Agnosticism doesn't make sense

daveharnett

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Wikipedia

I think, and I imagine that most people agree that the existance of a god cannot be disproved (because maybe he's using scienceproof 'magic' to hide from us). Conversely, his existance is not really provable either (since our senses are unreliable).

So once one accepts that we cannot be sure, surely you then have to form a reasoned opinion on the subject.Either we consider all reasonable people (theists and athiests alike) to be "agnostic and athiestic/thiestic" or the label does not really apply to anyone.

God is not Schrödinger's cat, either he/she/it exists or not. And I don't think it's possible not to have an opinion.
discuss

Fallen Seraph

daveharnett wrote: »

So once one accepts that we cannot be sure, surely you then have to form a reasoned opinion on the subject.

I think there's a fallacy there. Forming an opinion on a subject that you believe inherently unknowable is not a logical step. To me, simply not having an opinion on something you think unknowable is quite reasonable....



Personally I feel that if one comes to the conclusion that God cannot be proven or disproven then it's reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist, but I can understand people who wish to avoid such assumptions.

Rev Hellfire

Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to those for whom the existence of god(s) is irrelevant, which would be most people (imo).

Dades

An opinion is different to a belief, IMO.

It's thrown out a bit more casually than the thought process that would lead you to the conclusion you are atheist/theist.

So sure, you can be agnostic and have an opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't come to the conclusion that the information is not there for you to have a belief one way or the other.

My 2 cents anyhoo.

Rhiannon14

Belief has no place in a philosophical argument. Agnosticism is essentially a philosophical position on the nature of the universe.

Scofflaw

Agnosticism is a perfectly valid philosophical position (perhaps the only one one the question). However, I doubt that very many people live as agnostics - the majority would be doubting theists or uncertain atheists, and some may swing back and forward. The basic question, I suppose, is "do you live as if there is a God, or as if there isn't?"

I would say that, though, because I'm an alatrist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I think in a very very technical viewpoint Agnosticism has a leg to stand on. In any practical sense I think its a fairly nonsensical position. All I have to do to make an Agnostic start feeling nervous is to ask them if they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, Norse Gods, Spaghetti Monsters etc, and why.

lostexpectation

well some people are agnostic cos there not sure

and some people are agnostic cos they think saying im openminded! is the highest form of intellectual argument. when its simply nonsense.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

In any practical sense I think its a fairly nonsensical position. All I have to do to make an Agnostic start feeling nervous is to ask them if they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, Norse Gods, Spaghetti Monsters etc, and why.

I'm not sure why someone would feel nervous about disbelieving in what are fairly simple constructs, most agnostics wouldn't subscribe to the simple the big fluffy man in the sky idea anyway.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure why someone would feel nervous about disbelieving in what are fairly simple constructs, most agnostics wouldn't subscribe to the simple the big fluffy man in the sky idea anyway.

Wouldn't subscribe to...no. But an Agnostic will not say "I do not believe in God". So I ask about Vampires. Will they say "I do not believe in Vampires"? Keep pushing the issue until they finally admit there is something they simply do not believe in. Ask why they do not believe in this thing. Point out that for the very same reasons they should not believe in God.

Once someone admits to not believing in something for rational reasons, such as lack of evidence, its very hard for them to maintain an agnostic view on God. Its mostly cultural indoctrination that has made them think that the notion of the Biblical God is any less ridiculous than Fairies or Invisible Unicorns.

A Primal Nut

daveharnett wrote: »

I think, and I imagine that most people agree that the existance of a god cannot be disproved (because maybe he's using scienceproof 'magic' to hide from us). Conversely, his existance is not really provable either (since our senses are unreliable).

So once one accepts that we cannot be sure, surely you then have to form a reasoned opinion on the subject.Either we consider all reasonable people (theists and athiests alike) to be "agnostic and athiestic/thiestic" or the label does not really apply to anyone.

That's the thing; for most people its not a reasoned opinion, most religious people are certain their religion is correct, atheists are certain there is no god. All other people are agnostic. You may be bordering on religion or atheism, but you're still agnostic.

