A question for Atheists AND Agnostics

[ptgatsby]

Both the agnostic and the atheist have an absence of belief in deities.

Ahh, this is why it is important. You can be an agnostic theist. That is, agnostic does not mean you do not believe. It's a theory of knowledge. It's actually pretty common even though most don't realize it. Most of the times when "faith" is used as a foundation for belief, the person is an agnostic theist.

(I made a joke earlier that when people ask if I am an agnostic or atheist, I ask them if they are a 'doubting Christian' - if so, I am an agnostic, otherwise I am an atheist.)

What about Buddhism?

Depends on the form, as far as both atheist and agnostic goes. Foundational teachings are atheist and agnostic, IRC. But note that the two definitions work together - this is no gap between them. If you are not atheist, you are theist.

 

[Mort Belfry]

Well, let's say atheists were right, Christians were wrong... no god; we all disappear when we die and that's it. Even if it were the case, what did Christians lose out on in life? Nothing.

One thing I noticed in myself when I went from being a Christian in the first twelve years of my life, then an agnostic for three years, then finally an atheist, was the censorship of thought.

I used to be worried that the things I was thinking about were bad, that passively churning through my own mind was something of which to be careful. But when I became an atheist I felt my brain was mine alone and now that feeling of privacy within myself is something very important to me.

I would have lost out on this if I had continued to be a Christian.

 

[Xander]

Speaking as an agnostic I can say that I do appreciate that some may find that they, at some point, find it reasonable to ascribe to a religion. I have either not reached that point or chose a different path at that point. I find no religion more worthy than another and none have grasped me to a degree where I would bow my own judgement to them. As such I'm quite happy working to my own internal definitions of write and wrong (which oddly so do almost all of the faithful, they just coincide (mostly) with their chosen religion) and defining myself as either good or evil. After all regardless of whether I have faith or not the choice of how to act is still mine. Ergo I see religion as mostly irrelevant to my own existence. If however you chose as an individual to belong to a religion or to have faith (I do regard those as essentially different) then more power to you. As long as you have respect for my choice I don't see a problem.

Oh and I should point out that my understanding also permits me questioning just about everything. Other's are welcome to question my beliefs, I will most certainly not leave theirs unquestioned, though a simple "because I wanted to/ because it felt right" is always an adequate response.

 

[Totenkindly]

One thing I noticed in myself when I went from being a Christian in the first twelve years of my life, then an agnostic for three years, then finally an atheist, was the censorship of thought.

I used to be worried that the things I was thinking about were bad, that passively churning through my own mind was something of which to be careful. But when I became an atheist I felt my brain was mine alone and now that feeling of privacy within myself is something very important to me.

I would have lost out on this if I had continued to be a Christian.

My time in the church did manage to lead me to uncover what seemed to be a minority, a group that went beyond the orthodoxy and wasn't using religion in their lives as the "thought police" or "moral conformance squad."

The bulk, however, was intrusive, and I got screwed up nicely in SOME ways (usually involving how others viewed me).

Author M. Scott Peck referred to one system of spiritual growth he had perceived:
1. Unbeliever
2. Conformer.
3. Challenger
4. Mystic

While you'll probably bristle at it by having agnostics/atheists listed at Stage 3 (and you don't have to accept this framework, obviously -- it was Peck's idea or he got it from elsewhere), my point really is that Stage #2 is where many people end up and stay.

Especially the ones who start at stage #1, so Stage #2 is actually beneficial for them. "Jesus turned my life around!" they will claim... and truthfully. Because religion DID shape them up and help them get over some big issues in their lives, it brought them some desperately needed structure and meaning that they were not finding (nor would have found) on their own. And many people leap right into Stage #2 and never really go through a Stage #1.

But God at Stage #2 is still sort of a traffic cop figure, and that's where many religions people stick, and anyone who moves ahead to an agnostic/atheist or (ironically) a mystic position will be cast out as backsliding rather than being seen as advancing. Anyone in the faith I've found worth being vulnerable to has not really been in Stage #2, but it's just a small minority.

