Atheism and Agnosticsm

[cliffy1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxL6Hd-xA5c&feature=related

[Nebula]

I also recognize that there are people who completely shut that possibility off as impossible. And yet these same people seem to be able to embrace the miracles of science. Quite the paradox.

One can only embrace a miracle if one believes it's a miracle to begin within.

That's what leads me to the thought that some people choose the label "atheist" not to represent a lack of spiritual beliefs, but as a rebellion against religion.

You are likely right, although there certainly are people with a complete lack of spiritual beliefs. As for motivation, yes, I think many atheists call themselves such more out of a sense of anti-religion.

Nearly all the religions of the world are based on a basic principal of peace and love, believe it or not.

That's one side of the equation. Just as there is good and evil, yin and yang, religions for the most part come with the carrot or stick. Yes, they are founded on the principal of peace and love, but they are also founded on the principal of do what I say or else. With the prospect of peace, love and harmony comes the spectre of fear. Fear is a foundational part of most religions.

I agree wholeheartedly, I would go further to say that the original intent of most religions would be to share the spiritual awakening that comes from the "journey within". Trouble is this sort of fulfillment has a huge appeal, and there are always those who will pervert that appeal to their own ends, even if their intentions are good at the outset. Again this pushed many to embrace atheism more as a knee-jerk reaction to the shortcomings of organized religion.

One thing I differ with in the above: knee-jerk can be replaced with 'measured, reasoned'.

[cliffy1]

That's one side of the equation. Just as there is good and evil, yin and yang, religions for the most part come with the carrot or stick. Yes, they are founded on the principal of peace and love, but they are also founded on the principal of do what I say or else. With the prospect of peace, love and harmony comes the spectre of fear. Fear is a foundational part of most religions.

I think that is where most people diverge from religion. The fear factor is the biggest deterrent for thinking people. One of the reasons I left the Catholic religion many moons ago was I could not reconcile o god of love with the one that punishes. Such a god must be extremely insecure, and if so cannot really be a god or omnipotent. What set me off on my journey was Allan Watts' book "The Book [on the taboo against knowing who you are].

One thing I differ with in the above: knee-jerk can be replaced with 'measured, reasoned'.

Skepticism is healthy. Question everything and accept no authority other than your own.

[fluffy]

One thing I differ with in the above: knee-jerk can be replaced with 'measured, reasoned'.

Agreed, in some cases. While the term "knee-jerk" implies a thoughtless, I would also suggest that for many the adoption of the "atheist" label is still devoid of careful consideration anywhere past "not religious". This is the legacy of organized religion, where the original message of peace and love has been lost in a morass of rules and regulations, the idea that "I've got it all figured out, all you have to do is follow my lead and you too can be enlightened". Which takes us to cliffy1's point...

Skepticism is healthy. Question everything and accept no authority other than your own.

Individual insight is at the heart of spiritual growth. I've found that with all the ideas and information that falls in our day-to-day path, every now and then some gem will strike an inner chord where you instinctively know that it's a "keeper", something that, for the time being at least, you know you can file under "truths". I don't know why or what the source of the feeling is, maybe it's just a new way of looking at old information in a way that makes sense all of a sudden, but I've come to trust these "aha" moments as something not to be ignored. This happens a lot with things that I may have heard countless times before but placed little significance upon, but suddenly there is a deeper understanding of the underlying reason or intent of a simple statement or phrase. Like "Some of life's greatest secrets are shrouded in simplicity."

[cliffy1]

Agreed, in some cases. While the term "knee-jerk" implies a thoughtless, I would also suggest that for many the adoption of the "atheist" label is still devoid of careful consideration anywhere past "not religious". This is the legacy of organized religion, where the original message of peace and love has been lost in a morass of rules and regulations, the idea that "I've got it all figured out, all you have to do is follow my lead and you too can be enlightened". Which takes us to cliffy1's point...