God is not Schrödinger's cat, either he/she/it exists or not. And I don't think it's possible not to have an opinion.
discuss

Of course they have an opinion, they're just not arrogant/confident enough to believe their 100% right. There is an obvious difference between someone who thinks "well, the world is intelligently designed, and there is lots of things we don't understand, so maybe god does exist" and the Pope or someone who thinks "there are two many things wrong in the bible, so it can't be correct" and Richard Dawkins.

A Primal Nut

Zillah wrote: »

Wouldn't subscribe to...no. But an Agnostic will not say "I do not believe in God". So I ask about Vampires. Will they say "I do not believe in Vampires"? Keep pushing the issue until they finally admit there is something they simply do not believe in. Ask why they do not believe in this thing. Point out that for the very same reasons they should not believe in God.

Once someone admits to not believing in something for rational reasons, such as lack of evidence, its very hard for them to maintain an agnostic view on God. Its mostly cultural indoctrination that has made them think that the notion of the Biblical God is any less ridiculous than Fairies or Invisible Unicorns.

Some people may believe that there is a reason for God to exist, ie creation of the universe, even if there no evidence, but that there is no reason or evidence for vampires to exist

Zillah

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Some people may believe that there is a reason for God to exist, ie creation of the universe, even if there no evidence, but that there is no reason or evidence for vampires to exist

The phrase "God has a reason to exist, which is to create the universe" is just a really bad rephrasing of the sentence "The existence of the universe is evidence for God's existence".

The existence of the universe is not evidence for the existence of God, regardless of how badly you want to mangle the language of it.

Whatever jerk first started pretending that Teleology meant anything deserves to be punched in the face.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

I think in a very very technical viewpoint Agnosticism has a leg to stand on. In any practical sense I think its a fairly nonsensical position. All I have to do to make an Agnostic start feeling nervous is to ask them if they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, Norse Gods, Spaghetti Monsters etc, and why.

I describe myself as Agnostic because I don't care one way or another.
Athetism is putting far to much energy into an irrelevant premise for me.

So I feel equally agnostic about Hocus Pocus.

Sleepy

Personally I describe myself as agnostic. I don't believe in a god but given the simple fact that it's impossible to disprove his/her/it's existance to believe there isn't a god, I'd consider it arrogant to claim my opinion that there's no god as fact. IMHO, atheism is, in fact, just as arrogant a position as theism. It's giving one's own opinion far too much weight in what is in essence a philosophical argument.

While my opinions most closely match those of an atheist, I recognise that it's an illogical belief and so consider myself an agnostic.

Dades

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd consider it arrogant to claim my opinion that there's no god as fact.

I would never say there's no god as fact, so you can forget that as being a criteria for being an atheist.

Sleepy wrote: »

It's giving one's own opinion far too much weight in what is in essence a philosophical argument.

It's more a case of rejecting the philosophical argument as not having enough weight to sway that opinion afaic.

Zillah

Sleepy wrote: »

While my opinions most closely match those of an atheist, I recognise that it's an illogical belief and so consider myself an agnostic.

Is there anything you will affirm that you do not believe exists?

If so, why do you make the claims of the Biblical God's existence special? I do not believe in any of this unfounded magical crap. I suspect you don't believe in the vast majority of this unfounded magical crap. Why are you elevating the claims for the Biblical God above any of the other nonesense you do not believe in?

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote: »

Is there anything you will affirm that you do not believe exists?

No. It is possible that anything exists. Without disproving it you are being closeminded. Hmph.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Why are you elevating the claims for the Biblical God above any of the other nonesense you do not believe in?

The biblical God is a fairly narrow definition of what a deity can be be. I'd say most agnostics discount the conventional idea as put forward by both atheists and theists alike.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

No. It is possible that anything exists.

I don't believe that everything that is possible to exist does exist.

Without disproving it you are being closeminded. Hmph.

I am entirely open to being convinced of anything if evidence is produced.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The biblical God is a fairly narrow definition of what a deity can be be. I'd say most agnostics discount the conventional idea as put forward by both atheists and theists alike.

