Forums » Off-Topic
Smittens, you're confused. Atheism is no less faith-based than religion, as both involve irrational certainty regarding the existence of God.
Agnosticism, however, is not faith.
Agnosticism, however, is not faith.
That depends on what you mean by agnosticism. With the real definition, I'll agree with that. But the common definitions, (either "I don't know if there's a god" or "I believe in a god but not one of the organized religions") are in fact atheism and theism respectively. Atheism is not just denying a god. A-theism = not-theism, = not believing in a god. It's not always saying "there is no god," it's just the absence of "There is a god." As Dawkins said (or maybe someone before him), theism is a positive action/belief, atheism is not. That is, it takes a decision to be a theist. So really, by default we were all born atheists.
And I suppose if you want to get down to definitions, all atheism is faith-based too. However, my "faith" is based on concrete facts I have observed in the world, and conclusions I have drawn from them. A lot of times when I discuss religion with the religious, their faith is based on blind belief. As Chaos said, science cannot prove a god, so to believe in god requires a special kind of faith that is markedly different from an atheist's faith.
And I suppose if you want to get down to definitions, all atheism is faith-based too. However, my "faith" is based on concrete facts I have observed in the world, and conclusions I have drawn from them. A lot of times when I discuss religion with the religious, their faith is based on blind belief. As Chaos said, science cannot prove a god, so to believe in god requires a special kind of faith that is markedly different from an atheist's faith.
We appear to be mixing up atheism and agnosticism.
And there are no facts evident to any of us that can disprove theism, just as there is no proving theism. Science may disprove all the religious claptrap it likes (and it almost always does), but it cannot approach the question of creation.
And there are no facts evident to any of us that can disprove theism, just as there is no proving theism. Science may disprove all the religious claptrap it likes (and it almost always does), but it cannot approach the question of creation.
Fluffy, I can take any of those definitions of religion and still say that the problem comes when the individual fails to exercise their agency. I have seen similar situations to the ones you describe many times. No matter how much a person is filled from birth with "believe this or you will go to Hell", at some point there will come a time that they are responsible to make their own decisions. If they fail to question their faith, they are following it blindly and their faith is meaningless. If they do question it, honestly decide the religion is not for them, and have the courage to leave that religion in spite of pressures trying to hold them, that is a good thing. Or, like I have done, they can question and decide of their own free will to remain with that religion. People confuse "blind faith" with "faith in something you can't see". I've never seen Africa, but not because I am blind. I believe in Africa because of the accounts given of that continent by people I trust who have been there. That's a silly example, but it works for me at least. If nothing else, I recognize more and more that actually following the things taught by my church help me keep my life in order and help me be a better person, and that is a good thing. I agree, though, we've taken this part of the discussion as far as it can go.
Smittens, the atheists I know are just as fervent in convincing everyone there is no God as the "religious nuts" are in telling them they'll go to Hell. Michael Crichton made an interesting point that radical environmentalism often takes the place of religion for many atheists. Not saying that's you, but with atheists I know, faith in something always seems to take the place of faith in God.
As for faith based on observations of the world, you and I have both observed the world and come to opposite conclusions. I find it interesting that though my church holds no official position on the age of the Earth or evolution, saying that how God made the Earth is not pertinent to salvation, but that He made it is, so many Mormons (even some relatively high ranking leaders) insist that believing in evolution denies the atonement of Christ and will get you sent to Hell. As a geologist, I look at the big picture of science, how it all fits together in the history of the Earth, and the more I learn about the Earth the more certain I am that there is a God. I believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that evolution is currently the best explanation science has come up with to explain how we were created, it makes very good logical sense and is based on concrete observation, and it impresses me more that there could be a God with the patience and foresight to set such a system in motion than it does to believe literally that he came down and molded Adam out of clay and snapped his fingers. I have had my serious doubts in both God and in evolution, but as I have learned more about how Earth works through my geology courses, my questions about evolution have been answered and my faith in God has increased dramatically (and this is not due to my attendance at a religious school; I'm in the department that the rest of the school thinks is going to Hell!).
For your drug argument, smittens, I 100% agree that cigarettes and alcohol are worse than pot, and I was all for legalization of pot so long as the same rules apply to it as do to alcohol (I don't want to be on the road with a driver on anything), until California started talking legalization so they could tax it. If there was a way to get the government to just leave us the Hell alone, that would be great. As I stated, whether LSD is toxic or not, anything that causes that complete a disconnect from reality is not good. I'm no expert on drugs, but they all tend to have adverse effects over time from what I understand.
