Support NeoGAF

[captainnapalm]

I think it's a good rule in life to not get too convinced about anything. Keep your mind open to new ideas and experiences. Even ones that may seem wildly conflicting with established ones.

I struggle to think about one thing I'm 100% convinced about, but so many people seem to have it all figured out.

Trust people searching for the truth, doubt those who've found it.

 

[Monocle]

...Everyone?

When you're holding rallies for anything the idea is to be seen and heard. Unless you mean someone getting up in your face yelling at you. I have no video of that, sorry.

http://www.digtriad.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/120325053315_Atheist Rally.jpg

Not confrontational at all.

Oh my god, a sign? And people say the Crusades were bad.

I think it's a good rule in life to not get too convinced about anything. Keep your mind open to new ideas and experiences. Even ones that may seem wildly conflicting with established ones.

I struggle to think about one thing I'm 100% convinced about, but so many people seem to have it all figured out.

Trust people searching for the truth, doubt those who've found it.

Yep. It's pretty hard to go wrong when you maintain a healthy suspicion of certainty. Or at least, you're less likely to go so drastically wrong that you can't correct course.

 

[Oppo]

Oh my god, a sign? And people say the Crusades were bad.

i snorted coffee

 

[The Faceless Master]

wow, the war on atheism is pretty strong. i mean, there's a movement of terrorists blowing up abortion clinics and protesting at soldier funerals and crashing airplanes into buildings and killing homosexuals, or just not giving them equal rights under the law, but don't ever try to ascribe those extremes to all people of those religions...

i guess it's easier to just say you're agnostic or just not religious than put up with people's crazy preconceived notions like "so you believe in the devil?"

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Neil deGrasse Tyson will probably gain a new perception of what "active" means now that he has become an "active" agnostic.

 

[The Elite]

I think it's a good rule in life to not get too convinced about anything. Keep your mind open to new ideas and experiences. Even ones that may seem wildly conflicting with established ones.

I struggle to think about one thing I'm 100% convinced about, but so many people seem to have it all figured out.

Trust people searching for the truth, doubt those who've found it.

A good way of living.

The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing.

 

[Monocle]

i snorted coffee

If you can bear a second look, that monster even included the address of her blog.

 

[Oppo]

I will just leave this old interview with Douglas Adams here (well, an excerpt, full thing here.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist." Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague, wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague, wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say, "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I would choose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know. Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year-old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid"-then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

 

[hirokazu]

Perhaps you don't wish to be associated with it, but there is a movement for those that identify themselves as atheist. Just as not every Catholic is a habitual church goer, not every atheist is actively trying to push an agenda- But you're considered to be a part of that group when you identify as an atheist.

The opposite is true of an agnostic. There are no rallies being thrown, no political agendas being pushed, no movement to speak of. Identify with whatever group you like, but at least acknowledge that there is a difference.

The difference is that there is a structural organisation in the Catholic religion which some Catholics may not care enough to participate in. Atheists have no such thing. People may form movements under the atheist moniker, and I accept that, but that doesn't make atheism a movement that I must accept I'm a part of if I believe what I believe.

This again goes back to the whole "categorize atheists as a group" viewpoint that people seem to have, and which deGrasse Tyson is wary of. Maybe there are strong connotations associated with the word in some societies like in America, but I'm not gonna avoid the word because of that.

Political ideas is a different matter and I believe anybody who feels strongly about a political issue should make their voices heard.

 

[Az]

I think it's a good rule in life to not get too convinced about anything. Keep your mind open to new ideas and experiences. Even ones that may seem wildly conflicting with established ones.

I struggle to think about one thing I'm 100% convinced about, but so many people seem to have it all figured out.

Trust people searching for the truth, doubt those who've found it.

What the hell are you doing in here with that sense. This is too simple, we need to define things, label them and argue about it over and over again.

 

[soul creator]

A Story About Race - Neil deGrasse Tyson

NDT basically makes the point that "angry" atheists have been making - being visible and straightforward about who and what you are helps dispel the stereotypes people normally have. He didn't have to join the NAACP, go to the million man march, or even primarily identify as a "black scientist" in order to do this. But most importantly, he didn't try to avoid the fact that he's a black scientist, simply because most people may have associated us with being lazy/unintelligent/etc. He didn't go all "well, I reject the label of being black...I'm just a scientist, so don't call me black! I'm not like those other black people you're thinking of".