Well whatever wishy washy mostly undefined Gods they propose still lack evidence of any kind so I remain unconvinced they exist, as I do the infinity of things that lack evidence.

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote: »

I don't believe that everything that is possible to exist does exist.

I am entirely open to being convinced of anything if evidence is produced.

I believe he was taking the piss there Zillah.

As for being an Agnostic, if it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for me.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

As for being an Agnostic, if it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for me.

Einstein was an atheist.

CerebralCortex

Zillah wrote: »

Wouldn't subscribe to...no. But an Agnostic will not say "I do not believe in God". So I ask about Vampires. Will they say "I do not believe in Vampires"? Keep pushing the issue until they finally admit there is something they simply do not believe in. Ask why they do not believe in this thing. Point out that for the very same reasons they should not believe in God.

Once someone admits to not believing in something for rational reasons, such as lack of evidence, its very hard for them to maintain an agnostic view on God. Its mostly cultural indoctrination that has made them think that the notion of the Biblical God is any less ridiculous than Fairies or Invisible Unicorns.

You make a very good point. But try and look at it from the point of view that Norse gods and fairies were belief systems used to explain why lightening strikes. Similarly the christian faith was used to explain the way we should live and what happens when we die. But from a non denominational point of view (my, as an agnostic's, point of view) god is a way of explaining why we/the universe/existence exists. IMHO.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

No. It is possible that anything exists. Without disproving it you are being closeminded. Hmph.

Wow, it must be fun in your car when you are driving home ...

Wicknight
"LOOK OUT, an invisible 6 foot tall elephant is in the road!"

Tar.Aldarion
"Oh crap!" (serves car just in time)

Wicknight
"Now there is an invisible pit of invisible lava in the road! Turn for Christ sake!

Tar.Aldarion
"Ok, Hold on!"

And so on ...

I hope you see the point I'm making. There are an infinite number of things that you believe don't exist. If that wasn't the case you would spend your days locked in a room sedated.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

Einstein was an atheist.

Quote?

Tar.Aldarion

Even though I was just pulling Zillah's leg. Here be a post...control c...control v...

One can be philosphically agnostic but functionally Atheist Wicknight, so that scenario is not tenable.

There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. yet a lot of theists find beliefs like this untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?

Lets take Let's take vampires for a moment.
I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.

But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However people seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.

Dades

Of course the problem is the proponents of agnosticism tend to stretch the definition of "god" to be anything from an angry bearded man, to something with no defined characteristics, that had something to do with the universe.

Which makes is kinda hard to say what you don't believe in.

BTW I knew Tar was taking the mickey!

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

Of course the problem is the proponents of agnosticism tend to stretch the definition of "god" to be anything from an angry bearded man, to something with no defined characteristics, that had something to do with the universe.

Which makes is kinda hard to say what you don't believe in.

Whereas if you push some atheists, you discover that they really reject the angry bearded man in the sky, and have never even considered other gods they weren't brought up with. They're "Christian" atheists, and reject all the other gods on the same basis that a Christian does, or by extension of a reasoning that particularly disproves only the Judeo-Christian notion of an unlimited interventionist solitary Supreme Creator God.

Hmm. I may have said this before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Well whatever wishy washy mostly undefined Gods they propose still lack evidence of any kind so I remain unconvinced they exist, as I do the infinity of things that lack evidence.

I'd certainly agree that an open ended definition of what may or may not constitute a deity does indeed make the act of nailing down a proof or rebuttal impossible.
But then may that’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, the former deals with the tangible existence of such a thing, while the agnostic stance deals with the possibility of existence of the concept.

I guess at its core it’s a belief in knowledge, as an agnostic you state your knowledge is insufficient to answer multitude of questions which surround the idea of gods. An atheist states with 100% certainty there are no gods, and all can be explained by science.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Quote?

I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
Albert Einstein

Sleepy

Zillah wrote: »

Is there anything you will affirm that you do not believe exists?

