atheism vs. agnosticism

(In case it wasn't clear, this referred to my own following sentence, not to the original post.)

I called myself an atheist in high school after my brother died. I remained an atheist until entering college, at which point I again began attending church regularly, this time as a paid member of the choir. Four years of church (and, more importantly, interaction with people who did not fit my stereotype of "the typical Christian"; funnily enough once I started getting to know people it became harder and harder to tar them all with the "deluded loony" caricature) mellowed me a lot to the basic teachings of Christianity; exposure to tons and tons of breathtaking sacred music made me wonder if there wasn't actually something to the concept of "divine inspiration".

I've now been singing in various churches since 1991 (with a three-year break during which I focused on drinking heavily on Saturday nights); I spend more time in church than my parents do, yet they still consider themselves Christian and I still consider myself agnostic.

This is entirely dependent on how important it is to you to answer the question "Is there a God?" I could very well be wrong but I do not expect God to knock on my door and chastise me for not believing, ergo I don't feel any pressing need to worry about God's existence.

Well, this raises the whole question of what is the standard of proof. There are various standards of proof, and most of the beliefs that we act on every day would not meet the most stringent of these standards.

I suspect that the reasons you have for not expecting God to knock on your door are much the same reasons that I have for not believing in God at all.

i think that's more how less how i actually see it myself. i definitely do not believe in a theistic god.

i'm not sure if i've ever truly believed in god. i guess i sort of did as a little kid. but that's because i was dragged to church (sometimes literally, I have ALWAYS hated church) as a tyke. i have never liked piety or pious people as result of that.

that said, i am certainly not a hardcore materialist/rationalist either. i have experienced things (of a very personal nature) which have given me reason to doubt that view of the world. i don't think all things that seem "irrational" should be rejected out of hand.

still, i generally prefer that sort of worldview (i.e. based on rationality) to that of a theistic one. its more productive for human rights and equality.

Me too, but saying "I don't know" doesn't tell the whole story. I lean towards thinking there is no god, or at least there is no entity that fits within the generally understood conception of "God". But I'm not at all certain, and if I were made aware of contrary evidence, I wouldn't hesitate to alter my suspicions.

I don't think there's a good rational basis for the belief that the existence of a god (so far undefined) wouldn't matter.

Do you mean that if god made itself known, it would affect everyone's lives? Or that the very possiblilty of it existing or not existing affects lives?

still, i generally prefer that sort of worldview (i.e. based on rationality) to that of a theistic one. its more productive for human rights and equality.

Rationalism is not necessarily diametrically opposed to theism; in many ways it is based in it. Read up on this guy:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/portrait/nietzsche.jpg

jaymc OTM; asking for a rational proof of God's existence rather spectacularly misses the point of faith.

That's why people have a problem with faith in the first place.

Hey - you don't have to believe in God to go to church!

http://www.uua.org/

wouldn't a lot of (most?) religious people say "he" does?

But I've never heard of an agnostic who chooses to live as if there is a god.

welcome to post-modernism. you can challenge the belief or status of someone who fits this description, but I'll bet there are a lot of people who do.

HAHAHAHAHA I now sing at a UU church! Of course they're more Episcopalian than most Episcopalian churches but that's another debate for later.

I'm trying, because just trying to rationalize God's existence isn't getting me anywhere, but it's not really working. I just sort of figure, "go to church, study the bible, pray, be as good as you can, and if it's meant to work out it will, and if it doesn't it won't but you didn't do yourself any harm (except it'll be a little embarrassing)." Why? Because I like Christianity. I think it's pretty gorgeous and spectacular.

I can't think of a concept of God that really makes sense with the universe outside of me, though, it's all too anthropomorphic and then if you get away from that all you can say are negative things: God is not this, not that....well what is God then? So I refer to myself as an atheist sometimes, when I'm feeling like "oh I really don't believe and that's that," and an agnostic, when I don't want to sound shut off from new ideas.