(of course, the obvious difference is that skin is a rather visible thing, but the same general concept applies)

 

[hirokazu]

Not what's being argued.

The argument is over whether or not there is a distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics aren't holding rallies and attempting a social movement- Atheists are.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make a distinction based on who is holding rallies and social movements. That doesn't embody what atheism or agnosticism is at all. You're missing the point.

Like I said, being atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive, why do you insist on driving a wedge in there and categorising it?

In my earlier post I said that Neil's viewpoint is very similar to mine, yet he calls himself agnostic, I call myself atheist. Technically, I'm agnostic atheist and Neil probably is too (I say probably because I don't speak for him.)

But what if I did a switcheroo and identified myself as agnostic? Does that make me a friendlier person? What if I did that and then held rallies? Would you say "Oh no, you're not an agnostic, you're an atheist! Stop lying!"?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Spirituality is a road and all of us are on different parts of that path. So, it shouldn't be surprising if you encounter others that are on different parts of that road or have changed over the course of their lifetime. Personal experiences radically alter your perceptions and can fundamentally shift your viewpoints.

Of course, some plant their flags down and remain there for the rest of their lives, but others are always continually seeking. Neil has always struck me as a 'seeker', so it should be no surprise that he hasn't planted his flag.

 

[UrbanRats]

I think it's a good rule in life to not get too convinced about anything. Keep your mind open to new ideas and experiences. Even ones that may seem wildly conflicting with established ones.

I struggle to think about one thing I'm 100% convinced about, but so many people seem to have it all figured out.

Trust people searching for the truth, doubt those who've found it.

Well, to be 100% convinced, you'd need evidence 100% solid, and that is not physically possible.
But there are several degrees of conviction, it's not a black and white condition, right?
I think it's the same with this Atheist argument, people seem to start from the position that you either believe in a God or you absolutely refuse to consider the idea, or stay completely neutral to the argument.
I think there are various inbetween states, i personally am not convinced by the existance of God, given the arguments and the proofs presented; i am, on the other hand, convinced about gravity, given the arguments and proofs i've had the chance to see.
It's not about refusing to consider God as an alternative, it's about giving credit only to the ideas that reach AT LEAST a certain level of credibility, it's a filter, you've got to keep an open mind, but can't let through any bullshit you come in contact with, so you filter the more absurd and sketchy ideas, if not sustained by solid proof or at least convincing arguments.

As simple as that, for me.
So yes, i consider myself an Atheist, not as the conviction of the impossibility of God's existance, but as not taking the idea into consideration until at least a minimal level of solid proof is gathered by whoever is interested in the theory.

To use a parallel example:
I could be "agnostic" about GTAV being released in October 2012 or May next year; both are quite possible and valid options, and although there are no solid proof for either, they are not incredible claims, so i can very easily remain neutral to them both.

I'm gonna be an Atheist about GTAV coming out June or May 2012 though, as that is highly unlikely and with very little logic and reasoning behind it, let alone proof.

 

[Xdrive05]

Okay, I really, REALLY hate the fact that there are these different definitions or "usages" for the terms atheism and agnosticism. What a stupid snare on this discussion. This is endless fodder for communication breakdown.

It boils down to this: Are atheism and agnosticism different answers to the same question (do you believe in god)? Or are they independent answers to different questions (belief in god VS certainty of the knowledge)? In other words, ONE axis or TWO axis? Is it a line or a grid?

Because at the end of the day it's the ideas that matter. I think Neil is 100% correct in his outlook on the question of a god and believing in them, and on certainty. But he sees it as useful to buy into the "ONE axis/same question" colloquial paradigm of atheism and agnosticism being different answers to the same question. So why does he? It seems that the TWO axis/two question paradigm is far more accurate to answering the questions of belief and certainty. Well, he is an educator and a great communicator of science, and I can't ignore that fact no matter how accurate or technical I want to be.

So for the sake of NOT having to explain to every Tom, Dick and Harry what the Atheist/Theist/Agnostic/Gnostic grid is, maybe we should keep it simple stupid?

Thoughts, GAF?

 

[Monroeski]

Is there not an important (and consensus) distinction between an 'agnostic' and an 'atheist'? Is there any use in him identifying as an "agnostic atheist" but to confuse 95% of his audience?

Again, I think he makes two separate points in the video, but doesn't make it particularly clear that they are different (because they are intimately related and because it's a 3-minute video).