If so, why do you make the claims of the Biblical God's existence special? I do not believe in any of this unfounded magical crap. I suspect you don't believe in the vast majority of this unfounded magical crap. Why are you elevating the claims for the Biblical God above any of the other nonesense you do not believe in?

Tar almost makes my point for me I guess. Logically I'm agnostic because of the inability to scientifically prove that a 'god' doesn't exist.

When I reference 'God' I'd reference the commonality between the major religions of an eternal being who created the universe not some white flowing bearded bloke. While I reject the notion that such a being exists as the fantasy of those too arrogant to admit that they just don't know what created everything I'd consider it equally arrogant to maintain that there categorically isn't some extraordinarily powerful being that did create everything.

If by chance some being did exist and chose to reveal itself to humanity millenia ago and not since, it would seem logical that, given the oral tradition of history, there would be many variations on such a happening ergo the many different religions espousing similar beliefs (that they're prepared to kill each other over :rolleyes:). Like I said, I don't believe it happened, I just can't say it categorically didn't.

I give religion exactly the same level of tolerance I give someone who believes in fairies tbh, I consider them to be self-delusional. Unfortunately, given the widespread nature of their delusions I'd have very few friends if I didn't learn to agree to disagree with people on this issue.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

Tar almost makes my point for me I guess. Logically I'm agnostic because of the inability to scientifically prove that a 'god' doesn't exist.

I never quite understand that stance, because it seem to me to strongly suggest that there are certain things that one can be certain about, but God isn't one of them.

Scientifically that doesn't hold either. You cannot be scientifically certain about God. But to be scientific one cannot be certain about anything.

So is it necessary to say that one is agnostic towards God, since technically they have to be uncertain about everything, from the computer in front of me to the Sun in the sky.

I'm an atheist because I do not believe that God exists. I can't prove that. But then I can't prove anything so the point is rather irrelevant.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An atheist states with 100% certainty there are no gods, and all can be explained by science.

I've never suggested that. Does that make me agnostic? I think not.

Sleepy wrote:

I'd consider it equally arrogant to maintain that there categorically isn't some extraordinarily powerful being that did create everything

Perhaps there are people who do this, but again, I don't think that is what atheism is. I've always maintained atheism is about rejecting any god that has been given (by man) a single characteristic, not the concept of a some completely unknowable thing that may have had a hand in the creation of universe.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
Albert Einstein

That fits in nicely with the rest of the argument there Wicknight.

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest...

Just like I'm an atheist when it comes to flying pink elephants or whatever new imaginary flight of fantasy you use for the same tired argument.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic
Albert Einstein

That, to me, is more of an indication of his belief in general rather than a dismissal of a particular religion, as in your quote.

Zombrex

Well again you get into the issue of what one says they mean by "god"

Einstein wasn't a theist, he rejected theism. He didn't believe in it. He didn't believe in God.

To me that makes him an atheist.

As Dades points out I think the problem here is not agnosticism, but what people think being an atheist means.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I've never suggested that. Does that make me agnostic? I think not.

I believe it does. As an atheist (in the true sense of the word) you state categorically there are no gods, fact.

I'll start a campaign right now to get your name changed to 'The Agnostic', now where's devore's number...

joe_chicken

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I believe it does.

I agree.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I believe it does. As an atheist (in the true sense of the word) you state categorically there are no gods, fact.

But no one can do that, so no one can be an atheist and the word is meaningless. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that "gods" exist. You don't have to be certain to a scientific standard that something doesn't exist (which is impossible) to not believe in it. That would be ridiculous.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote: »

I never quite understand that stance, because it seem to me to strongly suggest that there are certain things that one can be certain about, but God isn't one of them.

Scientifically that doesn't hold either. You cannot be scientifically certain about God. But to be scientific one cannot be certain about anything.

So is it necessary to say that one is agnostic towards God, since technically they have to be uncertain about everything, from the computer in front of me to the Sun in the sky.

I'm an atheist because I do not believe that God exists. I can't prove that. But then I can't prove anything so the point is rather irrelevant.

