Why I am an agnostic

@oralloy,

Quote:

Atheism is a form of religion.

All religions may be described as "belief systems" but that doesn't mean that all belief systems are "religions". I've met atheists, usually young atheists, who do seem to be somewhat evangelical in their zeal, but there are many self-described atheists who don't fit that description.

Most people would recognize the utility of this common definition of religion:

Quote:

The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.

It can be argued that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are belief systems but not religions according to this definition. Doctrinaire atheists
could be put in that category, but aside from experiencing life without belief in a deity, atheists don't necessarily share a common set of principles or identical outlooks.

The efforts of religious believers – and anyone else – to define atheism as a religion are just attempts to embarrass atheists and deny them the freedom to categorically condemn religion. It can be seen as an attempt to drag atheism down to the level of a religion—a set of unsubstantiated beliefs, in a landscape where beliefs are held only on faith.

3 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Atheism is a form of religion.

All religions may be described as "belief systems" but that doesn't mean that all belief systems are "religions". I've met atheists, usually young atheists, who do seem to be somewhat evangelical in their zeal, but there are many self-described atheists who don't fit that description.

Most people would recognize the utility of this common definition of religion:

Quote:
The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.

It can be argued that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are belief systems but not religions according to this definition. Doctrinaire atheists
could be put in that category, but aside from experiencing life without belief in a deity, atheists don't necessarily share a common set of principles or identical outlooks.

The efforts of religious believers – and anyone else – to define atheism as a religion are just attempts to embarrass atheists and deny them the freedom to categorically condemn religion. It can be seen as an attempt to drag atheism down to the level of a religion—a set of unsubstantiated beliefs, in a landscape where beliefs are held only on faith.

That certainly is an area where we are in agreement, Hightor. Atheism IS NOT a religion.

I do, however, think that atheism is built on a foundation of "unsubstantiated "beliefs." People who use the word to describe themselves do "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

No problem with that "belief"...and I will even acknowledge that it may be correct...which, of course, is my way of acknowledging that it may be wrong.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Like homosexuality, atheism was considered to be: immoral, unpatriotic, idiotic, and counter-culture when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. People so inclined were routinely castigated and ostracized. They were considered as being undesirable, like 'queers'.

But the bottom line here is that atheism is, indeed, a belief and also a system in that arguments can be made for its credibility. But, like religion, its tenants are held through faith, alone. - David Lyga

1 Reply

@david lyga,

david lyga wrote:

Like homosexuality, atheism was considered to be: immoral, unpatriotic, idiotic, and counter-culture when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. - David Lyga

Yes it was. The scorn and contempt for homosexuals and/or atheists was itself contemptible and worthy of scorn.

Glad we have grown up a bit.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You know, Frank, it really was foolish that I was considered so evil. When you really think about it, why is my homosexuality any different from the fact that I am left-handed? Somehow, I was deemed to be a real threat. -David Lyga

1 Reply

@david lyga,

david lyga wrote:

You know, Frank, it really was foolish that I was considered so evil. When you really think about it, why is my homosexuality any different from the fact that I am left-handed? Somehow, I was deemed to be a real threat. -David Lyga

There was a day when "left-handedness" was considered evil also.

The Latin for "left handed" is the etymological basis for the English word "sinister."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There, Frank, you are correct. Luckily, growing up in Wolcott, CT, I escaped a school system whereby left-handedness was attempted to be changed to right-handedness. But I did not escape daily punching, spitting, and utter hatred for me by my peers, for almost 12 long years. When one has no reference to judge by, one thinks that enduring such is one's obligation. NO ONE gave a **** and my brother used to smirk. (He graduated from MIT: Oh, so smart!!!) - David Lyga

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

All religions may be described as "belief systems" but that doesn't mean that all belief systems are "religions".

Perhaps.

However, all belief systems that deal with the question of the nature of the divine are religions.

hightor wrote:

Most people would recognize the utility of this common definition of religion:

Quote:
The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.

Not I.

I find it flawed and limited.

hightor wrote:

It can be argued that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are belief systems but not religions according to this definition.

It’s a bad definition.

hightor wrote:

aside from experiencing life without belief in a deity, atheists don't necessarily share a common set of principles or identical outlooks.

This is the case with all religions. Aside from their shared faith, people can be quite different.

hightor wrote:

The efforts of religious believers – and anyone else – to define atheism as a religion are just attempts to embarrass atheists and deny them the freedom to categorically condemn religion.

No. That atheism is a religion is reality. The reason why people point out reality has nothing to do with trying to embarrass anyone. We merely value reality.

hightor wrote:

It can be seen as an attempt to drag atheism down to the level of a religion—a set of unsubstantiated beliefs, in a landscape where beliefs are held only on faith.

That is the level that atheism is at. There is no need to drag atheism down to a level that they are already at.

If any atheists believe that they are above this level, they are just as deluded as any other religious person who thinks that their faith is the only true one.

