1 of 6
1
uptight atheists….
Posted: 17 April 2009 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2009-04-15

The more threads and articles i read about die hard Atheists the more i see they are like die hard Christians. Now if you are a die hard Atheist I dont mean to offend you, this is just my opinion. That being said, It just seems to me that a lot of these die hard Atheists are very anal when it comes to a skeptic who describes themselves as an atheist, if you have doubt in your atheistic views you are not a true atheist. I make the comparison to die hard Christians cause they are anal about other christians who doubt weather god existis, they tell them that he does and as a Christians they should not doubt and be ashamed and ask for forgiveness.

I describe myself as agnostic with alot of atheistic views, atheist cause i dont believe that life or the univers was created by some deity,  i believe in facts proof and logical reasoning like, the The Big Bang and the evelution of the universe since, but beyond that i dont know and neither do these die hard atheists, isnt that agnostic. We cant prove what the singularity was made of or how it came to be, so when in argument these die hard atheist can be called agnostic aswell, that is if they agree to resason and logic, you can have an idea all you want but if you cant prove it and you cant explain it and you really dont know than its just that you realy dont know, would these die hard atheists like it if people told them they were agnostic?

In NO WAY am i advocating intelegent desighn or creationism.  I just think if people want to call themselfs atheists cause they doubt intelegint desighn or creationism,then let them, they are seekers of truth and isnt that what ist all about smile

Forgive my bad spelling and punctuation,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
chrisq76 - 17 April 2009 07:40 AM

i dont believe that life or the univers was created by some deity

You are an atheist. Perhaps a confused one, but an atheist nevertheless.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

I certainly share your discomfort with the obnoxious certitude of some of the militant atheists. I haven’t the slightest doubt regarding my atheism, but I do not condemn spiritual beliefs out of hand. I know some very rational people who are also spiritual. They compartmentalize their beliefs so that their spiritualism in no way compromises their rationalism. Admittedly, such people are rare, but they demonstrate that spiritualism and rationalism are not necessarily incompatible. So I am unwilling to condemn all forms of spiritualism. I consider this a personal matter in which each person can freely make whatever choice they prefer and still retain my respect. My problems with religious belief stem from the likely consequences of such belief, not the belief itself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

I don’t find Chris to any more confused than the rest of us. He is focusing on how we gain knowledge instead of on what the answer might be. Labels aside (which would do us a world of good), that’s the best focus for addressing things no one knows anything about, because our point is that there is no basis for saying anything, except that as far as we can see all theologies are products of the human imagination. That’s what we know, so as scientific naturalists, rationalists and empiricists, let’s stick to it.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2009-04-17

!

Image Attachments
tor_hershman_LouvinBrosCDparody.jpg
 Signature 

http://torhershman.blogspot.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2009-04-15

To George, puting a label on some one who dont want that labal is kinda wrong. Alot of people do that and the out come isnt always good

For instance, If a person is bi-sexual and has a stronger intrest in the same sex over the other would you call them a homosexual, even if thats not what they would identify themselvs as would you say thier confussed because they like both but prefer one over the other?

I hope not. But thank you for your input it gave me pause and i looked at my views. And i’m still agnostic with a lot of atheistic views

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
chrisq76 - 17 April 2009 11:16 AM

[...] like both but prefer one over the other

That person is technically bisexual.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Chrisq, if you don’t know whether or not there is a god, that’s an agnostic.  If you don’t think that the universe was created by an intelligence, it depends on what you DO think is responsible for it.  If you believe there is some central unifying force (non-god, not an intelligence, not anthropomorphic) that by which the universe’s creation and behavior is guided, that’s sort of deism.  I’m not sure from your statements where you would fit, but it would seem that agnostic wouldn’t quite describe you. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

I use the phrase “agnostic on a technicality,” and then proceed to explain that I’m not convinced human intelligence is up to the task of ruling out the possibility of a deity, but none of the stories we’ve yet told about such a thing seem at all convincing. For some reason, that pisses a lot of atheists off, even though I agree with them on most specific points and most theists clearly regard me as on the atheist side. Just the same old shibboleth-based “you’re either with us or aginst us” BS, I suspect.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7812
Joined  2007-03-02