I haven't watched the video yet, but in this context I understand "agnostic" to be about what you claim to know while "atheist" is about what you believe, in other words you can think we will never know for sure if God exists but you can still have an opinion on whether he does or not. It's kind of like saying "I don't have a window so I don't know if it's raining outside but I don't think it is."

 

[Kurdel]

Of course, some plant their flags down and remain there for the rest of their lives, but others are always continually seeking. Neil has always struck me as a 'seeker', so it should be no surprise that he hasn't planted his flag.

The only problem is the fact we don't live in a subjective reality. If everyone holds a different viewpoint, then no one is right. We can plant our flags about ghosts, bigfoot, ESP and homeopathy, but not religion? I think taking a stance is important, because you own up to your beliefs.

NDT is a seeker though. He wants to understand the vast complexity of the Universe and make ordinary people appreciate it's beauty. He doesn't need God or any other divinity to help explain the world, and thinks the people who do are full of shit because they already have the answers.

 

[hirokazu]

Okay, I really, REALLY hate the fact that there are these different definitions or "usages" for the terms atheism and agnosticism. What a stupid snare on this discussion. This is endless fodder for communication breakdown.

It boils down to this: Are atheism and agnosticism different answers to the same question (do you believe in god)? Or are they independent answers to different questions (belief in god VS certainty of the knowledge)? In other words, ONE axis or TWO axis? Is it a line or a grid?

Because at the end of the day it's the ideas that matter. I think Neil is 100% correct in his outlook on the question of a god and believing in them, and on certainty. But he sees it as useful to buy into the "ONE axis/same question" colloquial paradigm of atheism and agnosticism being different answers to the same question. So why does he? It seems that the TWO axis/two question paradigm is far more accurate to answering the questions of belief and certainty. Well, he is an educator and a great communicator of science, and I can't ignore that fact no matter how accurate or technical I want to be.

So for the sake of NOT having to explain to every Tom, Dick and Harry what the Atheist/Theist/Agnostic/Gnostic grid is, maybe we should keep it simple stupid?

Thoughts, GAF?

I agree with most of the things he says, and I think the video was quite good at explaining the idea of scientific rationalism. At the same time, I don't think his goal in the video was to not get too technical, because he is an excellent speaker when it comes to explaining concepts and he is quite explicit in distancing himself from being called "atheist" because he doesn't like what that entails. I disagree with him, but I won't hold it against him.

I think not explaining the difference despite being so talented at explaining things is doing a disservice and further spreading confusion instead of keeping it simple. But the bottom line is he doesn't give a shit about the religion debate, he wants to spread science.

 

[LevelNth]

Spot on, I completely agree with him. I just don't see much of a difference at all in many modern atheists over that of others in different organized religions.

IMO, atheism is simply another type of organized religion.

 

[MetatronM]

Okay, I really, REALLY hate the fact that there are these different definitions or "usages" for the terms atheism and agnosticism. What a stupid snare on this discussion. This is endless fodder for communication breakdown.

It boils down to this: Are atheism and agnosticism different answers to the same question (do you believe in god)? Or are they independent answers to different questions (belief in god VS certainty of the knowledge)? In other words, ONE axis or TWO axis? Is it a line or a grid?

Because at the end of the day it's the ideas that matter. I think Neil is 100% correct in his outlook on the question of a god and believing in them, and on certainty. But he sees it as useful to buy into the "ONE axis/same question" colloquial paradigm of atheism and agnosticism being different answers to the same question. So why does he? It seems that the TWO axis/two question paradigm is far more accurate to answering the questions of belief and certainty. Well, he is an educator and a great communicator of science, and I can't ignore that fact no matter how accurate or technical I want to be.

So for the sake of NOT having to explain to every Tom, Dick and Harry what the Atheist/Theist/Agnostic/Gnostic grid is, maybe we should keep it simple stupid?

Thoughts, GAF?

The two axis approach, while being accurate and correct, is pretty redundant. Nobody is ever referring to agnostic theists when they use the word "agnostic," and few are ever talking about agnostic atheists when they choose to identify as "atheist." And "gnostic" and "theist" are almost never used independently in general anyway.

You can easily collapse down to one axis and still be perfectly accurate for the vast majority of circumstances and have everybody understand what you're talking about. Ideas are communicated most easily when they are simplified to their most fundamental parts.

 

[hirokazu]

Spot on, I completely agree with him. I just don't see much of a difference at all in many modern atheists over that of others in different organized religions.

IMO, atheism is simply another type of organized religion.