As for addiction, the reason that behaviors such as compulsive gambling can be addictive is that whether drugs are taken into the body or produced in inappropriate amounts at inappropriate times by the body itself, drugs are still involved. Dopamine is commonly mentioned as the major actor in both chemical and behavioral addictions. And for you, Lecter, whose skepticism on this matter sounds an awful lot like mine used to, I compare addiction to a river. You can step in when it's calm, and feel you can get out any time, because at that time you can. But the river is fun, so you let it take you awhile. The current gets stronger, but you can still get out, and it's still fun. Eventually the current becomes overpowering, but you don't notice until you finally try to fight against it. Maybe it's because you start coming up against jagged rocks, or see a dangerous drop ahead, or you see all the things back on the riverbank that you're passing up because you're in the river, or maybe the river just gets boring, but by that time your own strength is often not enough to get out. Someone needs to throw you a lifeline, but you are still responsible for grabbing hold of that lifeline and pulling yourself out. Whether help is needed or not does not deny the personal responsibility aspect of recovery. No one can recover for you, but you may not be able to without help and support. Again, this is coming from my own personal experience and the experiences of several friends and family members.
Smittens, the atheists I know are just as fervent in convincing everyone there is no God as the "religious nuts" are in telling them they'll go to Hell. Michael Crichton made an interesting point that radical environmentalism often takes the place of religion for many atheists. Not saying that's you, but with atheists I know, faith in something always seems to take the place of faith in God.
As for faith based on observations of the world, you and I have both observed the world and come to opposite conclusions. I find it interesting that though my church holds no official position on the age of the Earth or evolution, saying that how God made the Earth is not pertinent to salvation, but that He made it is, so many Mormons (even some relatively high ranking leaders) insist that believing in evolution denies the atonement of Christ and will get you sent to Hell. As a geologist, I look at the big picture of science, how it all fits together in the history of the Earth, and the more I learn about the Earth the more certain I am that there is a God. I believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that evolution is currently the best explanation science has come up with to explain how we were created, it makes very good logical sense and is based on concrete observation, and it impresses me more that there could be a God with the patience and foresight to set such a system in motion than it does to believe literally that he came down and molded Adam out of clay and snapped his fingers. I have had my serious doubts in both God and in evolution, but as I have learned more about how Earth works through my geology courses, my questions about evolution have been answered and my faith in God has increased dramatically (and this is not due to my attendance at a religious school; I'm in the department that the rest of the school thinks is going to Hell!).
For your drug argument, smittens, I 100% agree that cigarettes and alcohol are worse than pot, and I was all for legalization of pot so long as the same rules apply to it as do to alcohol (I don't want to be on the road with a driver on anything), until California started talking legalization so they could tax it. If there was a way to get the government to just leave us the Hell alone, that would be great. As I stated, whether LSD is toxic or not, anything that causes that complete a disconnect from reality is not good. I'm no expert on drugs, but they all tend to have adverse effects over time from what I understand.
As for addiction, the reason that behaviors such as compulsive gambling can be addictive is that whether drugs are taken into the body or produced in inappropriate amounts at inappropriate times by the body itself, drugs are still involved. Dopamine is commonly mentioned as the major actor in both chemical and behavioral addictions. And for you, Lecter, whose skepticism on this matter sounds an awful lot like mine used to, I compare addiction to a river. You can step in when it's calm, and feel you can get out any time, because at that time you can. But the river is fun, so you let it take you awhile. The current gets stronger, but you can still get out, and it's still fun. Eventually the current becomes overpowering, but you don't notice until you finally try to fight against it. Maybe it's because you start coming up against jagged rocks, or see a dangerous drop ahead, or you see all the things back on the riverbank that you're passing up because you're in the river, or maybe the river just gets boring, but by that time your own strength is often not enough to get out. Someone needs to throw you a lifeline, but you are still responsible for grabbing hold of that lifeline and pulling yourself out. Whether help is needed or not does not deny the personal responsibility aspect of recovery. No one can recover for you, but you may not be able to without help and support. Again, this is coming from my own personal experience and the experiences of several friends and family members.
