What is Agnosticism, Really?

I'd be reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins a few times before posting in this thread.....

 

fair enough.
however, to take a stance on it at all indicates belief, as a belief indicates an opinion, conviction, or even confidence in an idea.
an idea is any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
in other words, if you have thought about it at all, rejecting its validity still counts as a belief.

i do see your point, however, about it being a far more complex subject than most people realize.

 

Its not complex at all though, which i guess a lot of people are confused about.

Its actually so SIMPLE, that it repels the mind.

All we are saying is that there is nothing indicating gods existence. The "belief" that is Atheism consists entirely of objective reasoning, meaning the belief would function exactly the same way if no one asserted god in the first place.

 

the complexity i am referring to is the wide range of descriptions and philosophies attributed to atheism.

btw, something that (to me) indicates an original creator or source that defies human logic and sense of beginnings and endings is that creation is a natural process, and i simply can not think of anything else that fits when i try to explain to myself how anything could be here in the first place.

i suspect that my awareness and definition of this original origin )) will broaden and transform over time, so i can not intelligently make any claims as to its validity or nature: whether it has consciousness or is actually made up of all individual consciousnesses as our brains are made up of neurons, whether it has a personality (not likely), etc.

 

You'v got it backwards, man.

Atheism is a component to philosophy, not the other way around.

To quote the post you are responding to.

 

what i am saying is that some atheists would disagree with your definition of atheism, and that the conceptualization of atheism as an ideological standpoint (for the most part, in opposition to organized religion in its beginnings) has sparked its own category of philosophies, for example, the philosophy of what atheism truly is.

 

I think you're right on this one. There are different degrees of atheism. Not just the definition. Weak atheism, strong atheism, etc. Some atheists are spiritual (I know it sounds weird but they're out there), some aren't. What all of these people have in common is that they do not believe in a supreme being or creator or god or whatever you want to call him/her/them/it.

I'm a weak atheist. I hate that term, but generally it means that I'm not trying to knock sense into people who do believe in (whatever). I don't care what people believe - until it get's political (laws passed over someone's asinine belief in deity), then I'm all over it like a wet suit. Otherwise, I can get along with almost any religious sect. I don't need to convert anyone. I don't pretend to know everything or have the desire to feel righteous about my *PERSONAL* beliefs.

 

I would argue that it's weird for people not to be spiritual when we have this asinine human need for meaning and value in our lives.

 

Considering that the lack of belief and the rejection of belief in god are philosophically interchangeable, I'd have to say its semantics.

Either you witnessed no indication, and the 'god' idea never peaked your interest. (babies are born atheist thread)
Or someone told you god exists, and you denied it on the grounds of no indication. (Traditional situation)

They are the same thing.

 

Okay, well Spiritual Atheist sounds odd to me. It might also sound weird to someone who is spiritual in the traditional religious sense.

 

standpoint vs. no standpoint.

from my perspective, these do not seem to be the same. that's ok, though. discussing these matters with you has forced me to evaluate my own means of communicating as well as my own definitions for certain concepts-especially whether or not i am actually guilty of having beliefs myself .

i appreciate the banter very much, but i don't think that i have anything more to add at the moment.

 

I think the only difference i see between the 'standpoint' and 'no standpoint' atheist is that the 'no standpoint' atheist cant give his opinion, else it violates his 'no standpoint' mandate.

Since they are the same, in that they both lack the belief in god, it can be asked like this.

Do they understand what they do because they are atheists?
Or are they Atheists because they understand what they do?

 

I find not too many are spiritual in the traditional religious sense.

Maybe the Amish, and orthodox Jews..

Most in America are religious in the mafia sense; with little spirituality

 

No argument from me. :coolgleamA:

 

It is not standpoint vs. no standpoint.

It is more like arrogance vs no-arrogance

To take standpoint you MUST have full knowledge.

You can't honestly take a stand unless you posess such necessary knowledge as you must have to defend it, unless you are an arrogant or ignorant person who erroneously assumes to be in the possession of the said knowledge (klnowledge which by all means is not accessible as of yet).

Atheists take a position that requires full knowlegde of all laws of existence and clear explanation for origin of Universe and origin of Life.
We all know that such knowledge does not exist as of yet.
Stephen Hawking can dream all he wants about M-Theory, those in field will attest that it is not even a convincing theory.
So, when it comes to facts we simply DO NOT KNOW.

It is arrogant and ignorant thing to do to take any position in absence of knowledge required to defend such.

Even though I am not a Theist, far from it , i know that the concept of God as most people have is only a projection and part of mankind's imagination ( as opposed to nuclear physicist and Nobel Prize winner Niels Bohr concept who also used word God but didn't mean the same thing as your regular Sunday Church attendant) , still , i am much less inclined to argue with the Theists because , at least, they clearly state that what they have is a religious belief.
The only time Theist will irritate me is when they will claim something obviously against common sense and logic and try to convince me i am sinning by not accepting it as an absolute truth.
Other than that, you can't argue on logical or scientific grounds with someone who openly declares to have little regard for either and consciously choses go with their gut feeling instead.


But when an Atheist exhibits the same RELIGIOS belief in non-exiistence of unknown that requires full knowledge of causes and origins of Universe and Life, and when he does so claiming scientific and logical grounds , well, that comes across like an inslult to my intelligence.

I am an agnostic. And I am yet to hear anyone who is in posession of knowledge that would convince me to change my position.

 

People that are out to change my "position" can kiss my ass, quite frankly. Likewise, I don't give a shit what your (in general, not YOU you) "position" is because it effects my "position" in no way.

 

I don't hold RELIGIOUS beliefs, since I am neither Atheist nor adherent of any known , established or practiced Religion or Sect, so you can rest assured that i am not out to change your "position".

 

You are describing exactly what the word Atheism posits against religion.

The only "Position" an Atheist takes is against the god idea. Origin of the universe, life and existence has nothing at all to do with atheism. How can it, when the word acts to denounce an idea?

What does it mean to KNOW something? Its obvious that Atheists are well aware of probability and possibility because of the nature of science. Being disproved and improved upon, always considering the possibility that we might be wrong. It just doesn't make sense writing the probability of god down as a number with a Jillian zero's and a 1 at the end since the difference in the numbers are negligible.

We are aware that we might be wrong, and are willing to accept correction. How is this arrogant at all?

I guess we should all return to caves and throw out technology because there is no way to know that electricity will work tomorrow.

Atheism is a belief, not a belief system like religion. Their is no 'way' to act because you don't believe in god, and atheism certainly doesn't impose that you SHOULD act a certain way. God is only one idea, that you are giving far too much credit to.

 

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

and

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. "
Huxley

 

To me, you are saying "These men are smarter than you, so you should do exactly like them".

In light of the fact that there are Atheist teaching at universities and elsewhere, you at least have to wonder why the position is "more" correct.