Cool, what's a modern atheist and how is it:

a) organized

and

b) a religion or the equivalent of one?

 

[ToxicAdam]

The only problem is the fact we don't live in a subjective reality.

But we do live in a subjective reality. Your mind is unique and perceiving the world around you in a way only IT can. Now, you can open up to information and choose to believe things that can physically alter your mind, or fall in line with how other minds perceive reality, but it is still going to be skewed with a certain unique bent that only your synapses, neurotransmitters and experiences are going to impose on it.

Your viewpoint on reality is going to be vastly different than a 6 year old living in Singapore or a kangaroo in the Outback. You are all living in the same reality, but with dramatically different interpretations of it. For that matter, your viewpoint on reality is different than mine. Even though we are probably closer in demographics than the two examples I listed.

If everyone holds a different viewpoint, then no one is right.

No one is right. Many are constantly on a path searching and reaching out for a 'right' that makes sense to them.

 

[UrbanRats]

Spot on, I completely agree with him. I just don't see much of a difference at all in many modern atheists over that of others in different organized religions.

IMO, atheism is simply another type of organized religion.

How so?
Atheism doesn't have dogmatic truths, doesn't have rules, doesn't have rituals, doesn't have revelations, doesn't even have a belief per se.

 

[Karl2177]

I love how 90% of this thread has been arguing semantics. The way I see it is like this:
You are 100% certain that there is a god or deity<------------------------------------------->You are 100% certain there is no god or deity

You fall somewhere on that line. Does it matter what the semantics of the classification are? Wasn't that the point of the first minute of the video?

 

[captainnapalm]

Well, to be 100% convinced, you'd need evidence 100% solid, and that is not physically possible.
But there are several degrees of conviction, it's not a black and white condition, right?
I think it's the same with this Atheist argument, people seem to start from the position that you either believe in a God or you absolutely refuse to consider the idea, or stay completely neutral to the argument.
I think there are various inbetween states, i personally am not convinced by the existance of God, given the arguments and the proofs presented; i am, on the other hand, convinced about gravity, given the arguments and proofs i've had the chance to see.
It's not about refusing to consider God as an alternative, it's about giving credit only to the ideas that reach AT LEAST a certain level of credibility, it's a filter, you've got to keep an open mind, but can't let through any bullshit you come in contact with, so you filter the more absurd and sketchy ideas, if not sustained by solid proof or at least convincing arguments.

As simple as that, for me.
So yes, i consider myself an Atheist, not as the conviction of the impossibility of God's existance, but as not taking the idea into consideration until at least a minimal level of solid proof is gathered by whoever is interested in the theory.

To use a parallel example:
I could be "agnostic" about GTAV being released in October 2012 or May next year; both are quite possible and valid options, and although there are no solid proof for either, they are not incredible claims, so i can very easily remain neutral to them both.

I'm gonna be an Atheist about GTAV coming out June or May 2012 though, as that is highly unlikely and with very little logic and reasoning behind it, let alone proof.

That's fair enough. I really have no problems with atheists who choose to oppose simplistic definitions of God like the ones you find in monotheism. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to require some evidence before you believe anything of that nature.

But atheists often also have what I consider to be a farely narrow and limited view of reality that doesn't really allow for any opposing views or even debate. They demand scientific evidence before they'll consider anything, but to me it seems reasonable to accept that, due to the ultimately subjective nature of existence, objective scientific evidence for all aspects of reality and being is not a realistic expectation and can in fact be very limiting.

Science would be the perfect tool for understanding everything in the universe if it wasn't for the fact that it cannot observe the observer - at least not without creating another observer. When it comes to defining the observer and what role he plays in reality, I have found far more illuminating sources than science.

 

[soul creator]

That's fair enough. I really have no problems with atheists who choose to oppose simplistic definitions of God like the ones you find in monotheism. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to require some evidence before you believe anything of that nature.

But atheists often also have what I consider to be a farely narrow and limited view of reality that doesn't really allow for any opposing views or even debate. They demand scientific evidence before they'll consider anything, but to me it seems reasonable to accept that, due to the ultimately subjective nature of existence, objective scientific evidence for all aspects of reality and being is not a realistic expectation and can in fact be very limiting.

How is it actually possible to ignore evidence, yet still have a debate about something? The very nature of debate relies on two sides having some degree of basic common ground, and one side finding better evidence to support their position. That's...kind of what a debate is. Usually that common ground is "there is a reality we both share", but you're apparently proposing something else "outside" of reality and evidence. I'd be curious to know what that is. And how you found out about it in the first place, if not through some kind of "evidence". And how do you prevent one side of the debate from just making up anything they want, since we're apparently now removing "evidence" from the discussion.