Smittens, as far as South Park goes... yes, I saw that episode, and I laughed many times. It was very funny. Maybe sometime this week I will watch it again and give you a more detailed rebuttal, but from what I remember I seem to think that they got most of their facts right but deliberately twisted the context for comedic value. Many Mormons took offense to this, but my thought was that anyone who watches that episode and takes it at face value isn't interested in learning the truth anyway, so what's the harm? While it twisted the doctrinal context, it got the social context very well. As soon as most people find out a person is Mormon, that becomes the lens through which that person is viewed. I laughed very hard when Randy said he was going to go kick that guy's ass and ended up getting the family invited to dinner. I also really appreciated the bit at the end where the Mormon kid chastised the other kids because they kept mocking him because of his religion, while all he ever tried to do was be a regular, nice guy. Basically, that's Matt and Trey saying "yeah, the Mormons believe some crazy stuff that makes no sense to us, but they're good people."
I appreciate that you are acknowledging South Park as a questionable source for Mormonism. There's no way I would let South Park be the source of my knowledge of Judaism or Catholicism, etc., despite knowing the creators are Jewish and Catholic. I'll get back to you on this one.
I appreciate that you are acknowledging South Park as a questionable source for Mormonism. There's no way I would let South Park be the source of my knowledge of Judaism or Catholicism, etc., despite knowing the creators are Jewish and Catholic. I'll get back to you on this one.
Yeah I'm confused about what you mean too Lecter. Can you give me the definition you're using for agnostic?
And you are of course right, science cannot disprove a god. Nothing can be disproven! But I make decisions about what I believe based on the facts I see, and I haven't seen the facts that point to a god. Therefore, I don't believe in a god, and thus I am an atheist.
And Chaos, what is wrong with taxing pot? In many cases, the legal version would be cheaper and "cleaner," and it would support our schools/roads/etc instead of shady drug dealers. I know you're not a fan of big controlling government, but how is that not a win-win?
Well I suppose legalized without taxes would be your ideal situation, but dammit man I like a smooth sidewalk!
And still no one has responded to point/question 4? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, since I as a non-religious person cannot conceive of one. But of course, for that very reason I may not be able to see the plain answer, so if someone could help...
And you are of course right, science cannot disprove a god. Nothing can be disproven! But I make decisions about what I believe based on the facts I see, and I haven't seen the facts that point to a god. Therefore, I don't believe in a god, and thus I am an atheist.
And Chaos, what is wrong with taxing pot? In many cases, the legal version would be cheaper and "cleaner," and it would support our schools/roads/etc instead of shady drug dealers. I know you're not a fan of big controlling government, but how is that not a win-win?
Well I suppose legalized without taxes would be your ideal situation, but dammit man I like a smooth sidewalk!
And still no one has responded to point/question 4? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, since I as a non-religious person cannot conceive of one. But of course, for that very reason I may not be able to see the plain answer, so if someone could help...
1 the mormon president of the school i used to go to completely ruined our number 1 party school ranking.
2 i can't believe prof chaos is in college.
3 this thread blows.
2 i can't believe prof chaos is in college.
3 this thread blows.
PC, your river analogy sounds cute but bears no rational relationship to the points you're trying to make.
On a different topic, if you'd like to have your faith bolstered by science, spend enough time with biochem to really understand how the below complex works. I'm not much for faith, a classical Deist at best, much less the popular conception of ID . . . but this thing still fascinates me.
Smittens: I haven't seen the facts that point to a god. Therefore, I don't believe in a god,
You realize that there's a huge disconnect between there being no facts to support something's existance and the conclusion that it does not actually exist... right? Reason can only lead you to the conclusion that, because there are no facts to support God's existance, you don't know that there is a God. Which is very different from believing God to not exist. I look at it as three broadly defined states: faith in God's existance, pure reason leading inevitably to a state of no opinion on the existance/non-existance of God, and faith that there is no God. Reason alone cannot get you anywhere other than uncertainity on this question.
As for definitions, I defer to Webster, which clearly indicates that agnostic is the position to which reason alone leads one, and that atheism is an affirmative, faith-based, step further.
Main Entry: agnostic
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnôstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnôstos known, from gignôskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
vs.
Main Entry: atheist
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
On a different topic, if you'd like to have your faith bolstered by science, spend enough time with biochem to really understand how the below complex works. I'm not much for faith, a classical Deist at best, much less the popular conception of ID . . . but this thing still fascinates me.
Smittens: I haven't seen the facts that point to a god. Therefore, I don't believe in a god,
You realize that there's a huge disconnect between there being no facts to support something's existance and the conclusion that it does not actually exist... right? Reason can only lead you to the conclusion that, because there are no facts to support God's existance, you don't know that there is a God. Which is very different from believing God to not exist. I look at it as three broadly defined states: faith in God's existance, pure reason leading inevitably to a state of no opinion on the existance/non-existance of God, and faith that there is no God. Reason alone cannot get you anywhere other than uncertainity on this question.
