Atheism & Agnosticism

[NeSS]

What do you feel? Also, this thread can be used for non-poll matters of Atheism and Agnosticism.

Atheist: Someone who very specifically believes there is no god.

Agnostic: Someone who either consciously chooses not to decide, or (the technically correct definition) someone who believes that it cannot be proven one way or another.

Non-religious: Everywhere else without believing in favor or against. What most people call agnostic.

[Ryan]

Atheists are wrong. Regardless of what they try to back up their argument with. Being an atheist is a cruel irony, as they are just as bad as a believer, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. The truth be told, agnostic is the only way to go, as no one really knows.

[NeSS]

Exactly what I believe. Can't prove it either way, but I lean towards athiesm.

[wassname]

The definition you are using for atheism here is not the usual meaning of the word, This definition is actually 'strong atheism'. And so this definition is a straw-man.
By setting such a narrow definition you are stopping debate, because strong atheism is just as unprovable and as religion, so not many non-relegious people are keen to adopt a one of the fallacys of relegion.
Really an atheist should be someone who has decided their is probably no God. An agnostic someone who hasn't decided, or thinks the question is unanswerable(which is hard to justify).
There is also ignostics, who think that the existence or non-existence of God, is an irrelevant question. As-in it is not a proper answer to most actually important questions, like morality, and how we should live out lives. So this view posits that the existence of God is irrelevant because it has no verifiable consequences.

[NeSS]

Fine, let's adopt those definitions, I'm not picky.

[wassname]

Atheism is right.

 The default position, is that the existence of god is unlikely. This is because the concept of God is unlikely in our reality, and so we should go for the most likely theories. (If they have any value, which I would argue atheism does have, transcendent and otherwise.)

We can show this by making prediction from the concept of God and seeing if they do indeed apply to reality...
The concept of God does not fit easily with reality. First living things do not show the property's of intelligent by an infinitely intelligent being.
When something is designed it is beneficial to completely redesign that thing so it completely fits its function well, our reasons for not doing this are economics, and the cost of design.
Neither of these excuses apply to God.
The observation that we see common features throughout species and features altered to perform other functions (rather than redesigned), does not support a Creator which is an almost universal feature of God.

Also if a God existed that wanted Good, and if free will is a necessary quality in beings capable of good. Good would be maximised while keeping free will. And evil would be minimised.
These are not the case, which does not support a God which desires good. (the same augment applies to love, or faith)
Good, and love are also almost universal feature of God, so this further lowers the probability.

So on the basis that a) God is an unlikely hypothesis and b) rationally we should believe in the most probable hypothesis (because then we are most likely to be right, and reap the rewards);
Atheism is the rational choice, the right and correct choice.

[vivnesh]

I have a friend who is an atheist himself. And I very much respect the decision that he has taken. 

[Ryan]

I have a friend who is an atheist himself. And I very much respect the decision that he has taken. 

Are there very few people from Malaysia who consider themselves an atheist? Here in the UK I'd estimate that at least 1/3rd of the population are atheist.

[Philosobassist]

I can fully understand the argument for saying that atheism is wrong since it is just as much a faith and belief as theism, and that was my viewpoint until about 30 seconds ago.

Atheists are wrong. Regardless of what they try to back up their argument with. Being an atheist is a cruel irony, as they are just as bad as a believer, just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

How can you claim something is wrong because it cannot be proven? Every debate is about two (or more) conflicting interests or viewpoints, and you decide your stance.

To take some examples: you cannot prove that friends are the most valuable thing you can have, or that homosexuality is wrong, or that the school leaving age should be 18, you just say what you think and back it up with evidence and arguments.

It is understandable to say agnosticism is the best bet, because it covers both bases, but surely by that logic everyone in every debate would take the same stance: we can't know for sure so do not decide.

[legionreturns]

I think our starting view of this is slightly skewed anyway.

Most religions (I can only think of Wikka and a couple of others that don't) preach exclusivity in their tennets or belief system. Most are based on a "holy" book or writings of some kind which somewhere within them state they are the only true way. So by choosing Athieism or Agnosticism you are in fact not taking the safest bet! You are condeming yourself to whatever (eternal or otherwise) suffering / punishment is prescribed in ALL of the religions. By choosing one religion however, you narrow down your chances of burning in hell or wherever!

Anyhow, I digress, this debate is between Anosticism and Athieism. Anyone who has read my posts elsewhere will be left in no doubt that I am a strict Athiest, by the definitions agreed here. In fact, I and a few of my friends invented a new movement some years ago and now refer to ourselves as "Athie-antagonistic", I think you can work that one out but I won't go in to that here, it may upset people!

To hold the view that you are not sure, or cannot choose doesn't buy you any grace from the smiting that will ensue at the end of time, you are either in or out.

On the basis of the above alone, I would contend that athieism is better, because you get to have more fun!

Chris

[Philosobassist]

So by choosing Athieism or Agnosticism you are in fact not taking the safest bet! You are condeming yourself to whatever (eternal or otherwise) suffering / punishment is prescribed in ALL of the religions. By choosing one religion however, you narrow down your chances of burning in hell or wherever!

I believe the term is Pascal's Wager

[Kurtz]

Legionreturns - A lot of religions preach it to a degree, but not all people attest to that line of thought. Some of my Catholic friends, for example, think that good people can still get into heaven, they (just like everyone else) have to work off sins first. I believe that Dante had his hand in this particular line of reasoning.

[Philosobassist]

It is a very fair point though. One of the main reasons for which I cannot accept Christianity (traditionally at least) is because it sounds to me that a person who lived a perfectly ethical life and always acted for good, but just didn't believe in God (technically Jesus) would be sentenced to an eternity in Hell. That doesn't sound very omnibenevolent and omnipotent to me!

A perfect God ('perfect' in the sense that it coherantly fits with human observation and experience) can only be loving, and personal. Not omnipotent, or omniscient because then you have to deal with evil.

...but anyway I'll stop attacking Christianity now

[legionreturns]

...but anyway I'll stop attacking Christianity now

Why? It's one of my top ten favourite religions to attack, based almost entirely on the fact that their little book says they have to forgive me afterwards and I can start all over again!

[Philosobassist]

Haha that's classic! I got a book, 'What Does the Bible Really Teach?' from J's Witnesses the other day, and my apologies to anyone this may offend, but it is hilarious!

'As our wise and powerful creator, God does not have to explain his reasons [for allowing suffering] to us.' Is that the most un-subtle question-dodging you've ever seen?