(Unless you're defining "evidence" solely as something gathered inside of a lab or something, in which case, I'd disagree that the word "evidence" is that narrow)

Science would be the perfect tool for understanding everything in the universe if it wasn't for the fact that it cannot observe the observer - at least not without creating another observer. When it comes to defining the observer and what role he plays in reality, I have found far more illuminating sources than science.

Neuroscientists and physicists would probably be really curious to hear about these "more illuminating sources".

 

[Banglish]

That is bullshit.

If we start out with the principle that the burden of proof is on the people making the extraordinary claim, we can't consider anything but the real null hypothethis. Seeing we cannot falsify or confirm the original hypothethis "Does God exist?", we are left with the null hypothethis. Seeing we are open to change if new data is put forward, we leave the question open until the extraordinary proof comes along. So we live our lives as Atheists, because we have no other reason to venerate Vishnu, Allah, Moses or Joseph Smith.

The scientific position of agnosticism is precisely that.

People in this thread are really having a rough time understanding this basic premise.

You're right, I was wrong. The correct claim for agnostic is, "I can't make a call with the current set of evidence", I think..

I love how 90% of this thread has been arguing semantics. The way I see it is like this:
You are 100% certain that there is a god or deity<------------------------------------------->You are 100% certain there is no god or deity

You fall somewhere on that line. Does it matter what the semantics of the classification are? Wasn't that the point of the first minute of the video?

What if my opinion is, "We can never know until evidence proves or disproves." Where does that fall?

 

[rdrr gnr]

It's good to see cutmeamango is still struggling to grasp the concept of multiple meanings for a word.

 

[UrbanRats]

Science would be the perfect tool for understanding everything in the universe if it wasn't for the fact that it cannot observe the observer - at least not without creating another observer. When it comes to defining the observer and what role he plays in reality, I have found far more illuminating sources than science.

Well it's funny you say that, because while i agree that science it's not a perfect tool (being human made) i think it's also the best we know of, to examine things with an unbiased point of view.
Through repetition and constant analysis, without a-movable or dogmatic truths.
I think a scientific mind is INCREDIBLY open.

*You* see a tree and, with a closed mind, you can only come to a close minded conclusion, directly related to your human experiences: "A very powerful, Human-like being created it, just like i created this pot"; the scientific mind starts with nothing, no assumptions, as open as it can be, it starts from the most basic facts, observation and analysis of the elements at hand, through repetition and experimentation, it separates the facts from the coincidences and, in the end, comes up with a far more complex, astonishing and incredible conclusion (the actual origin and structure of a Tree, be it its biolotgical, chemical or atomic nature), with a lot of data and reasoning to show for.

So i think the very spirit of the scientific method, is to keep an open mind, while not being fooled by our very narrow animal perceptions.

EDIT: i use "you" as a general term, i'm not referring to you personally.

 

[Angry Fork]

Spot on, I completely agree with him. I just don't see much of a difference at all in many modern atheists over that of others in different organized religions.

IMO, atheism is simply another type of organized religion.

It seems like every single agnostic in this thread comes up with this same bullshit line. I want to completely eviscerate it but I know it won't matter because I'll be labeled as a radical evil atheist rather than someone putting forward logical reasonable arguments.

'Any atheist that dares to call out religion is just as religious! Why don't they just shut their mouths and let supernatural stupidity run amok, that's the natural order of things! The majority of the world is theist so admitting and promoting the truth through science will just offend them! HOW COULD YOU!?!?'

 

[TheContact]

This guy is amazing. I feel the same way.

 

[Kurdel]

No one is right. Many are constantly on a path searching and reaching out for a 'right' that makes sense to them.

Your argument for the interpretation of reality is fine, but ultimately flawed: not all interpretations of the world are right, but with sufficent objective proof, we can dound the truth.

Earth revolving around the sun. Continental drifting. The study of weather related phenomena. Neuroscience.

Seeing we live in a material world, we can establish irrefutable arguments in demonstrable and repeatable experiments. That is why science is important, and delusion of a subjective reality is counter productive.

We all live in the same world, with the same rules.

You're right, I was wrong. The correct claim for agnostic is, "I can't make a call with the current set of evidence", I think..

