The Atheist/Agnostic/Freethought/Humanist/Skeptic/Nonbeliever Thread

[Josh James xVx]

I'd suggest there is nothing any more unscientific and unreasonable in being certain there is no deity running the world than there is in being certain there is no Isis, Easter Bunny, Dagoth, Sauron, Wizard of Oz, Loki, Cerberus, Santa Claus, leprechauns, Krishna, satyrs, Golem, Aslan, werewolves, Zeus, etc., etc., etc...

You and I both know that's not what I meant.

"Theism" is a very broad definition. The god concepts commonly accepted and worshiped by humans aren't the only plausible god concepts. There's also deism, pantheism, etc.

Anything is possible. Not everything is likely or substantiated by evidence, but it's all plausible.

There might be a higher intelligence of some form, but I see no reason to believe in it. I reject the concept due to lack of evidence or coherence but maintain that I might be wrong, which is a scientific world view.

I think it is much more unreasonable to demand that a person consider the possible existence of all fictional characters or be labeled unscientific. Because there is certainly no reason to suggest that while we can be certain of the non-existence of all other gods and mythical beings, we must consider the possibility of the existence of the Judeo-Christian one or be called unreasonable. What makes him special when there has never been any more evidence for his existence than there is for the tooth fairy?

Who said anything about Judeo-Christian?

That's NOT what the term "atheist" means. It doesn't mean "Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist."

It means "Lack of belief in gods." That includes any and all gods.

Just because I'm an agnostic atheist who maintains it's slightly plausible that a God might exist doesn't mean that one would have to be the biblical God. In fact I find that one highly unlikely because it's a self contradictory concept.

Did you even watch the video at all?

What is unscientific is to deny evidence that shows a supposition to be false. If the Judeo-Christian god came down here to my house and smote me with something improbable for my region, like a plague of Egyptian locusts, or filled my little creek with blood and made it run uphill, I would probably consider the possibility of his existence, but I'd still be more likely to try to discover the scientific explanation first.

Again, that's not what I was talking about.

Like, at all.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity running reality, therefore it is not unscientific to be certain there isn't one. Certainty and rigidity are two separate things, and the application of scientific methods of investigation does not demand that we consider every potential possibility, just the ones we have evidence for.

The purpose of science is to, by trail and error, unravel as many of the mysteries of the natural universe as possible. It has no bias and no obligation to reject or accept any claim. Truth matters more. Science has increasingly shown that a Judeo-Christian world view is at the very least deeply flawed and not to be taken literally, whether the religious types acknowledge that or not.

But science is through its very mechanisms unable to "disprove" anything. There's no such thing as negative proof. It's reasonable to say "There's no evidence Sasquatch exists." I'd consider it unreasonable to say "Sasquatch absolutely does not and never did exist." A person making that claim apparently knows far more about the physical universe than I do.

“If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

 

[MrsSchu2u]

I have little to add to this discussion, but when I read them, I'm always struck by the fact that people tend to associate "smugness" with the other side.

 

[mlp]

I have little to add to this discussion, but when I read them, I'm always struck by the fact that people tend to associate "smugness" with the other side.

True, that. IMO, "smugness" about beliefs/lack thereof occurs in the same proportions in atheists and believers.

 

[MrsSchu2u]

That's been my experience as well. I think that smugness must come with that degree of certainty that I will probably never attain on the issue. I'm thankful for my lack of certainty because i feel like certainty would stifle my desire to learn more.

 

[FortyTwo]

Nope. Not mutually exclusive terms. Didn't let you guys get away with misusing those terms on the old site and I won't be silent here, either.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. It's possible to be both. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I have no direct contact with or knowledge of a god so I am agnostic, and I have no belief in one due to lack of evidence so I am an atheist.

This is a wonderful video on the subject that clarifies the misconception that agonosticism is some sort of middle ground between belief and nonbelief. That's simply false by definition. If you break down the word into what it actually means -into its core components - it's "lack of knowledge".

Love the video (and the series in general) but sometimes you have to take into account modern usage, even if it started due to an incorrect confusion of terms.

For example, homophobia is commonly used to describe hatred or intolerance for gays, even though technically it should refer to a literal phobia of homosexuals.

 

[Freesia]

Im kind of a mix of wicca, paganism and buddhism but I also like to cherry pick wisdom from various religions. I enjoy reading about religious mysticism and I love visiting churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other holy or spiritual places but I like to like aspects of them all rather than choose one. I have called myself a polytheist before but others said that my idea of being a polytheist was silly.

Also I am not good in churches really as I sometimes feel like bursting out laughing at po faced speeches or ridiculous things in the bible, or strange things that the ministers /priests may say. But I try and restrain myself.