Ah yes, the lazy man's way to enlightenment leads down blind alleys. It takes a lot of attention to see the truth inherent in our lives, a lot of self awareness. Following others is certainly not going to get us to where we want to go, just where they want us to go, which usually costs ya.

Individual insight is at the heart of spiritual growth. I've found that with all the ideas and information that falls in our day-to-day path, every now and then some gem will strike an inner chord where you instinctively know that it's a "keeper", something that, for the time being at least, you know you can file under "truths". I don't know why or what the source of the feeling is, maybe it's just a new way of looking at old information in a way that makes sense all of a sudden, but I've come to trust these "aha" moments as something not to be ignored. This happens a lot with things that I may have heard countless times before but placed little significance upon, but suddenly there is a deeper understanding of the underlying reason or intent of a simple statement or phrase. Like "Some of life's greatest secrets are shrouded in simplicity."

I find that simplifying ones life is the easiest way to open up the mind up to acknowledging the truth in such insights. We tend to clutter our lives unnecessarily with "stuff" - electronic and mechanical things that are distracting at best. I do not understand people who need to be in constant contact with everybody via cell phones every waking moment. Most of what I hear people saying on those things is mundane gibberish, noise pollution. It keeps the mind distracted from being aware of the simple truths that life is presenting them.

[hobbyguy]

I would have to take issue with the definition quoted of Agnostic. From the word "broadly" onward it shows the bias of a church person.

Here are a few of the influencing thoughts that lead me to a spiritually agnostic position:

1. To paraphrase Allan Watts (among others) "Inside each of us is a little piece of God trying to gain expression". One can substitute "cosmic conciousness" or what have you for "God", but I happen to think that gives an incite that helps distinguish between living beings and inaminate matter.

2. Religious dogma has been an arguably destructive element in history, and continues to cause strife today. To paraphrase D.T. Suzuki, "as soon as you write something down, it begins to lose its meaning".

3. The general notion that we, as humans, could possibly understand the nature of deity, and go further as to interpret that for others, smacks of arrogance. Attempting to impose one's beliefs on others, as opposed to thoughtful discussion, also strikes me as arrogant. Which is why I normally don't "pipe up" in these discussions.

4. The smattering of religions that I have studied seem to have peaceful cores that get twisted and perverted for political purposes. The peaceful core is what matters.

5. Again paraphrasing D.T. Suzuki "a step in any direction on the path to enlightenment, is a step in the right direction". I choose to interpret "enlightenment" in the light of the notion of that little piece of god trying to gain expression. I also choose to believe that the path for each individual is different, for some it may include organized religion, for others not, it is not for me to judge.

6. In studying the bible and its history (and I am not expert in this) I was struck by the political nature of its construction, translation from other languages etc. I find it difficult to reconcile Revelations inclusion in the new testament, and equally difficult to reconcile the obviously conflicts between gospel teachings such as "turn the other cheek" and old testament teachings such as "an eye for an eye".

So my conclusion was that for me, and I emphasize "for me", the path became one of trying to bring the peaceful core into my life, and respecting others beliefs as being equally valid, with the possible exception of the attempts of others to IMPOSE their beliefs (especially if founded in dogma).

[zensiert]

Lots of people believe in the Pangea even though it's not measurable, testable and repeatable...

It is measurable. We can examine igneous and sedimentary rocks that were once a single formation, but are now separated by many thousands of kilometres across different continents. Put the pieces back together, and the continents reassemble into what Pangæa looked like.

It is testable. By examining those same igneous and sedimentary rocks, we can extrapolate the pattern that those formations take, and predict where they would extend onto on different continents. This has been used in spectacular fashion to demonstrate that the Appalachian mountains in the Eastern U.S. continue down the Western side of Africa (through Morocco). At one time, this was a single mountain formation that covered nearly an eighth of the world's circumference (much like the Andes Mountains or Rocky Mountains do today). This was only recently discovered within the last decade or so, and was done through tests and extrapolation of existing formations.