What if my opinion is, "We can never know until evidence proves or disproves." Where does that fall?

The subtle wrinkle comes in the form of doubt. If you have a feeling there might be something more, you are leaning to the Theist position. If you would rather lead you life without religion seeing you cannot, in good faith, take a position either way, then you will live your life as an atheist.

I decided I do not believe, and justify my position intellectualy by being open to the possibility if being wrong. I also keep in mind I can hallucinate and the human mind is made to identify ridiculous patterns and forms of agenticity, so I remain vigilant.

 

[captainnapalm]

Neuroscientists and physicists would probably be really curious to hear about these "more illuminating sources".

You aren't your brain.

The only way to really know the self is through inward study and reflection and contemplation. The journey inward is every bit as deep and epic a journey as any you could take in the outside world. If you don't believe that, it might be because you haven't really looked hard enough. Mankind has investigated the self for thousands of years and has found that the rabbit hole goes pretty deep.

But you're entirely entitled to see this as unscientific - which it is by the common definition, I don't deny it - and therefore not worthy of consideration. I just don't care that it's unscientific. I don't base my view of reality solely on what science can determine, which makes me one of the foolish, deluded masses in the mind of many atheists, I guess.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Your argument for the interpretation of reality is fine, but ultimately flawed: not all interpretations of the world are right, but with sufficent objective proof, we can dound the truth.

The term 'sufficient proof' is a subjective concept itself.

Earth revolving around the sun. Continental drifting. The study of weather related phenomena. Neuroscience.

All noble endeavors, but merely the fine print of the 'big questions' that spirituality serves to fill in the holes for the everday man.

Seeing we live in a material world, we can establish irrefutable arguments in demonstrable and repeatable experiments. That is why science is important, and delusion of a subjective reality is counter productive.

Do we live in a material world? Or is that just all our shared delusion? How do we know it's not all a hologram or just an echo of what once existed?

We all live in the same world, with the same rules.

We live in a world where we 'woke up' halfway through the story. We are slowly trying to piece it all together. All of us at different stages and capacities to handle the information coming in.

To remove yourself from or deny yourself the ability to be skeptical is unscientific at it's core.

 

[LevelNth]

Cool, what's a modern atheist and how is it:

a) organized

and

b) a religion or the equivalent of one?

How so?
Atheism doesn't have dogmatic truths, doesn't have rules, doesn't have rituals, doesn't have revelations, doesn't even have a belief per se.

I'll just keep this simple, and know that this is in no way an offense towards any individual that refers to themselves as an atheist.

For the organization argument, the simple use of the label applied in a manner of implying a set ideology qualifies in this regard IMO.

And that ideology, which is the belief of having no belief and/or there being no god/higher power/etc., conveys the same principle, IMO, as any other religion. That being a belief. I personally don't think it has to be more complicated than that.

It seems like every single agnostic in this thread comes up with this same bullshit line. I want to completely eviscerate it but I know it won't matter because I'll be labeled as a radical evil atheist rather than someone putting forward logical reasonable arguments.

'Any atheist that dares to call out religion is just as religious! Why don't they just shut their mouths and let supernatural stupidity run amok, that's the natural order of things! The majority of the world is theist so admitting and promoting the truth through science will just offend them! HOW COULD YOU!?!?'

I'm not sure how you feel this second paragraph is helping you in any way. I can't speak for others, but I'm not even sure why atheism being referred to as an organized religion is in some way a wholly negative slight. I'm not Bill Maher, I'm simply pointing out what I believe is a major roadblock in the argument between atheists and theists.

Why must you refer to religion itself as solely negative, or insist on mentioning 'supernatural stupidity'? Isn't the outright condemnation and condescension towards other major belief systems as counterproductive as what you interpret their 'stupidity' to be?

 

[KHarvey16]

which is the belief of having no belief

Explain how this can be a thing.

 

[Angry Fork]

Why must you refer to religion itself as solely negative, or insist on mentioning 'supernatural stupidity'? Isn't the outright condemnation and condescension towards other major belief systems as counterproductive as what you interpret their 'stupidity' to be?

Because it is negative and unnecessary. Check out the atheism/theism thread if you want to know why I'm too lazy to lay out a bunch of arguments here but getting rid of religion would do much more good than bad. I don't actively go out and shit on people because of what they believe, that would be wrong, I remain humble and quiet about this stuff in every day life. But if someone asks me something about religion or gets into a debate with me I'm not going to hold back just to be sensitive.

