Printable View
I know this is totally not religious but rather the antithesis of it, but could there be a forum for those of us who are atheistss or agnostics? ATM I am wrestling between the two (DH has just read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" which I have started and we have had some interesting debates aeound issues of belief and non-belief, faith and so on. Like I said, it is not really a religion but kinda fits into this broad topic....
Hi Roryrory. Can you explain what agnosticism is? I never really understood. I've looked it up but I still don't get it, lol. Is it that you don't believe that humans can know who God is? Ok that doesn't make sense I don't think. I won't even try to guess, lol.
I'm in the same boat Rory, I'd like to learn a bit more on both of these so I can make an informed decision.
I think agnosticism is where you believe in "something", you're just not sure what!
I am pretty sure Atheists believe there is no God, but Agnostics are saying "I don't know either way but I am keeping an open mind, but at the moment I have no proof of a God". Hence why I would like to have this discussion LOL :)
I am gonna read The God Delusion and keep thinking about it - I wonder if there is anyone else out there who has read it yet?
Rachel, SNAP :)
Um, I'm too scared to LOL
ETA: just to clarify... I guess I am too scared by the prospect of there being no God. When I think of all the suffering that mankind endures... if I was to be told that it was all for nothing then I don't think I could deal with it. I think I would just want to escape from life as it is right now... what is the point of it all... would send me barmy LOL
ETA again: I don't want to offend anyone... I agree an agnostic thread would be good.... I like having my beliefs questioned... just not by anyone too charismatic LOL ;)
LOL Bath - Dawkins said in his preface that he has actually aimed his book at practicing members of the established Christian clergy - he said he feels he has done his job if after reading his book he turns them into non-believers!
A big call, but that's kind of what appears to me about the book so much. DH got out my old Bible and reference books and kept cross-chcking some of the passages because he was so amazed about what was said......
*stomach sinking* does he really want to convert everyone to becoming non-believers? I thought it was just a book about his theory...
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world without Christian/religous values... but each to their own i guess. What I like about most religions is that there is an agreed set of rules that are not man-made. They are rules that benefit everyone. If mankind says "there is no higher authority than other men" then what's to stop each and every man just making up his own set of moral rules to live by. Law of the Jungle and all... to me it's like a houseful of children saying "we can look after ourselves... don't need boring parents..."
I know you are very hard to offend Rory :) Please feel free to argue my point! And sorry to all the other atheists/agnostics... I really don't mean to offend. I respect your right to disbelieve.
ETA: maybe I should read the book... if my beliefs are strong enough they should withstand it.
my dad has read the book rory and thinks it's great, he has explained some of it to me, and i've sort of flicked through it, read the first chapter when i was at his house. it's very interesting reading. i think there's been some recent docos on tv by the same author too??
We don't believe there is a God, for different reasons. I can't speak for my dh but my personal belief is in the scientific creation of the earth and i believe in the earths own higher power. I often speak to the earth in asking for guidance but i don't view this as a god, more a connecting with my inner self as i see myself as part of the earth.
I dislike Dawkins' writing - I have a few of his books and while The Selfish Gene is quite brilliant, once you get past the Dawkins-ness of it, The Blind Watchmaker is impossible to read and I feel that The God Delusion is more of the same. By all means argue against God, but not by belittling believers. I think Dawkins should shut up and give his mouth a chance, but to write many books on that is just not on.
BTW, I have no beef with Douglas Adams creating book titles of "Where God Went Wrong" and "More of God's Greatest Mistakes" - after all, without His perspective things can and do look a bit daft from down here. I don't mind claims that the soul is located on chromosome 2 - if that's your belief you are entitled to it. You just are not entitled to attack me for believing something else.
Can you imagine Dawkins writin this in a Muslim country? Oooh, that thought made me happy!
I'm atheist. I think that this is a good idea to start a thread on atheists/agnostics. There are many many people who are atheists or agnostics or not sure.
But then again I don't know. When I see "God" I'll believe. My Dad has done alot of research into god jesus all the above and I have done a bit. Following family disputes over religion. To us there just isn't enough "proof" that there is a god.:
I am pretty sure Atheists believe there is no God, but Agnostics are saying "I don't know either way but I am keeping an open mind, but at the moment I have no proof of a God".
