EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[otseng]

Incidentally, in your opinion, if I continue my life as an atheist, and go to my grave still denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, without believing in God or repenting, am I going to burn?

No. There are a few different scenarios. You may not have sufficient opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and so you could have more chances in the afterlife, prior to judgment day. And your behavior as described may not even require repenting. But even so, those who are not judged worthy, according to my belief system, go to a different degree of glory than those who are judged worthy. The degrees are celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. It's a kinder, gentler doomsday.

Well, this is an interesting scenario you present XM. It's not one I believe in, but I'll defer comments on it until another thread gets created to debate it.

In response to HA's question (I hope using initials to refer to people will not offend anybody), the question could be rephrased as, if you go to the grave without believing in Jesus as savior, what guarantee do you have that you will not burn? If the God of the Bible is true, then the only acceptable plan of salvation is the one described in the Bible. If the God of the Koran is true, then ditto with the Koran. And the same with any religious belief system. But, if you don't follow the beliefs of any religion, then there's no guarantee at all of not burning. So, based on what could happen after death, it makes the least sense to be an agnostic and/or atheist.

[ST88]

Atheists are typically passive in their beliefs. They are often very vocal, and quite vehement -- even to the point of insulting (not on this board, but elsewhere) -- but in terms of putting those feelings into actions, it's a passive endeavor. Theists put their money where their mouth is. I think they're much more dedicated to what they do, because they prove it by backing it up with actions.

I think the trouble happens when they try to define what those actions are. Many Christians have no qualms about telling me (and have told me) that I am a tool of Satan. They seem very sincere in believing this, and dedicated to the cause of believing that those who ain't for 'em are agin' 'em. I don't mind actions that benefit others, this goes beyond religion -- and there are plenty of non-believers who do good works -- but I do mind the judgments that come with subscribing to this world view. You say that you think Atheists are passive in their views, and I would have to agree. But I would rather have someone passively allow me to be myself than have someone actively try to arrange my life for me, for my own good. Atheism and agnosticism are about the individual -- it's the libertarian ideal of the self-sufficient world view. Though not necessarily without any cultural basis or starting point, it assumes that the person can decide what is best for the person. By contrast, religion is all about the collective. Sure, it promotes itself through the carrot and stick of personal grace and damnation, but its message must be dictated from adherents to potential adherents in order to perpetuate itself, like any other living thing.

As such, by being dedicated to a cause that promotes personal grace and damnation, I have to suspect what motives may lie behind a religious person's good works. An atheist/agnostic doing good works makes no sense in the context of a moral society, so I must suspect that their motives have more to do with satisfaction of the work or even altruism.

If you only go around once in life, why not go for the gusto? Why not go all out? Why not go full steam ahead? Why not be the best person you can be, and help those around you the best that you can? Religion is a structure to help facilitate this, with the backdrop of a divine purpose. Atheism has very little structure if at all. What kinds of things do atheists do in the name of atheism to further the good of humanity? They could do more good if they became an organization promoting good behavior, and not being passive and individualistic about it.

I think you're missing the point about atheism here. For the atheist/agnostic, there doesn't need to be a larger organization in order to justify the actions that might make the world a better place. We could justify the actions on their own merits without having to appeal to a larger organization. I could even argue that religious institutions stifle societal progress by being bound to their various dogmas. Atheists and agnostics have no such dogmas. I can point to astrophysics, medicine, history, warfare, cuisine, hairstyles, Pat Robertson, etc. and make a case that relgious thought has not served to make the world a better place. In my opinion, religious thought has only made the world a better place for religious thought.

There's a saying that goes "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." I think it behooves us to take some stand at some point, and point our entire life in that direction. Without conviction, we have very little identity.

There's an old Finnish proverb that goes something along the lines of, "If you bow to one, you moon another." I think if we stick too closely to an idea of servitude to a greater cause, we stand a good chance of losing sight of the reasons behind the cause in deference to the cause itself. Else we may be caught with our pants down.

[Corvus]

This is one thing that I have a lot of trouble comprehending. Why would a God make himself discoverable by science if the purpose of life was to be tested according to faith? If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, He will be discovered last through the scientific method. This is not the place to look. What other infinite quality has science been able to adequately examine? It's completely counterintuitive that we would be able to define an infinite being using a finite template. It will never work.

