

Most of our Holy Books have this information, how to transform ourselves, but this is hidden from the curious. What we take as stories from our books are really lessons on how to achieve transformation. Man has understood the metaphors as prose instead of the poetry, the denotation instead of the connotation.

The Hermit

1 Reply

Agnostiscism and atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know