Ahh, this is why it is important. You can be an agnostic theist. That is, agnostic does not mean you do not believe. It's a theory of knowledge. It's actually pretty common even though most don't realize it. Most of the times when "faith" is used as a foundation for belief, the person is an agnostic theist.

That's why I often call myself a Christian agnostic. I have inclinations that lead me to articulate life through a Christianized lens, but my foundational assumption is that I cannot know anything for certain, so anything I hold beyond the observable is pure faith. (Whereas many Christian-professing people actually don't operate on faith, they turn their unprovable religion into "fact" somehow and then try to believe it in as such and speak of it as if every detail is 100% true, which I find presumptuous and muddying down what can truly be known and shown versus merely believed in.)

 

[Xander]

Author M. Scott Peck referred to one system of spiritual growth he had perceived:
1. Unbeliever
2. Conformer.
3. Challenger
4. Mystic

1. Ignorance
2. Knowledge
3. Questions
4. Understanding

I think that system applies universally and could be applied to a solely theistic and atheistic progression.

 

[Blackmail!]

1. Ignorance
2. Knowledge
3. Questions
4. Understanding

I think that system applies universally and could be applied to a solely theistic and atheistic progression.

I'd say it's rather:

1. Questions
2. Conformity
3. Alienation
4. Madness/Neurosis

 

[EcK]

I wonder if religious people realise, that most of the claim they make are simply insane, even without considering how irrational, ethnocentred and plenly stupid those claims are. (read for references simulated's post, it's precisely my opinion because it's the only logical one.)

So, I wonder, if they realise, that if it wasn't for the structural and historical efficiency of the strain of memes we call religions, their beliefs in a magical knowledge of unobservable metaphysical 'events' would be enough to get them interned or at least medicated

Mentally 'sick' people just have a slightly different mental make up and or life experience. So that they are sensible to less frequently successful memes or have some natural behavior go into overdrive (and so on)

 

[Sniffles]

I wonder if religious people realise, that most of the claim they make, even without considering how irrational, ethnocentred and plenly stupid those claims are.

And your claims are more rational, less enthocentric and stupid because?

 

[EcK]

Btw, notice that in psychology, 'sick' people never notice they are even when they can talk about similar situations and call it abnormal without ever linking it to their own faulty rational.

funny, uh?

And your claims are more rational, less enthocentric and stupid because?

Let me teach you something about logics and why unicorns probably don't exist.
First you see facts, then you make a conclusion... not the other way around.

don't thank me, I just love kids you know.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd say it's rather:

1. Questions
2. Conformity
3. Alienation
4. Madness/Neurosis

YAY! I'm 3/4 of the way home!!!!

I wonder if religious people realise, that most of the claim they make are simply insane, even without considering how irrational, ethnocentred and plenly stupid those claims are. (read for references simulated's post, it's precisely my opinion because it's the only logical one.)

One of the shocks when I finally got "outside the system" was noting how crazy some of the beliefs actually are. Inside the system, people really don't get how irrational some of their thoughts are; they use themselves as the standard, it's everyone else who is crazy.

 

[EcK]

I'm fine with people saying that it could be possible that a sentient being created the universe. I mean, an advanced enough society should be able to pull those kind of things upoff. Especially if limiting themselves to seeding life on planets, guiding evolution.

I just say that there's absolutely nothing to back that up in our human experience\theories that fit experience.
And that as an hypothetical inference on the origins of the universe and past times we have no or not alot of information about, it (god or creators or whatever) seems like an unlikely and unnecessary theory. Since it seems like organic life has spawned by itself on earth (wether or not with the help of meteor impacts and so on).

And even if i said that life was intelligently designed on earth that would still mean the intelligent life designer had to come to life him\her\itself\themselves. So the idea that life can evolve in our universe without external help is just not something one could deny without being called stupid for good reasons.