Sorry to offend is I have. If I have
Ellie
No offence at all Bath :hug:
Actually the reason DH kept referring to the Bible while reading the book is Dawkins is apparently big on pointing out that there is alot in the Bible that we wouldn't like to follow, some quite nasty stuff in the Old Testament for example.:
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world without Christian/religous values
Ourlux what you are referring to seems to be what Dawkinds refers to as Einsteinian/Darwinian spirituality (from memory). ie: it is possible to be totally in love with and in awe of the power of the universe without believing in a God.
Gracie the doco was all about the evils of religion as a whole I think. I think the tag line was something like "imagine September 11 without religion".
Ryn I haven't read the book yet but I don't think he would be belittling believers. But then again it is probably pretty hard to make a rational case for atheism without in some way offending those who beleive in God. Apparently there is a book called "The Case for Jesus" which I intend to read afterwards, just to get a balanced view.
ETA: Ellie I am glad someone else thinks like me in terms of a discussion like this. I don't mean to offend either, and personally don't see how atheists discussing atheism could be any less offensive to, say, a Hindu who believes in a myriad of Gods listening to a Chirstian discuss the One True God.
Yeah, I thought that he was kind of 'belittling believers' so that's why I haven't read it. I have read some articles and interviews with him about it and he has called people 'stupid' in one of them I'm pretty sure. That wasn't very nice. I think if you have to resort to that kind of stuff then you really musn't have a very good argument.
Just wanted to say I think it's really good you're going to read both sides to make an informed choice, coz you can get caught up in one side or the other if people make good arguments that maybe you don't know much about or they're really charismatic people. I know I tend to get hooked on fads and believe things because of maybe one article I've read once without investigating further, lol. Oh an I just wanted to say a good book I read was 'A spectator's guide to Jesus: the man from Nazareth' (for the other side obviously).
Good luck!! Let us know how the God Delusion book is.
i'd be keen to contribute and share on a thread like this too. don't want to offend anyone, but believe that our beliefs should be considered too. my belief system is pretty similar to ourlux's. never knew it had a name (thnks rory). would love to discuss it a bit more...sometimes it's hard to talk to people outside of my immediate family (dad and brothers) about this. in laws are catholics and i sense we're going to have a small problem coming up soon when it comes to them wanting to christen our child...
It seems obvious to me that there is a God, but i don't believe the Christian model of Godhood. To me God is more like a substance.
Consider for a moment that God = water. All life began in and came from the water of the primordial swamps (if you believe evolutionary theory, which is a whole other problem for another time). Water is omnipresent and omnipotent. Without it there is no life and yet as the tsunamis of recent times have shown us the power of water can be violently destructive in the extreme. All of us come from the water of our mother's womb, and are made mainly of water. Water is life. Water sustains physically as Love does emotionally. Without Love one is lonely, without water one is dead.
I do not hold this to be my truth that i live by, i am still very much a the stage of considering these things. But god as the indescribable substance in the fabric of reality which drives life makes ALOT more sense to me than a fatherly figure churning out rules.
Also FWIW i do not think morality is tied to organised religion. I know many, many moral athiests. The rejection of or questioning of God need not mean the departure from morality. Because i am obtuse and a purist in fact, and probably because i am my father's daughter, i find more to admire in someone who does right because they strive to do right than someone who does right because they fear hell or damnation. The former seems more selfless to me somehow, if one can do right for right's sake and not for any personal potential spiritual gain or loss. My ideals are complex though, and not much use for real life.
Bx
I don't see why evolution and creation have to be at loggerheads - I believe that God created all of us and the Biblical view of creation is remarkably similar to the evolutionary view of stuff - so why couldn't God have used evolution?
Of course you can argue there is no God without belittling and upsetting believers - I am not upset by someone saying there is no God. I do think that it is not on to say there is no God and anyone who states otherwise is really stupid.
:) I'm a scientist and enjoy rational debate on the subject. But then, I enjoy rational debate - any name-calling from either side bores me!
That's what i was getting at Hoobley by referring to the earth as what i have faith in. I don't visualise anything particular when i seek guidance, its more a sensation i feel when i abandon all thought and just be mindless.... meditation in a way. The water is a good analogy.
I like the water analogy too, when I think of a God I always think of him/her/it (!) like the force of nature.