I once compared a [militant] atheist attitude to those of Fundies and he went off on me.  Truth is, I really don’t see much difference in the two extremes.  Although I do like Brennon’s thoughts.  I’m an atheist on a technicality in that I don’t believe in any god of religion and IF there is a god, I know what it is not- it’s not any human concept. Thus, in one respect that makes me an automatic atheist to the theist, but in reality, I’d say that is an agnostic.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2009 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

To repeat a shortened version of an old story, chrisq, during my teens I was an agnostic.  My girlfriend asked, in turn, if I believed in the existence of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy.  When I said I didn’t, she asked if I shouldn’t rather say I was an agnostic about them since I was an agnostic about a god.  After a week of sulking, I became an atheist.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2009 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

Frankly Chrisq, it’s you that sounds a little uptight to me.  Many years ago, before I came out as gay,  I tried out the bisexual label for a while thinking it a safe, more socially palatable compromise.  It was an unsatisfying lie and only lasted a few weeks.  The point is, it doesn’t matter what label you stick on yourself.  You are what you are and shading your labels to appease projected reactions is a lonely closet indeed.  As far as I can tell there’s no practical difference between most agnostics and most atheists.  Most seasoned (for lack of a better word) atheists I meet are equally comfortable with both labels.  It’s when they achieve that comfort that they stop being uptight.  So welcome.  This is a good place to relax.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2009 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13
mckenzievmd - 17 April 2009 06:15 PM

I use the phrase “agnostic on a technicality,” and then proceed to explain that I’m not convinced human intelligence is up to the task of ruling out the possibility of a deity, but none of the stories we’ve yet told about such a thing seem at all convincing. For some reason, that pisses a lot of atheists off, even though I agree with them on most specific points and most theists clearly regard me as on the atheist side. Just the same old shibboleth-based “you’re either with us or aginst us” BS, I suspect.

I am in agreement with you. 

I find that some people need to be militant about their pet issues, and expect that everyone else holds just as strong an opinion.  I frankly don’t care much about whether or not someone believes in deities.  As I see it, it’s only an issue at those intersections where some groups or individuals goals come in to conflict. 
I could get just as much enjoyment watching my favorite team play football if I was surrounded by right wing evangelicals or by hardcore atheists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2009 02:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2009-04-27

Just to clarify: Agnosticism means “God is inherently unknowable,” not “I’m not sure if God exists.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2009 04:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15718
Joined  2006-02-14
Kellan - 27 April 2009 02:59 AM

Just to clarify: Agnosticism means “God is inherently unknowable,” not “I’m not sure if God exists.”

Actually, the view that God is inherently unknowable is held in versions of mysticism and negative theology. (See, e.g., “agnostic theism” in the wiki article you quoted). In order to hold that God is unknowable you have to assert first that God exists.

The standard agnostic position is that one has no particular belief for or against the existence of God. It is a claim of uncertainty. If that is what you meant to say, the better way to explain that is to say, “Claims about God are inherently unknowable”. (Brennen, one of our Mods, has a signature line to that effect).

The claim that one is not sure whether or not God exists is a version of agnosticism. (See, e.g., weak agnosticism and apathetic agnosticism in the Wiki article you quoted).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2009 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

My, how we tend to categorize and label. Einstein said that his delay in early langugage development helped him to become a scientist because it allowed him to experience the world on its terms for a longer time, before having to try to fit it into the somewhat arbitrary classifications imposed by language. We would do well to remember that lesson.

I don’t know how all things began. That’s a fact.

I don’t have any reason to believe that consciousness preceded matter. That is contrary to everything we know about consciousness.

It’s conceivable that consciousness could have preceded matter, but I do not know whether it is possible. Possibility assumes things about the nature of reality that go to the heart of the question.

I do know that people have been making up stories about gods throughout history. There seems to be a strong inclination to do this. That is the most likely explanation for the root of any theology.

Some of those narratives are patently absurd. Some are morally, ethically and spiritually bankrupt. Some are at least internally consistent. Almost all of them have some feature that can be gleaned from them that is uplifting, even if one has to stretch or ignore other aspects of the theology to find it. On the whole, theologies have survived because they have given people a sense of grounding, but tragically they have also fed division and irresponsibility. Our challenge, in my view, is to offer an alternative to these theologies that satisfies the need for a sense of grounding and orientation but is firmly rooted in and consistent with scientific naturalism.

One could still ask dozens, maybe hundreds, of other questions on this subject.

Call me what you will, or better yet, forget the label and focus on the content.

[ Edited: 27 April 2009 05:30 AM by PLaClair ]
 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 6
1