That's an interesting point and tbh, rather a poor choice of wording on my point. I suppose what I meant was that I'm agnostic because I cannot prove through logic that God doesn't exist (aside from the use of Occam's Razor, which while a useful tool for determining the most likely answer, does not provide a proof).

To my (untrained) mind, philosophy should follow the same rules of mathematical logic. Something can either be demonstrated to always be true, false or undeterminable. One can theorize about that which is undeterminable but cannot state one's theory as fact, however unlikely the alternative is.

Given your definition of the word atheist, you could certainly class me as one and I'd have no problem with that. Given my understanding of the word agnostic, that's how I describe myself.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'll start a campaign right now to get your name changed to 'The Agnostic', now where's devore's number...

I'd need to put a caviat in my sig.

The Agnostic *


_____________________________
* god = anything we don't understand

SeanW

As an avowed Agnostic myself, I find the theory of Agnosticism to make perfect sense.

Yes, there is no scientific evidence that God exists. That and the fact that I have some issues with Christian theology (like that whole thing about people who don't believe in Jesus without evidence, at least 5 billion alive today, are all going to Hell, also that bit about God having created everything 6000 years ago), lead me away from Christianity a few years ago.

But I have heard a couple of first hand stories about other people's experiences with supernatural entites, one of which I think might be a load of nonsense, the other I would be slightly more sure of.

If you research the area of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) that would throw up some interesting bits and further debates.

Also, getting slightly philosophical, if you think about the factors that lead to our existance - everything from the Big Bang (and before?) to the development of sentient life on Earth, I think the odds of that all happening on it's own - of things unfolding the way they did - are something in the order trillions to 1. With those kind of odds, I should do the Lotto more often.

It is not, in my opinion, reasonable to conclude that anything exists outside the here and now, nor to ascertain what that might be. However, the same holds true for the assertion that there is nothing else.

I regard Atheism as a religion unto itself, more a belief in nothing than a lack of belief. The evidence we have IMO doesn't support any traditional religion, but it doesn't support Atheism either, at least not fully.

In this context, it perfectly reasonable to conclude that the information we have doesn't answer the questions, because the hard evidence for (and indeed to lesser extent against) any conclusion just doesn't exist.

Zillah

SeanW wrote: »

I regard Atheism as a religion unto itself

*dives under cover*

Prepare to get your ass thoroughly kicked.

Zombrex

SeanW wrote: »

If you research the area of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) that would throw up some interesting bits and further debates.

Not really, since scientists have discovered various ways to trigger the sensations experienced during near death experiences. It is likely that near death experiences are the result of stress put on various areas of the brain due to injury or shock.

SeanW wrote: »

Also, getting slightly philosophical, if you think about the factors that lead to our existance - everything from the Big Bang (and before?) to the development of sentient life on Earth, I think the odds of that all happening on it's own - of things unfolding the way they did - are something in the order trillions to 1. With those kind of odds, I should do the Lotto more often.

Pretty much every week someone some where wins the Lotto. The odds that it is that particular person are very small, but that odds that someone, some where, will win it are very good.

Likewise the odds that some form of universe would result from the Big Bang are pretty much 1/1. The odds that it are this particular universe are massive, but then there is no particular reason why it has to be this particular universe, anymore than it has to be the person who one the Lotto.

SeanW wrote: »

I regard Atheism as a religion unto itself, more a belief in nothing than a lack of belief.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

SeanW wrote: »

The evidence we have IMO doesn't support any traditional religion, but it doesn't support Atheism either, at least not fully.

Well it depends on what you mean by "fully"

There is a lot of evidence for the idea that the concepts of gods is an invention of the human imagination.

Fanny Cradock

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, there is no scientific evidence that God exists. That and the fact that I have some issues with Christian theology (like that whole thing about people who don't believe in Jesus without evidence, at least 5 billion alive today, are all going to Hell, also that bit about God having created everything 6000 years ago), lead me away from Christianity a few years ago.