It is repeatable. By looking forward in time and examining continental drift, we can make very reasonable computer models that show how the continents will reassemble in the future into another Pangæa-like super-continent. When all else fails, we simply need to upload our consciousness into a hardy substrate that will survive the next several hundred million years. Keep in mind, this is not impossible, just a current technological limitation that we have yet to achieve. Ergo, it is still repeatable, just not within our current technological capabilities to do so. But wait a hundred years or so, and the technology will probably be there to do so.

[Glacier]

That was probably a poor example, but I'll run with it anyway.. The problem is not with the idea of a single continent existing. Everyone believes in Pangea. Heck, even the Bible says there was once only one landmass. The part that cannot be tested is the area dealing with some of the theories behind Pangea. Looks like they have to pretend Mexico doesn't exist to fit them together. How on earth does a 10 km thick piece of rock start subducting under another sheet of rock if it's lighter than the substrate? And convective currents within the earth's mantle cannot exist, and yet we are led to believe that they do. Wouldn't there be another continent at the other side of the earth from Pangea since the CoG would shift in such a way? Lots of things we believe at face value without a scientific explanation.

But I digress... the point is everyone believes things that cannot be tested and measured. Every last one of us. We believe them to be true because of experience or because someone we trust has lead us told us it is so. Whether or not someone looks at the the natural world and sees it as the hand of God or creation of Nature really depends on the assumptions one makes. If one assumes that a scientific explanation will eventually be found for every unknown, then they will obviously see the Universe without a god. Likewise, if someone makes the assumption that a deity is the only thing that could create the Universe, then they will see God.

At best only one of these assumptions can be correct, so which one is it? Since most of the logical ones on Castanet typically stick to the Conspiracies section, maybe we should ask them whether or not they believe in God. If all the those gifted with wisdom and sharp eyes for bunk believe in God, then perhaps assuming there is a god is logical after all.

[fluffy]

3. The general notion that we, as humans, could possibly understand the nature of deity, and go further as to interpret that for others, smacks of arrogance. Attempting to impose one's beliefs on others, as opposed to thoughtful discussion, also strikes me as arrogant.

But isn't the very essence of agnosticism just that, that knowledge of the nature of deity is, at this point in history, unknowable? At best we can develop theories, but in the final analysis they will be just that...theories. This is my issue with most organized religions, that their particular "theory" is the one true explanation, and blind acceptance of that theory is necessary for membership. Individual exploration based on personal experience and insight is actively discouraged, when in my opinion that is the true voice of God. Speaking metaphorically of course.

[goatboy]

All I do know is that one side or the other of the "believe, not believe" debate is going to be very surprised when they die.

[1nick]

All I do know is that one side or the other of the "believe, not believe" debate is going to be very surprised when they die.

If there's no god you won't be surprised when you die,you'll just be dead.

[JLives]

But doesn't the dictionary definition carry a commitment to disbelief ? I'm just wondering if donning the title of "atheist" means denial of the possibility that there may be something out there of a supernatural sort.

I see what you're both saying, 'there is no current evidence to support any doubt in my mind, but I'm open to revision'.

I guess to me it comes down to being able to say "I don't know for sure", which would be an agnostic point of view.

With our current knowledge, I do know for sure. That doesn't mean evidence won't change in the future but for right now my viewpoint is supported.

[cliffy1]

With thousands of belief systems and at least 3500 varieties of Christian sects, it seems ludicrous to say that this an either/or discussion. My personal beliefs do not fit into any of the above, so to me to say that you either believe in god or you don't is incomprehensibly simple. I really think if anybody has a forgone conclusion about what happens after death, they are in for a rude awakening no matter what they think they believe. Me, I like surprises. I prefer to have no expectations because I have found that expectation usually leads to disappointment.

[steven lloyd]

If there's no god you won't be surprised when you die,you'll just be dead.

Those aren't the only options.

[1nick]

Reincarnation?
I hope not Steven I'm too tired to go 'round again.