As for definitions, I defer to Webster, which clearly indicates that agnostic is the position to which reason alone leads one, and that atheism is an affirmative, faith-based, step further.
Main Entry: agnostic
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnôstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnôstos known, from gignôskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
vs.
Main Entry: atheist
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
Well I guess even Webster is subject to the common misconceptions. Probably because they're common.
Traditionally, agnosticism is just the first of those two definitions, and the second is atheism for the reasons I've stated above
And again, you are of course right about the role of science/facts in proving a god. I will say that if there is a "god," it is nothing like any of the conceptions I have heard. It is so wildly different from the Christian god (or that of any other religion) I wouldn't even call it a god. I guess it comes down to your definitions, but based on science disproving common justifications for a god, and just how silly a lot of the descriptions of such a god are, I have concluded that nothing like God exists.
What I mean is, if there is a "creator," (since science and logic cannot explain everything, yet) it's nothing like the god's of religion. So using your definitions, I guess I would say that I'm an atheist with regards to religious gods, and agnostic about something else because as you say, we just don't know.
Thank you Lecter, you've encouraged me to reconsider myself for the first time in years. It's annoying when we get so set in to ourselves that we forget our subtleties.
So Lecter, it looks like you too have written off Christianity and other mainstream religions? It's been a while, but if I recall deism isn't really a "religious" standpoint? That is, you don't have customs or beliefs other than a god setting life in motion and standing back? No praying etc?
It all sounds very reasonable and there is really nothing to debate.
But to argue that there is a god who watches over us and will grant eternal salvation to the most giving, loving, kind-hearted person in the world ONLY if they accept him and his "son," is just ridiculous. It's Santa Claus for adults, with one more rule to ensure conformity.
Traditionally, agnosticism is just the first of those two definitions, and the second is atheism for the reasons I've stated above
And again, you are of course right about the role of science/facts in proving a god. I will say that if there is a "god," it is nothing like any of the conceptions I have heard. It is so wildly different from the Christian god (or that of any other religion) I wouldn't even call it a god. I guess it comes down to your definitions, but based on science disproving common justifications for a god, and just how silly a lot of the descriptions of such a god are, I have concluded that nothing like God exists.
What I mean is, if there is a "creator," (since science and logic cannot explain everything, yet) it's nothing like the god's of religion. So using your definitions, I guess I would say that I'm an atheist with regards to religious gods, and agnostic about something else because as you say, we just don't know.
Thank you Lecter, you've encouraged me to reconsider myself for the first time in years. It's annoying when we get so set in to ourselves that we forget our subtleties.
So Lecter, it looks like you too have written off Christianity and other mainstream religions? It's been a while, but if I recall deism isn't really a "religious" standpoint? That is, you don't have customs or beliefs other than a god setting life in motion and standing back? No praying etc?
It all sounds very reasonable and there is really nothing to debate.
But to argue that there is a god who watches over us and will grant eternal salvation to the most giving, loving, kind-hearted person in the world ONLY if they accept him and his "son," is just ridiculous. It's Santa Claus for adults, with one more rule to ensure conformity.
My personal views on religion differ but little from my VO namesake's. When I said I am "at best" a Deist, I meant that that's as formally religious a thought as I ever entertain. As you note, there are no rituals that attend Deism specifically; however, by the same token, I think Deists can participate in most religious rituals with at least some sense of purpose.
But I generally operate in something of a polytheistic haze that I believe to be the remnant of a dual childhood focus on Greek/Roman mythology and my Celtic ancestors' rituals and beliefs. Plus, it makes for a more textured life to at least entertain the thought that there's a sprite inside particularly old trees, or something angry behind a thunder storm.
However . . . when I actually try to apply the moral teachings of modern religion to my dealings with others, I usually devolve into agreement with the thoughts attributed to Dr. Lecter ("His own modest predations paled beside those of God, who is irony matchless, and in wanton malice without measure.") and Mason Verger ("God's choices in inflicting suffering are not satisfactory to us, nor are they understandable, unless innocence offends Him. Clearly He needs some help in directing the blind fury with which He flogs the earth."). Robert Heinlein also sums my religious philosophy nicely: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." To stick with the Dr. Lecter theme, I strive to be "free inside my own head" and will usually scrub my reaction to an idea for extrinsic "morals" before deciding I'm comfortable/uncomfortable with executing it myself.