That's unfortunate. I would say to you that many Christians don't subscribe to the young earth idea, including, I believe, the Catholic Church, which came as a surprise to me when I first heard it. The idea of a c. 5 billion year old universe and the process of evolution needn't be an obstacle to Christian faith. Indeed, it fits in quite nicely with it. Similarly, if God is just, then I would say that 5 billion people aren't automatically condemned because they are not Christians.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, since scientists have discovered various ways to trigger the sensations experienced during near death experiences. It is likely that near death experiences are the result of stress put on various areas of the brain due to injury or shock.

Interesting. Although I'd be sceptical of these 'NDE', I guess your point here is similar in it's thrust to your post on triggering the sensation of God in the brain. I didn't buy your conclusions on that, btw.

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise the odds that some form of universe would result from the Big Bang are pretty much 1/1. The odds that it are this particular universe are massive, but then there is no particular reason why it has to be this particular universe, anymore than it has to be the person who one the Lotto.

Out of curiosity have you any sources of the 1/1 odds you have stated? I ask only for curiosities sake. Also, could you expand on the highlighted part of your post?

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Really? How equivalent many books, forums and pin-up boys (e.g. Richard Dawkins) are there for the hobby of non stamp collecting? It's a fairly disingenuous analogy.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? How equivalent many books, forums and pin-up boys (e.g. Richard Dawkins) are there for the hobby of non stamp collecting? It's a fairly disingenuous analogy.

Actually, that's one of this forum's favourite analogies.

Considering you are atheist about every other cultures' gods, does that mean you have two religions? I believe it is you being disingenuous here. Books aren't written about atheism per se, they are essentially written debunking theism.

A religion requires rules, worship and of course a deity. That disbelief in a god is a religion simply does not stick at any level.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. Although I'd be sceptical of these 'NDE', I guess your point here is similar in it's thrust to your post on triggering the sensation of God in the brain. I didn't buy your conclusions on that, btw.

Ok. May I ask why?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Out of curiosity have you any sources of the 1/1 odds you have stated?

Think of it this way -

100 people draw lots, with only one lot being the short lot.

The odds than any one particular person will get the short lot is 1 in 100. But the odds that one of the 100 people will actually draw the short lot is 1 in 1, because there are 100 lots and a 100 people.

We are certain that one of them will in fact draw the short lot.

It is rather silly that people are amazed that the universe turned out the way it did. While the odds that the universe turned out like this are ridiculously large, the fact remains that the universe was going to turn out some way, in the same way that one of the people above was going to draw the short lot.

It is only amazing if someone presumes that there is some significance in the universe turning out this particular way.

There is no reason to believe that this out come of a universe is particularly significant to any of the other infinite outcomes, any more than it is significant that person 36 draws the winning lot over any of the other 99 people. While the odds that person 36 would win was 100 to 1 the fact remains that one of the 100 people was going to win the game.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? How equivalent many books, forums and pin-up boys (e.g. Richard Dawkins) are there for the hobby of non stamp collecting? It's a fairly disingenuous analogy.

Literally thousands. Skiing, photography, cycling, rowing, water polo, dancing etc etc are all websites for hobbies that aren't stamp collecting.

Do you understand the point?

Atheism isn't a religion, or a belief system, in the same way that not collecting stamps isn't in itself a hobby.

What someone does instead of collecting stamps is their actual hobby, in what I actually do believe instead of believing in theism is my actual belief system.

What theists who don't understand this do by insisting that atheism is a religion is the same as a group of stamp collectors who cannot fathom why anyone would want to do anything other than stamp collecting getting together and deciding to classify everything else (dancing, skiing, football, rowing, salsa dancing, train collecting etc etc) as the single hobby of "not collecting stamps"

That doesn't actually tell someone what the person does do, but to the stamp collectors that doesn't matter because the only bit they care about is the fact that the person doesn't collect stamps. What they do instead is irrelevant to them as they simply cannot fathom anything other than collecting stamps.

A lot of theists do a similar thing, due to lack of understanding they see an atheist as simply and no more than someone who doesn't do their form of "stamp collecting" (ie belief in God), and since that is the only relevant bit to them, decide to call their beliefs the belief of "not collecting stamps" (ie the belief of not believing in God)