Nobody in their right mind would be sensitive towards Tom Cruise for believing scientology but for some reason the 3 monotheism cults are sacred and deserve respect just for being in the majority.

 

[Ocaso]

And that ideology, which is the belief of having no belief and/or there being no god/higher power/etc., conveys the same principle, IMO, as any other religion. That being a belief. I personally don't think it has to be more complicated than that.

This makes absolutely no sense. It is like saying a blind person sees the absence of light or that a deaf person hears silence. It's absurd, and it should be patently clear why.

 

[UrbanRats]

You aren't your brain.

The only way to really know the self is through inward study and reflection and contemplation. The journey inward is every bit as deep and epic a journey as any you could take in the outside world. If you don't believe that, it might be because you haven't really looked hard enough. Mankind has investigated the self for thousands of years and has found that the rabbit hole goes pretty deep.

What do you mean "i am not my brain"?
Regarding the "rabbit hole" that can be said about pretty much ANY scientific field, you think the science of the mind is deep and complicated? So are Quantum mechanics and all sorts of other shit.
Reality is very complicated and we don't have a full grasp on it, doesn't mean we should fill in those voids arbitrarily, though.

And that ideology, which is the belief of having no belief and/or there being no god/higher power/etc., conveys the same principle, IMO, as any other religion. That being a belief. I personally don't think it has to be more complicated than that.

That would broad the strokes quite a bit though, i have a LOT of things i don't believe to be true or that i'm not convinced in, should they all be considered from of religions?

 

[Oppo]

IMO, atheism is simply another type of organized religion.

Your opinion is risibly incorrect.

 

[Karl2177]

You're right, I was wrong. The correct claim for agnostic is, "I can't make a call with the current set of evidence", I think..




What if my opinion is, "We can never know until evidence proves or disproves." Where does that fall?

Then you're right in the middle.

 

[rdrr gnr]

You aren't your brain.

The only way to really know the self is through inward study and reflection and contemplation. The journey inward is every bit as deep and epic a journey as any you could take in the outside world. If you don't believe that, it might be because you haven't really looked hard enough. Mankind has investigated the self for thousands of years and has found that the rabbit hole goes pretty deep.

But you're entirely entitled to see this as unscientific - which it is by the common definition, I don't deny it - and therefore not worthy of consideration. I just don't care that it's unscientific. I don't base my view of reality solely on what science can determine, which makes me one of the foolish, deluded masses in the mind of many atheists, I guess.

You are not in a body; you are your body. You are your brain. Every process, thought, and action you've ever considered has a natural cause. The only epic journey being undertaken is the one on your synapses. That doesn't mean introspection is useless -- it's very useful, actually. But it doesn't "explain" anything in a meaningful and non-subjective (I use that intentionally) manner. To seek understanding in an objective sense -- however flawed that concept may be -- is a noble and worthy pursuit. And to many, the only perspective worth taking, which is understandable.

 

[Izick]

Atheism isn't a religion.

re·li·gion/ri&#712;lij&#601;n/

Noun:

1.) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2.) Details of belief as taught or discussed.

As far as I know, there's no organized group that meets up and discuss atheism. Sure there are people that talk about it, but that's more on a person by person basis, instead of as a group. I guess you could argue that it pertains somewhat to the second definition, but that's still a stretch.

With all that said, I agree with Neil on this one. There's no proof or evidence that there's any god, but it goes for the other way as well. Why worry you're whole life about trying to prove to others there's no god? I understand fighting against injustices brought on by religion, but that's a different thing. We should fight against injustices no matter what the cause behind them. I for one would say that I'm agnostic as well, I guess. Who am I to say that I know for certain that no god does or does not exist, when a man of science, a brilliant mind, can not even say for certain?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Nobody in their right mind would be sensitive towards Tom Cruise for believing scientology but for some reason the 3 monotheism cults are sacred and deserve respect just for being in the majority.

What do you mean by 'sensitive'? I certainly wouldn't laugh in his face for having the beliefs he does in the general sense. Scientology seems out there as far as I'm concerned, but if he gets something spiritually from it? More power to him.

Where Scientology crosses a line were in his more antagonistic assertions. For instance, proclaiming to know more about the human mind than psychologists and calling psychology a scam. That's stupid, and he should be called out for it. There's also the chatter out there about the more cult-like aspects of the religion that -- if remotely true -- merit criminal investigation and are certainly deserving of condemnation.

