|
Funny I thought the thing about agnostics was we don't claim anything. Why would you consider being agnostic as people who only think atheists are right or god fearing people are right? You don't think we might be of the opinion neither is right? That there are more options to consider? It's funny how you try and paint belief systems in as stark black and white as you can. Stop ignoring the grayscale.
|
I think you misunderstood me. Agnostics are the fence sitters who in the fullness of time will [should] eventually become a theist or an atheist once the evidence or argument persuades them in one direction or the other. I would divide agnosticism into 2 categories: weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism; those who do not know versus those who believe we cannot know. But inside this, and this is where I disagree, the agnostics try to claim that despite there being no evidence in support of a all loving, sin forgiving, universe creating God, the possibility for the existence of this God should be weighed equally against its non-existence. From this however, I do not understand how an agnostic can think both theism and atheism are false views. The atheist is simply saying that whatever process it was that began the universe and life; it is not to be attributed to a prime mover, who aside from creating universes, also forgives sins and answers prayers. What do you mean by other options to be considered?
|
...after all, aren't we all atheists to someone.
|
Precisely. As an agnostic you certainly have a damaging argument against yourself. When you have the intellectual honesty to understand why you're an atheist in regards to the thousands of dead Gods which our ancestors believed in, you will understand why I am an atheist in regards to the Gods people believe in present day.
|
As you know the word "religion" has many definitions. These describe my view of atheism:
Please tell me what Atheism means to you?
|
I have a slight lean towards nihilism in that I don’t believe life has an objective meaning or purpose. I think it is a nonsensical question anyway. I am as close to certain as I can be that the universe was not created specifically for me so I could be here right now neither to participate in this discussion nor to play Guitar Hero 2 when time permits. As for the process of evolution which brought me here, it too did not intend for me to be here. Evolution does not know I am here. It won’t notice when I am gone. The stars look down, that’s all they do; they don’t care. My body does not contain an immaterial soul. At the instant of the destruction of my brain my consciousness will end with nothing beyond: no eternal hellfire, no heavenly paradise. We’re the only species on the planet that knows it is going to die. If I manage to hold out long enough I will witness the death of everyone I will have come to love. Instead of falling into wish thinking, I decide to take on this astonishing fact with some intellectual and moral courage.
It's entirely incorrect to label atheism as just another religion. Everything I described above may be a necessary condition for atheism but it is not a sufficient condition. The word itself, atheism, is really a non sequitur. If I were to say I am an a-Communist, this would say nothing about what form of goverment I do believe works. A-Monetarist says nothing about which economical theory I do believe works, et cetera.
|
Originally Posted by LordsSword
|
Well, scientists are humans too, so no one should be the least surprised when a few of them put their faith in the scriptures ahead of the evidence of their corresponding field of research. Are you familiar with Pierre Simon Laplace? He’s the French mathematician who published the Celestial Mechanics in which he describes the motion of the planets and is the first person to talk about black holes among other things. After the critics read his work they came back to Laplace and said something of the sort; “well we see you’ve written about the system of the universe but there is no mention of God.” In one of my favourite quotes Laplace politely replies, “Sir I had no need to make such an assumption.” Laplace’s equations for planetary motion worked just as well without the need to mention God. This is what makes scientific understanding so elegant. There is no need to make a footnote on every page with:
And God did it. It adds nothing useful.
30715
29071