Explaining a statistically rare event with an even less plausible theory that doesn't even seem to fit any observation\theory and stating them as absolute facts is neither wise nor helpful for humanity as a dynamic system with an apparently and logicaly evolutionary built in nietzschean 'Will to Power'.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm fine with people saying that it could be possible that a sentient being created the universe. I mean, an advanced enough society should be able to pull those kind of things up. Especially if limiting themselves to seeding life on planets, guiding evolution.

Yes, it's possible.

I just say that there's absolutely nothing to back that up in our human experience\theories that fit experience.

Well, there are human experiences such as creative acts and parenthood that people perceive as patterns, that they then project upon a potential god-figure who -- if it is like us -- could behave similarly or have similar experiences.

See what I'm saying? No, there is no hard science to back things up, but people are definitely projecting their own soft experiences and assuming they must be indicative of or reflect a higher being/ideal. So there's a connection there, just more an inductive one and thus still assumptive.

And even if i said that life was intelligently designed on earth well, i'd have to say that that intelligent life designer had to come to life itself. So the idea that life can evolve in our universe without external help is just not something one could say deny.

It depends on the life being described. Maybe "god" would be of a life essence that doesn't follow our natural process.

But at that point we have no way to articulate, describe, or understand it. It either is accepted or rejected, by personal inclination.

 

[EcK]

Well, there are human experiences such as creative acts and parenthood that people perceive as patterns, that they then project upon a potential god-figure who -- if it is like us -- could behave similarly or have similar experiences.

See what I'm saying? No, there is no hard science to back things up, but people are definitely projecting their own soft experiences and assuming they must be indicative of or reflect a higher being/ideal. So there's a connection there, just more an inductive one and thus still assumptive.

That's part of what i was talking about when i made references to memes.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's part of what i was talking about when i made references to memes.

Yes, I think along the lines of Dawkins or Dennett in regards to a lot of religious ideas self-propagating as memes; and they're hard to uproot, the ones that have currently been around for decades or centuries exist because they have been honed by selection and are adapted to their environment(s).

 

[EcK]

I like it when intp illustrate what i'm too lazy to say

lub ya.

(i kind of started to think of applying memes directly to marketing at some level, should be a fun ride)

 

[Totenkindly]

I like it when intp illustrate what i'm too lazy to say.
lub ya.

Dammit. Why am I always cleaning up after ENTPs? Sigh.

(i kind of started to think of applying memes directly to marketing at some level, should be a fun ride)

I'm still wondering why Pet Rocks worked.

It was just a lousy piece of coal.

 

[EcK]

Because if it has eyes it has a soul\mind.
It's the logical oxymoron between something that is the definition of motion(less) and live-less and a key element in your empathy trigger.
Keeps us processing, and so, obsessing.

Eyes are what allow us to see feelings and the point of focus of a person or animal in her\his\It's environnement. And here you have eyes that move (so a mind) without a mind (so no mind).

As that dude with pointy ears 'd say "FAscinating"
But the doctor's way cooler, so i'll say 'brilliant!\fantastic'

And i had no idea those stuffs existed, it's so much better than mr potatoe. Potatoes are actually alive (if challenged)

 

[Totenkindly]

It's the googly eyes that always melted my heart.
(meh)

So if we market a Rubik's Magic Mood-Ring 8-Ball with eyes, we should be onto something!

(note: More seriously, yeah, the "eyes" thing is one standard cultural assumption and how people project their own emotions on animals so easily.)

 

[EcK]

It's the googly eyes that always melted my heart.
(meh)

So if we market a Rubik's Magic Mood-Ring 8-Ball with eyes, we should be onto something!

(note: More seriously, yeah, the "eyes" thing is one standard cultural assumption and how people project their own emotions on animals so easily.)

That's why i believe the perfect movie bad guy should have no eyes. or at least eyes u can't 'look into' (black or super reflective)

 

[Blackmail!]

That's why i believe the perfect movie bad guy should have no eyes. or at least eyes u can't 'look into' (black or super reflective)

You mean, "Alien"?