 

[FortyTwo]

Im kind of a mix of wicca, paganism and buddhism but I also like to cherry pick wisdom from various religions. I enjoy reading about religious mysticism and I love visiting churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other holy or spiritual places but I like to like aspects of them all rather than choose one. I have called myself a polytheist before but others said that my idea of being a polytheist was silly.

Also I am not good in churches really as I sometimes feel like bursting out laughing at po faced speeches or ridiculous things in the bible, or strange things that the ministers /priests may say. But I try and restrain myself.

+1, even if I don't believe in it. All of the different cultural beliefs are very interesting when they're not trying to get me killed.

 

[Freesia]

Well as I say I cherry pick. I like to pick out the bits I like and discard any bits that are bigoted etc.

 

[K-II]

Love the video (and the series in general) but sometimes you have to take into account modern usage, even if it started due to an incorrect confusion of terms.

For example, homophobia is commonly used to describe hatred or intolerance for gays, even though technically it should refer to a literal phobia of homosexuals.

Wouldn't it just be a fear of 'sameness' or something? See I always hated that term, because it sounds more like the medical way of saying 'Hipster'.

 

[FortyTwo]

Wouldn't it just be a fear of 'sameness' or something? See I always hated that term, because it sounds more like the medical way of saying 'Hipster'.

Medical? We are talking about the word "agnostic" here, right? What does that have to do with medicine?

 

[Scorpius]

Thanks for the info, Joshjames. I never thoroughly understood the distinction between atheist and agnostic.

I guess I would be considered a gnostic atheist, by those definitions.

 

[K-II]

Medical? We are talking about the word "agnostic" here, right? What does that have to do with medicine?

For example, homophobia is commonly used to describe hatred or intolerance for gays, even though technically it should refer to a literal phobia of homosexuals.

 

[Forster]

That's a nice way of putting it.

I think that religions often just put an arbitrary stop to any further questions, instead of actually answering questions.

I'm never quite sure what to call myself. I don't think a supreme being, a devil, or an individual after life exists, but I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong (other than the devil bit). I am confident that there is no God/gods as contemplated by any of religions with which I have any passing familiarity, at least none worth worshipping. I generally call myself an agnostic to distinguish myself from the type of atheist who is absolutely certain in his belief/lack of belief.

That's pretty much my outlook. To add, I'm really soured towards organized religions as I view them as a human construct to gather power/influence. What the real "truth" is I don't know. I fully expect it to be the end of me when I die... but one can be cautiously optimistic, lol. I do wonder why the heck anything exists.

 

[FortyTwo]

For example, homophobia is commonly used to describe hatred or intolerance for gays, even though technically it should refer to a literal phobia of homosexuals.

Okay, then what does that have to do with hipsters?

I guess I'm just not getting what you're saying here. How does an unwillingness to conform have anything to do with these modern definitions? I can sort-of understand what you mean in regards to "agnostic" but the modern usage of the word "homophobia" isn't a hipster thing.

 

[schmencer]

Okay, then what does that have to do with hipsters?

I guess I'm just not getting what you're saying here. How does an unwillingness to conform have anything to do with these modern definitions? I can sort-of understand what you mean in regards to "agnostic" but the modern usage of the word "homophobia" isn't a hipster thing.

K-II is trying to make a joke. (homophobia = fear 0f sameness = technical term for hipsters). As with many of their efforts, it fell flat.

 

[K-II]

Okay, then what does that have to do with hipsters?

I guess I'm just not getting what you're saying here. How does an unwillingness to conform have anything to do with these modern definitions? I can sort-of understand what you mean in regards to "agnostic" but the modern usage of the word "homophobia" isn't a hipster thing.

Homo by itself would be 'same'. Hence fear of sameness (or maybe 'same fear' [as someone else?] but I'm assuming the former since most -phobia terms are written that way). It doesn't really have anything to do with hipsters, that's just what a 'fear of sameness' reminds me of ever since someone tried to explain to me what a hipster was (weirdly enough, they were actually calling me one and self-identify as one. Apparently there's this somewhat-justified perception that hipsters dislike popular things, which admittedly I often do).

 

[FortyTwo]

K-II is trying to make a joke. (homophobia = fear 0f sameness = technical term for hipsters). As with many of their efforts, it fell flat.

Oh. Latin origin words. Okay.

 

[K-II]

I thought it was Greek, but either way.

 

[FortyTwo]

I thought it was Greek, but either way.

Maybe it is. I know very little about ancient languages, but I'd love to learn Latin someday.

 

[kazyeeqen]

Maybe it is. I know very little about ancient languages, but I'd love to learn Latin someday.

Doo eet!

Latin is fun. Greek is funnerer, but more difficult.