But I generally operate in something of a polytheistic haze that I believe to be the remnant of a dual childhood focus on Greek/Roman mythology and my Celtic ancestors' rituals and beliefs. Plus, it makes for a more textured life to at least entertain the thought that there's a sprite inside particularly old trees, or something angry behind a thunder storm.
However . . . when I actually try to apply the moral teachings of modern religion to my dealings with others, I usually devolve into agreement with the thoughts attributed to Dr. Lecter ("His own modest predations paled beside those of God, who is irony matchless, and in wanton malice without measure.") and Mason Verger ("God's choices in inflicting suffering are not satisfactory to us, nor are they understandable, unless innocence offends Him. Clearly He needs some help in directing the blind fury with which He flogs the earth."). Robert Heinlein also sums my religious philosophy nicely: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." To stick with the Dr. Lecter theme, I strive to be "free inside my own head" and will usually scrub my reaction to an idea for extrinsic "morals" before deciding I'm comfortable/uncomfortable with executing it myself.
It is possible to blend atheism and agnosticism, as they are not mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Perhaps you meant that, smittens? I know I do when I state my stance on religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Perhaps you meant that, smittens? I know I do when I state my stance on religion.
It may just be the shoddy word-smithing in the Wiki article, but this (Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity) is not a definition of an atheistic belief system.
As I noted above, not having a belief in the existence of any deity does not necessarily imply having any belief in the non-existence of all deities.
As I noted above, not having a belief in the existence of any deity does not necessarily imply having any belief in the non-existence of all deities.
"As I noted above, not having a belief in the existence of any deity does not necessarily imply having any belief in the non-existence of all deities."
Correct, but on the original definition (and not the Webster one you pulled, fuck that, I hate it!), those are both atheism.
Correct, but on the original definition (and not the Webster one you pulled, fuck that, I hate it!), those are both atheism.
smittens: The Webster definitions are both the original and correct ones. Whether or not you like the definition of a word has no bearing on whether the definition is correct.
If you do not make the leap of faith to actively deny the existence of a god, you are not an atheist.
If you do not make the leap of faith to actively deny the existence of a god, you are not an atheist.
I want to come back to this after a breather, but whatever the dictionary definitions state, in practice, I'm afraid Lecter has defined atheism, agnosticism, and theism better than I've ever heard it before. Anyone I've spoken with who claims atheism has as devout a faith (though they hate to admit it even to themselves) in the non-existence of God as anyone I know who does believe in God.
Smitty, if you're done being stupid, maybe you can just admit that Lecter is technically correct and we can move on with this conversation. (Or lock it, depending on FM's mood...)
If you like, I can go find the OED and put a final stake through yer heart on this one, Smittens.
And if you question the OED, well . . .
Enough said.
And if you question the OED, well . . .
Enough said.
Ow.
But make sure you all bookmark this thread, in 30 years I'll have Webster singing my tune (or whatever the future equivalent is). Laugh now, but you'll all see! Ha ha ha!
And STILL no answers to question 4? I REALLY, GENUINELY, want to know! Chaos, Leber, take a swing!
Repeated:
"4) To any religious folk who would like to comment: If you were born in Iran and raised by a Muslim family, do you honestly think you would reject Islam for whatever faith you follow now? If not, how can you trust your decisions about religion in this life?"
If it's a dumb question, at least explain why so I can mock your close-mindedness. Or learn from your opinions. We'll see
[Edit]
Also Leber, why don't you give me a ridiculous answer, let me call timeout, give the same answer again and get TOTALLY EMBARRASSED 45-12! BOOM! Maybe you should've kept Suisham so you can at least make extra points hahaha!
But make sure you all bookmark this thread, in 30 years I'll have Webster singing my tune (or whatever the future equivalent is). Laugh now, but you'll all see! Ha ha ha!
And STILL no answers to question 4? I REALLY, GENUINELY, want to know! Chaos, Leber, take a swing!
Repeated:
"4) To any religious folk who would like to comment: If you were born in Iran and raised by a Muslim family, do you honestly think you would reject Islam for whatever faith you follow now? If not, how can you trust your decisions about religion in this life?"
If it's a dumb question, at least explain why so I can mock your close-mindedness. Or learn from your opinions. We'll see
[Edit]
Also Leber, why don't you give me a ridiculous answer, let me call timeout, give the same answer again and get TOTALLY EMBARRASSED 45-12! BOOM! Maybe you should've kept Suisham so you can at least make extra points hahaha!
I'd actually like to hear an answer to that one as well, smittens. It was that line of reason that eventually convinced me that no organized religion can make any legitimate claims to correctness.
Food for thought on #4: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/03/muslim.convert/