Share your personal journey of faith, skepticism, or atheism, why you believe in God or trust in science instead. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their experience and feelings are wrong, or why we disagree with them.
klp wrote:Thanks for the nuance, I have learned something more about atheism such as that there are types of atheism and that the superset of atheism is not a positive assertion about anything out side of the natural realm. So to move from agnostic to the superset of atheism it is in a sense a choice. I know the term "choice" is another hot button for some people. As you have stated it resulted because of all you studies and research. But to the person that studies then if not a choice then at the least it is an acceptance of what makes sense to the person based on their current thinking....how they came to that thinking is another discussion. But based on the information available and consumed then this or that is the most (if not only) rational position.
Is it fair to take your expression of an agnostic is one who says they do not know if a god exists or not but is living as if one does exist...is it fair to take that and say then that an atheist in the broadest sense is then an agnostic who has decided to live as if there is no god? Is that the distinction? (leaving out those who like a Hawking assert that there is in fact no god...I am not discussing that)
Most atheists say that there is no real distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, it is just semantics. However, there is a real difference in the way the two declarations are accepted by the general public. Atheism has been given a cultural connotation that agnosticism has not. The person who identifies as agnostic is usually trying to avoid that connotation, even though they may hold many of the same opinions about religion and the supernatural that the most vocal atheist holds.
They usually just want to live peaceful lives without confrontation from religious zealots.
So that seems to be a bit different from your first working definition of agnostic. Now you seem to be saying that agnostics are really atheist but due to social pressure they are forced to assume a mask of some sort. I am not so sure I would go that far. For instance, I think it is possible for agnostics to not have studied and read as much as one such as yourself and so they may be on the road to atheism but they are not yet convinced. Some may have been raised agnostic and just not given it much thought.
But yes I can see that an agnostic would be much less likely to be asked to defend or promote their POV than one who has openly asserted that there is no god. Like an atheistic zealot like Dawkins who goes on the offensive against religion, extreme atheists are intolerant. Some atheist seem to go out of their way to confront religion and to try and force faith based values and culture from the public arena. These IMO are zealots, and driven in much the same way as the religious zealot. I can see some folks wanting to not be lumped in with the extreme atheists and therefore claim a more mild form of non-belief or agnosticism. Also, Penn Jillette is a very capable spokesperson for his own strong atheism. But he is very much in support or liberty and individual rights instead of forcing people to take his view point. He is a strong speaker but I would not consider him an extremist for atheism.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
An atheist forcing faith based values is an oxymoron. What they would prefer is that no faith based, as in theistic, values are forced on any one. The separation of church and state should be of paramount importance to all people even believers.
I thnk this discussion is getting closer to that line between conversation and argument, so I will leave it at that.
Turtle wrote:An atheist forcing faith based values is an oxymoron. What they would prefer is that no faith based, as in theistic, values are forced on any one. The separation of church and state should be of paramount importance to all people even believers.
I thnk this discussion is getting closer to that line between conversation and argument, so I will leave it at that.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I was saying but that is fine...I was thinking of dropping this discussion myself, but at least it helped me delineate some variation in atheism, to get that a bit more defined in my head.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Can I ask you a question (or two?) .. were you CoC and what led you from that to atheism? Thanks in advance for the discussion.
Yes, I've attended coc for over 35 years. I still attend with my husband. He knows I am an atheist now, but not others.
Long story short:
I am a motivated self learner and and studied religiously for years. I decided to read outside approved coc literature to see what other people believed and why. I studied other versions of christianity and began to see that many of them believed things that made more logical sense that what I had heard all those years before. I saw that I could question everything I had been taught and broadened my studies to include secular science and history, especially as related to religious teachings. It was like scales fell off my eyes and I could now see clearly. I also learned about the history of philosophy and logic, and the advances in neuroscience relating to the psyche. Everything I learned added to my cognitive dissonance until I had to admit to myself that I no longer believed in anything supernatural at all. It took about five years for this to gradually happen.
I was CoC for years myself, and I had a sort of similar path but a bit different also. I began studying on my own outside the "approved" prooftexts endlessly parroted by the CoC faithful. After hearing a CoC preacher preach a sermon against Israel, I decided to study myself. I read the entire OT and made notes on everything predicted for Israel. After going through the whole OT, I realized that the predictions made about a restored Israel have come true in our time. Israel was predicted to be destroyed and scattered (check) but at some point in the future, Israel would be restored (check) and Jews from all over the world would stream back to Israel (check). It says the world would become obsessed with dividing Jerusalem (check) and then the end would come when all the armies of the world attack Israel to wipe it off the map (hasn't happened yet).
The CoC ignores all of these prophecies with a flippant "already fulfilled" response. However, it is clear from the predictions that the events are a future, final fulfillment.
So long story short, I read the bible for myself and see the prophecies coming true around me, and I have to believe in a book (and a God) that predicts the future 2400 + years beforehand.
The CoC has some crazy ideas about doctrine based on inconsistent and contradictory interpretations of the bible, but them getting it way wrong doesn't invalidate the bible, in my opinion.
Turtle wrote:
In your argument about pb&j, the usage of nothing has two different connotations, but they are made to be equivalent. Therein lies the problem.
In the original post, in this logic,
Worshipping idols is not worshipping God
Not worshipping God is what atheists do
Therefore worshipping idols is what atheists do.
"Not worshiping God" plays the same role as "nothing" in the PB&J version -- it's used for both "worshiping something other than God" and "not worshiping anything". The resulting construct is therefore as flawed as the one I gave, just less funny.
chrisso99 wrote:
Gnostic Atheists ( never met or even heard of one) these people claim the knowledge that NO God exists.
I've met several, some quite evangelical about it. They're pretty obnoxious, as a rule. On one memorable occasion, the evangelical atheists in the audience were enough to make an atheist & philosophy professor friend of mine start arguing in defense of the Methodist minister on the panel with him.
Ashes wrote:If worshiping ourselves decreases our chances of contracting STDs or getting divorced, I see nothing wrong with it.
I totally agree, but that is metaphorical worship. There are other words for that, like self care and self respect. Even people who claim to worship gods can do that. In fact, christianity promotes a kind of self worship by saying our bodies are temples that the God lives inside. But that is metaphorical too, often taken for literal.
How many people build altars to themselves, offer sacrifices to them selves, pray to themselves, truly believe they created everything and are responsible for what happens to everyone else? A person who truly worshipped themselves would be considered mentally ill.