As fully rational arguments or what Kant would call “pure reason”, the proofs of God we often hear from theists are in my opinion invalid. They are certainly persuasive and reasonable but only if we accept certain emotional posits. You can argue that all proofs require a “leap of faith” and to a certain extent I agree .Belief in science alone isnt for me though.

Science itself is never certain of anything and its methodology is flawed and biased in too many ways to explain beyond the obvious points- we all view the colours, shapes etc etc slightly differently and everything we observe is relative not only to time and space but also the conclusions we draw are influenced and biased by prior beliefs and references.

For those with little experience in science a key point to understand is that from a scientific viewpoint for a “proof” to be “valid” it must be open to being falsified (proven wrong), otherwise it becomes what Popper would call “ultra stable”. The structure of an ultra stable theory is such that it cannot be disproven under any circumstances and (according to the scientific or positivist mentality), not worthy of consideration and more than likely false (eg the belief in God …unicorns …the tooth fairy etc etc).
A scientific theory will always be considered, at most, 'highly likely' based on the available evidence. This apparent weakness, is of course science’s greatest strength- enabling theories to be adapted and even abandoned when “more likely” evidence is presented.

To me the question of "why be moral" is something atheists cannot answer, anything goes, so to speak . Moral laws, which I believe are written on our hearts tell our conscience what we OUGHT to do and what we should not do. Clearly many men do not obey these laws . SO we have facts(how men behave) and we also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe and science there need not be anything but facts. Electrons behave in a certain way and certain results follow . End of story. But if a man behaves in an evil way and the result is the killing of an innocent person , it is not the end of it for we all know they “ought” to have behaved differently.

I agree with the assertion that belief in God cannot be achieved as a conclusion to a logical proof,certainly I believe that through resaon we can disciver God but an attempt to “prove God” is to my mind an irrational goal.

Atheism, and faith in science alone will always be an entirely inadequate view of reality for me. SCience's cold "Life just is" view just doesnt fit with me and the reality of world I know. I cannot accept a world where the soul, spirit, self, and sacred have no meaning. A world where man cannot even know himself beyond what he can empirically measure and weigh! A world where there is no objective sense of good , no evil, a world where there is no beauty, no justice, no cruelty, no love, no truth. Consequently for me at least atheism turns out to be too simple.If the whole universe has no meaning , we should never have found out that it has no meaning!

Peace!

Why?

The antipathy against religion thing: I think that can be the case - I'm always slightly wary when someone describes themselves as an atheist (especially withour prompting), it's perhaps unfair, but I don't tend to judge negatively until I get a better feel for their character. It's just that too many boring conversations with more militant atheists puts you off the idea - listening to half understoond marxism about how religion opresses people, or complaining that religion is responsible for all evil in the world etc.

I had the same experience in college; one of my best friends was a huge Kierkegaard fan who dreamed of either becoming a minister or a cinematographer. When I had conversations with him about religion, compared to the lockstep conservative Christians I tussled with in high school, I could no longer "win" the argument, since he was so smart and philosophical about the whole subject. It definitely opened me up more to the possibility of a spiritual dimension than I was willing to concede previously.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Hi Maria

Well i dont think Gods outside of it at all, indeed I think God is in everyone but certainly caring for others makes for a better world no argumet there.Is just that isnt truth beauty love etc etc are all subjective and relative and as such meaningless concepts without an objective moral guidleine. J.L. Mackie, an atheist and respected philosopher, provides a devastating argument for why, if there is no God, we can have no obligation to be moral.

Pol Pot, Hitler, STalin,Mao great recent compassionate examples of atheists, joking joking. On the subject of tyrants I cant resist Lewis again "How monotonous all the great tyrants and conquerors have been:
how gloriously different the saints."

Peace!

He also liked to speak in a cryptic made-up language that was link a fully-exemporized slang; he would make up words for people and things constantly and drop them into conversation without context. The best example of this was the time when, in reference to my parents, he asked me, "So, how are Chaga and Figo?" and, despite never having heard my parents referred to in that manner before, I knew which one was Chaga and which one was Figo. He also spent a year talking exlcusively like a pastiche of Dana Carvey's most famous SNL characters/impressions (I loved being in classes with him).