Likewise, I don't think Christians should be shielded from any criticism because they can point to passages from a holy book. I'm all for a live and let live philosophy, and as such, I think it's groovy when people claim that a belief in Jesus Christ aids them in their endeavors. That's not because I think Christianity is sacred and its practitioners represent the majority; it's just because I don't really see the point in challenging their faith.

However, that respect doesn't extend to the likes of Westboro and Pat Robertson. A lot of their rhetoric is idiotic and offensive. I feel completely comfortable stating that despite also seeing no reason to antagonize Christians.

 

[LevelNth]

Explain how this can be a thing.

I'll admit it isn't worded eloquently, but the definition of belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

In this sense it is placed in a nothing that cannot be proven to the same extent that the something in other religions cannot currently be as well.

Just my opinion.

This makes absolutely no sense. It is like saying a blind person sees the absence of light or that a deaf person hears silence. It's absurd, and it should be patently clear why.

The difference being those are scientific examples, which IMO don't equate on the same level as discussing a belief.

 

[Angry Fork]

What do you mean by 'sensitive'? I certainly wouldn't laugh in his face for having the beliefs he does in the general sense. Scientology seems out there as far as I'm concerned, but if he gets something spiritually from it? More power to him.

Where Scientology crosses a line were in his more antagonistic assertions. For instance, proclaiming to know more about the human mind than psychologists and calling psychology a scam. That's stupid, and he should be called out for it. There's also the chatter out there about the more cult-like aspects of the religion that -- if remotely true -- merit criminal investigation and are certainly deserving of condemnation.

Likewise, I don't think Christians should be shielded from any criticism because they can point to passages from a holy book. I'm all for a live and let live philosophy, and as such, I think it's groovy when people claim that a belief in Jesus Christ aids them in their endeavors. That's not because I think Christianity is sacred and its practitioners represent the majority; it's just because I don't really see the point in challenging their faith.

However, that respect doesn't extend to the likes of Westboro and Pat Robertson. A lot of their rhetoric is idiotic and offensive. I feel completely comfortable stating that despite also seeing no reason to antagonize Christians.

By sensitive I just mean respecting their religion and treating them differently over scientology just because more people believe it. Many people have this mindset that scientology is 'obviously' crazy but christianity is the word of god.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Atheism isn't a religion.

People can coalesce around corporate brands in the same way as people do around religion (it engages the same areas of the brain). I don't see why strong atheism (especially on the internet) can't be a similar type of pole.

 

[Angry Fork]

People can coalesce around corporate brands in the same way as people do around religion. I don't see why strong atheism (especially on the internet) can't be a similar type of pole.

It would be safer to put it under a 'movement' umbrella rather than religion.

 

[UrbanRats]

You are not in a body; you are your body. You are your brain. Every process, thought, and action you've ever considered has a natural cause. The only epic journey being undertaken is the one on your synapses. That doesn't mean introspection is useless -- it's very useful, actually. But it doesn't "explain" anything in a meaningful and non-subjective (I use that intentionally) manner. To seek understanding in an objective sense -- however flawed that concept may be -- is a noble and worthy pursuit. And to many, the only perspective worth taking, which is understandable.

I think "you are not your brain" could be read also as you are your body, infact.
I mean there are several chemical elements in your body that can effectively change your personality and mood quite drastically.

 

[captainnapalm]

What do you mean "i am not my brain"?
Regarding the "rabbit hole" that can be said about pretty much ANY scientific field, you think the science of the mind is deep and complicated? So are Quantum mechanics and all sorts of other shit.
Reality is very complicated and we don't have a full grasp on it, doesn't mean we should fill in those voids arbitrarily, though.


That would broad the strokes quite a bit though, i have a LOT of things i don't believe to be true or that i'm not convinced in, should they all be considered from of religions?

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the process should be arbitrary. And I realise science is very complex. And very useful and at times even beautiful and awe-inspiring. It's provided mankind with a lot. I just believe it has certain limitations due to the nature of its method of inquiry. You can not objectively observe the self, only the someone else, and many would say that the secret to consciousness lies within those seemingly impenetrable walls. You can study the brain till you're blue in the face but I don't think you're going to find the answers within that dead matter.

I might be wrong, though, but I'm leaning more towards this side of things these days.

But like someone else said, everyone processess reality in their own way, based on where they are in their own personal development. If the findings of science are all you're willing to entertain at this point, I reckon that's just fine. Perhaps atheists should accept that others process things differently at this point of their lives too?