0 Replies

@david lyga,

Well I am agnostic about a supreme being, consciousness because I don't think about consciousness as anything fundamental or in actual control of anything. I think of it as just awareness of your own unfolding in the Cosmos. In particular on your own "corner" of Reality, or in more formal terms your own Anthropic domain of perception.

God if there was a God would be as powerless as you and I are. Gods own nature could not be changed by God himself and thus God would play his part exactly as his own Nature would force him to. This is the antithesis of the very own idea of what consciousness entails us to have, actual, real, control!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand when we scale it down to "demi-Gods", things like an advanced super AGI that would be light years ahead of what we are in Reality then I have all the statistical reason to believe we are not probably at the top of the food chain. In fact a truly Alien forms of life could be right in front of our own noses that we wouldn't recognise as life, as broad and obscure the meaning of the word already is.

On that regard I think we should be far more afraid of a demi-God that is somewhat statistically probable to exist from which we don't understand nothing about, then from an actual ultimate God from which we would even imagine less and which is statistically improbable and logically a contradiction as such a God could not be the cause of itself, which would make it the ultimate puppet just like everybody else.

In the next decades our own cultural perception of what consciousness is and what role it plays are about to change and with it all the notion of power that we usually attribute to consciousness will wash out 10.000 years of tradition.

There is some resistance and fight back now as there is in Politics to get back to a more Nationalist traditional World but inexorably the course is set and all this traditional words and meanings are about to be deeply and profoundly transformed.

To conclude, and in sum, if you have to be afraid of anything be afraid of an Alien Intelligence with limits and an agenda that might trump completely our own Anthropic values and limits as we perceive Ethics from our own limited POV.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque
I once wrote an essay that suggested that the chances of us being low on the food chain in our galaxy...was not really much greater than the chances of us being among the most advanced.

My thesis was predicated on the notion that all life evolves in a way where the fittest have the best chance of surviving...and that could easily lead to a "highest life form" that intends to "survive" no matter that it might inadvertently damage its environment or to its fellow creatures on the evolutionary scale.

I proposed that it could be that EVERY life-form may eventually get to the point where it has evolved technologically to the point where it has the capability to destroy itself and its environment...before evolving philosophically to the point where it definitely would not do so.

We humans seem to be at that cusp.

Maybe no life-forms get past where we are.

Wouldn't that be sad.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...oh the "great barrier"...I thought of that while I was dissenting on my last post. It may be the case that we are the more advanced "life" form in the Cosmos but even taking that parameter into consideration and given the sheer stupid magnitude of the Universe it is still highly unlikely we are at the top of the food chain.

That it might be...but I do agree that we might be one of many that won't go through the "great barrier".

The web in the past 20 years came to show us all just how limited and irrational we are. Sad story indeed!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Really great to have a like-minded person here in A2K, David.

Awry or a wry smile?

0 Replies

Franky and Davy do not believe in god(s).

They are atheists.

Franky and Davy don't pretend to know there are no gods.

They are agnostic atheists.

3 Replies

@ascribbler,

What about people who don’t pretend to know, and who neither believe nor disbelieve?

0 Replies

@ascribbler,

ascribbler wrote:

Franky and Davy do not believe in god(s).

They are atheists.

Franky and Davy don't pretend to know there are no gods.

They are agnostic atheists.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTBlGkG9eZ4[/youtube]

You apparently are a total asshole, but at times, I do respond to Internet assholes.

I am NOT an atheist.

If, however, it is essential to your assholedness that I refer to myself with a descriptor that separates me from "theist"...I am willing to use non-theist.

If some atheists want to insist that they possess all the space outside of theism...that the theist/atheist continuum is binary, fine with me. But the ones who do...ARE assholes.

Luckily there are plenty who are able to see that the issue is not that one must be either a theist or an atheist. In fact, there are many atheists who hold people who use the descriptor "agnostic" in such contempt, they insist they want nothing to do with them...and loathe that some want to give them the supposed dignity supposedly afforded by the designation "atheist."

0 Replies

@ascribbler,

NO, it is incorrect to state that David Lyga does NOT believe in God. David Lyga is too confused to owe homage to any (unknown) truth. David Lyga simply does not know. If he were to believe that there was no God, he would BELIEVE, in an absolute sense. - David Lyga

1 Reply

@david lyga,

In another thread you said you were leaving, that that was your last post...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do, however, think that atheism is built on a foundation of "unsubstantiated "beliefs."

How is saying "I don't buy the arguments for the existence of God," an unsubstantiated belief?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Simple. Frank might not buy the arguments for an existence of a "God" but he does not refute the future possibility of acceptance, either. He, like I am, is confused and cannot definitively believe either IN a God or in the impossibility of a God.

(By the way, why, InfraBlue, do you tenaciously stick to ONLY ONE God???) - Daivd Lyga

1 Reply

@Mame,

I guess that I changed my mind, my Mame. Is that so evil? - David Lyga

1 Reply

Why I am an agnostic

Quick Links

My Account

able2know