The majority of Christians and atheists who come to this board agree that God cannot be discovered through science or proven to exist. Yet the people who put the most effort into discovering God using some sort of "scientific method" are not atheists or agnostics, but Christians. Though otseng has done wonderful work attempting to reinforce the genesis account by focussing on the flood and not alluding to God, the goal behind Creationism and intelligent design is the attempt to prove a creator or intelligent designer, as we can guess from their names, which is something you admit would fruitless. Their biggest audience are Christians, who should be aware of the fact.

I think you're missing the point about atheism here. For the atheist/agnostic, there doesn't need to be a larger organization in order to justify the actions that might make the world a better place. We could justify the actions on their own merits without having to appeal to a larger organization. I could even argue that religious institutions stifle societal progress by being bound to their various dogmas. Atheists and agnostics have no such dogmas. I can point to astrophysics, medicine, history, warfare, cuisine, hairstyles, Pat Robertson, etc. and make a case that relgious thought has not served to make the world a better place. In my opinion, religious thought has only made the world a better place for religious thought.

I agree. A higher purpose can be a source of "evil" as well as "good". By becoming a part of a mass movement or putting oneself under the influence of a superior, one no longer has to justify themselves, and responsibility for actions is shifted elsewhere. Thus we can kill or abuse Iraqis, Turks, Jews, homosexuals, or whomever else the situation demands. It is how whole armies are able to follow the whims of depraved dictators. This does not only apply to religious organisations, but secular, nationalistic or political, and any other types of mass movements.

[Nameless]

Regardless of any dictionary definition, agnostic is a state of belief. In this case, the lack of it.

Hmmmm, seems the obverse is also true of this fallacious statement, "agnostic is a state of 'disbelief', in this case, abundance of it."
Gnosis = knowledge... A-gnosis = lack of knowledge
Knowledge, not belief.

[bernee51]

So, based on what could happen after death, it makes the least sense to be an agnostic and/or atheist.

Given that therre is no evidence of "what happens after death" I don't hink it matters. What matters and what really countsis the "beforedeath" not the "afterlife"

Given the disparate views as to what does happen, the only sensible path is atheism.

If I am 'true' in my atheism and live a moral life no benevolent god, whatever the flavour could possibly condemn me.

[dangerdan]

Hmmm, I’m going to throw some of my personal views out there.

When I began to realize that religion was intellectually bankrupt, I classified my beliefs basically as agnostic. I thought there could be some mystical, though utterly irrelevant, God that was impossible to say much about. But then I came across an intriguing argument that put forward that atheism doesn’t need 100% certainty. But merely to think that it is more likely than not that “God” doesn’t exist. I think this point is often overlooked by many agnostic arguments. The complete 100% certain proof rarely exists outside mathematics anyway. I can’t say with 100% certainty that Plato existed, though I think it more likely than not he did. Am I an agnoplato? I found this argument unusually profound and thought, “Man, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that!”.

Then coupled with some others –

The utterance “God” has a definition, and one can show that this definition is contradictory with the world around us. God can’t be some mystical-vague-life-force-thing, by definition.

And

The burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove the existence of something.

And hey presto, I realized my world view was more accurately summed up as atheism.

[The Hungry Atheist]

I suppose my own ideas went through something similar, when I realised that most people describing themselves as atheists didn't positively assert the non-existence of God, but merely did not possess a belief in his existence. One thing I'd like to address though is something that I often hear atheists claim, but which I think could do with some clarification.

The burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove the existence of something.

This is related to the common "You can't prove a negative" argument, both of which are somewhat misleading in their current form.

I would say that anybody making any kind of claim, positive or negative, has a responsibility to "prove" that claim, by which I mean demonstrate its reasonableness, if they expect it to be considered valid. So, if you believe in God and don't want to be considered a loon, you need to back up your claims somehow.

However, although an atheist might not actively need to "prove" that God doesn't exist (because their position is an absence of belief), they do still maintain a position on the subject - specifically, that not having a belief is a logical approach to take. If I'm going to say that I don't believe in God, and that I think I'm being reasonable about it, I need to be able to support this, even if I don't positively assert God's non-existence. My justification is that, if there is insufficient reason to believe that something exists, based on what I can observe in the world, then the logical thing to do is not to believe that it exists. If a theist provides something which they consider "evidence" for God, which they claim makes his existence seem likely, then I have to either agree, and concede that God's existence does seem likely, or disagree, and explain why I do not consider his evidence sufficient to rationally support a belief.

