Atheists & agnositcs: How do you view religious people?
- Thread starter Ziggy
- Start date
I don't believe that there are deities, but I also don't know enough to actually make a decision.
My understanding is that the truth behind theism is unknowable is agnosticism. I do subscribe to that. A broader approach to atheism is the lack or absence of belief that deities exist.
In short, I don't know, it depends on your definition of the two.
Agreed, it comes down to definition.
I classify myself as an athiest, but am open to the possibility of being wrong. I suspect this is the case with the vast majority of athiests. I do find it offensive when people draw similarities between atheism and religion - athiests, in my experience, tend to be as fervent in their non belief in a god as they are in their non belief in Santa.
I classify myself as an athiest, but am open to the possibility of being wrong. I suspect this is the case with the vast majority of athiests. I do find it offensive when people draw similarities between atheism and religion - athiests, in my experience, tend to be as fervent in their non belief in a god as they are in their non belief in Santa.
agnostic atheism sureley - the thinking man's position
. I don't believe there is a god but I can not prove it. Atheistic agnosticism, agnostic atheism.As it's impossible to know anything with 100% certanty, aren't the various definitions overcomplicating things? It's possible to argue the toss over the difference between 'I know there's no god' and 'I think the chance of there being a god is so slim it's not worth considering', but they're the same thing really. To me they're both athiests - an agnosatic being someone who isn't sure, but finds the possibility of a god being worth consideration.
Why are you offended?
The similarities are quite plain, in that both atheists and theists operate from a faith based position.
I pity them on the whole, I have no/very little problem with peoples personal spiritual beliefs, however I think the entirety of organised religion is somewhat ridiculous. The more introspective religions I have a lot more time for but they on the whole tend to be much less faith based, it's mentioned more as a foot note than the be all and end all.
Isn't any opinion faith based if you drill down far enough? My non belief in He-Man is faith based.
It's when religion and atheism are compared as being like for like that it grates.
Last edited:
Agreed, there is a difference between blind faith and belief in conclusion from the best that evidence has to offer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
I like to think I treat everyone the same, I don't make no distinction between anyone.
I have worked with people that have said God bless and signed e-mails that way, which in work I find a little distasteful.
I wouldn't expect people to share my views or pondering ideas, just bugs me when people bring it into work.
Hell we even had 3-4 people at work start a 'Christian Fellowship', which I felt was wrong but kept my mouth shut in fear of being labeled intolerant.
I have worked with people that have said God bless and signed e-mails that way, which in work I find a little distasteful.
I wouldn't expect people to share my views or pondering ideas, just bugs me when people bring it into work.
Hell we even had 3-4 people at work start a 'Christian Fellowship', which I felt was wrong but kept my mouth shut in fear of being labeled intolerant.
Absolutely incorrect. I can't believe so many people get this wrong.
Why don't we actually look at the word 'atheism'.
We have the word 'theism', with an 'a' in front of it, 'a-theism'. It simply signifies an absence of a belief in God. There is no content to atheism.
I call myself an atheist because of what I know about cosmology, the scale of the universe, the sheer gargantuan size of it, the destruction, etc, make the hypothesis that it's part of a divine plan less likely than likely.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That's a rather more modern interpretation of the word although I'm fairly sure we've had this argument before. Atheism is from the Greek atheos meaning without god, it's traditionally been taken to be either an implicit or explicit denial of the existence of god (what is sometimes referred to as weak or strong atheism). If you're taking a position on a question where you cannot know the answer due to a lack of evidence then you are implicitly taking a position of faith - whether it's simply the most likely answer or even is ultimately the correct answer doesn't matter at this juncture, it's a position of faith. Nb as always I'll point out that there's nothing wrong with taking a faith based position, it's usually worth recognising when you've done so though.
agnostic atheism sureley - the thinking man's position
Apathetic agnostic - the position of the lazy man.
I don't think it is faith but rather assumption, which people do all the time in other matters each day but because religion is involved it becomes faith. Just because an answer can't be given at that precise moment doesn't mean any accepted answer is based on faith.
Do you believe the tires on my car all all road legal? How about if I tell you they were all replaced less than 6000miles ago? You'd probably assume they were, but I doubt anyone would say "I have faith that the tires are road legal." You are basing that assumption on fact and the knowledge you have of tire wear and tear. It's the same with religion, but oddly that assumption morphs into faith as most religious people believe anything to do with religious discussion must be relevant to their faith and expressed with reverence.
Assumptions are, by their nature, faith based, as they are taken for granted without full examination of the facts.
I disagree. I'm aware that atheos means, 'without God', and even if that was literally what atheism meant, then I would happily accept it as my position. My position is exactly that, 'without God'. There is no belief in place of it, it's simply just the absence of a belief in God.
Just in the same way that not believing in the validity of astrology isn't a positive belief, it's simply the absence of a belief in it's validity.
I will reiterate, atheism has no content.
You can't beleive so many people get it wrong because they are not wrong. You are, as semi pro explained.
The sheer infinite nature of the universe should encourage you to make the hypothesis that infinite universe equals infinite possibilities.
The fact remains that many people call themselves atheist when in fact they are agnostic, and that New Atheism is a faith based dogma much like religion.
Last edited:
None of the new atheists, as far as I'm aware, hold the belief which you're assigning to them. If you can point me in the direction of one, I would be interested to read about their views. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, Dan Dennett, all of them hold the belief that I have just proclaimed, not the one you have.
It may also interest to you that we live in a finite universe, not an infinite universe. All you have to do is spend a tiny amount of time reading about it to make the various claims of religion sound utterly ridiculous. Obviously I can't prove that the billion billion planets, the star that fails every second, the sun-like star that goes supernova every fifteen seconds, the countless number of failed solar-systems, etc, weren't all created so a carpenter could be nailed to a cross in a remote part of illiterate bronze age Palestine. But I could say that anybody that does believe that is making it obvious that they're willing to believe absolutely anything.
Like I said, all I'm saying is that I think it's less likely, than likely. I fail to see what's dogmatic about such a position.