Hopefully some of that makes sense...

[otseng]

The burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove the existence of something.

I would say that anybody making any kind of claim, positive or negative, has a responsibility to "prove" that claim, by which I mean demonstrate its reasonableness, if they expect it to be considered valid. So, if you believe in God and don't want to be considered a loon, you need to back up your claims somehow.

However, although an atheist might not actively need to "prove" that God doesn't exist (because their position is an absence of belief), they do still maintain a position on the subject - specifically, that not having a belief is a logical approach to take. If I'm going to say that I don't believe in God, and that I think I'm being reasonable about it, I need to be able to support this, even if I don't positively assert God's non-existence. My justification is that, if there is insufficient reason to believe that something exists, based on what I can observe in the world, then the logical thing to do is not to believe that it exists. If a theist provides something which they consider "evidence" for God, which they claim makes his existence seem likely, then I have to either agree, and concede that God's existence does seem likely, or disagree, and explain why I do not consider his evidence sufficient to rationally support a belief.

Hopefully some of that makes sense...

Makes perfect sense. And I'm glad an agnostic/atheist brought this point up.

Whether you believe in something or not believe in something, there should be evidence to back up the claim. Just because one does not believe in something, it does not mean the burden of proof is on the person who does believe in it. Whatever position one takes, one needs to be able to support their own position, rather than simply reject the opposite position.

Also I hope by now we can all agree that logical proofs have nothing to do with religion (or lack of religion). The only things we should be arguing about are evidence, reason, and logic to support positions.

If one takes a position to not believe in a god and have no logical reasoning to support it, I would maintain that position is backed by blind faith. And I think we can all agree that blind faith is not a good way to support a position.

[dangerdan]

Whether you believe in something or not believe in something, there should be evidence to back up the claim. Just because one does not believe in something, it does not mean the burden of proof is on the person who does believe in it. Whatever position one takes, one needs to be able to support their own position, rather than simply reject the opposite position.

Hmmm, I largely disagree. I feel that the default setting (if one can call it that) is that God does not exist. Much like the default setting is that green aliens don’t exist. And I feel this is a default setting for a number of reasons. For example, God does not come to us when we are born and introduce himself and say “Hey, I’m God, how’s it going? I made you for a big moral experiment of mine, hope you enjoy the ride! Here’s my card”. One must introduce the concept of God into the equation. One is not born with a clear knowledge of Judo-Christian belief systems about certain events that took place about 2000 years ago, etc, etc. And I suppose if any Christians disagree with me here, they obviously must find church and evangelism rather pointless as we already “know” all this anyway.

I agree in part though, one should back up one’s world view with reason. And I suppose you could call this evidence and proof…but I think the semantics are slightly off. One might merely say “well I don’t think God exists because I’ve never seen him”, and this would be more than suitable to back up her default world view. And weather we like to admit it or not, this is how almost everyone operates. We were not born with the intrinsic knowledge of the existence of Jupiter.

Also I hope by now we can all agree that logical proofs have nothing to do with religion (or lack of religion). The only things we should be arguing about are evidence, reason, and logic to support positions.

Ummm, I think “proof” is still ok. I don’t think the only brand of “proof” is 100%-certain-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-infallible-utter-total-proofs. Well the justice system doesn’t think so anyway.

[bernee51]

I feel that the default setting (if one can call it that) is that God does not exist.

I can identify with this. We are all born atheists and then the god concept is introduced to us - usually by parents.

I agree with Otseng in that rational thought or logic should be there to support a belief. Whether this thought is supported by evidence or not is a seperate question. One cannot have evidence of something that doesn't exist.

When a theist makes a positive statement, for example, "God exists" evidence is required to back up that statement. i.e. evidence of the existence of a deity. If the same person was to say "I believe god exists", all that is required is the evidence they have to support their belief.


In the case of an atheist who makes a positive claim - "God does not exist" - they are not required to produce evidence of same. They may, however, hold that evidence to support the existence of said deity does not exist. Or they may provide logical argument to deny the existence of a particular deity - inthe the case of the NT version of god, the Argument from Evil and the Argument from non-belief being two examples

Also I hope by now we can all agree that logical proofs have nothing to do with religion (or lack of religion). The only things we should be arguing about are evidence, reason, and logic to support positions.

There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of religion (whether religion is reasonable or logical is another matter).