My views are very confused and complicated! I am Jewish but not religious. I was born Jewish so will always be a Jew. I think of myself as a Jew, as part of a race of people and not part of a religion IYKWIM? I would love to believe in God giving commandments to Moses etc but I just find that I can't. It seems that people watch magicians on TV and say "wow, how do they do it" believing it to be a trick and yet they believe unequivocally in water turning into wine and people walking on and parting the sea. I don't get it but as I said, I wish I could.
I believe there is something guiding us and helping us occasionally but we control ourselves and our destiny.
I agree with Rachel, whilst DF and i have both been brought up catholic, neither of us have any particular belief in it. There i things i would like to believe, but when you see hurt, pain, suffering it's difficult to, and then yet, when you see it, it's like hoping that it really is for some greater purpose, so to speak.:
DF and I are going to baptise 'jellybean' catholic, whilst we both believe that it is fair for the child to have it's own opinions, once it is old enough, the both of us were both brought up to do the rituals, and also feel that it may as well have a knowledge/belief base in something as well... It's a very conflicting thought for us though.
I know this is mostly irrelevant, but even though Dan Brown is an atrocious writer, i quite enjoyed his two books surrounding religion. No matter how fact, fiction, true or controversial they may have been, it was something that i could say gave me a different perspective. And when i was skeptical of believing in anything, it was enlightening to look at it in a different light. I do want to believe that science, darwin, evolution etc & a god, or many gods, or a 'divine power' that is a central bond to the universe, can both exist, i've just seen no proof of the latter and therefore it is a biased opinion.
DF and i have discussed with friends, the conclusion was...
"It can be presumed (seeing as there is continuing advancements in scientific discoveries), that there is an infinite number of galaxies, and an infinite number of universes, and an infinite number of bodies that survive and live there, so it is fair to assume that there is an infinite possibility that a god, or many gods, or something exists, it's just a matter of personal belief of whether it exists here..." IYKWIM
I'm hoping this made sense!
Hoobley, like I said I haven't read the book yet but when I discussed this thread with DH and mentioned Bath's comment about Christian values, he reminded me about a part of the book he told me about where Dawkins has apparently looked into the morality of non-Christian peoples (pygmies in the Amazon for example, with no connection to western culture at all). He (or someone else, probably an anthropologist) has hypothesised that morality is in fact an evolutionary by product - we wouldn't survive as a species if we coupld work harmoniously in groups, etc.:
i do not think morality is tied to organised religion. I know many, many moral athiests. The rejection of or questioning of God need not mean the departure from morality.
Ryn I think the reason why "hard" science doesn't marry well with "creationism" is that creationism still presupposes that there was an intelligent god who in some way directed or put into place the elements necessary for creation to unfold. I can see how from a Christian POV evolution could be part of God's plan, just as a scientist could see God or a god in creation. But I think from a strictly atheist POV (taking atheism to be as much a matter of "faith" in there being nothing as anything else) you could not see creationism as akin to evolution.
From a personal perspective I was raised a Christian and when my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer when I was 8 I started getting right into Sunday school and church. Problem is my religious education teacher didn't take the opportunity to discuss with me anything other than what I call the "child's view" of Christianity - Jesus loves little children, pray and He will listen, good things happen when you are good. My dad died when I was nine so I was totally disillusioned and have been a non-believer since (obviously now due to slightly more complicated reasons LOL!) But I find it a shame on her part that my teacher wasn't a bit "smarter" in how she handled the situation.
DH and I will raise our children to know about all religions, more so that they can understand other people's motivations and beliefs and function well and tolerantly in society than so they can choose their own beliefs. I am right into reading about Islam ATM because as an Aussie kid growing up in the 21st century I think that is one social force my children will definately need to understand and appreciate.
From a christian point of view I would think. Well we all came from adam and eve, we were all made by God, so we would all be the same, have morals, etc, because that's how God made us. And God gave us things like the mind, emotions etc. What is the mind exactly? You can't see it or measure it, I think it's something that God gave us and shows that just because you can't see something it's not 'supernatural' or 'magic' and can still exist. Oh jeez, well I don't know if those thoughts were even connected, hahaha, sorry. But that's something I've been pondering lately.:
he reminded me about a part of the book he told me about where Dawkins has apparently looked into the morality of non-Christian peoples (pygmies in the Amazon for example, with no connection to western culture at all). He (or someone else, probably an anthropologist) has hypothesised that morality is in fact an evolutionary by product - we wouldn't survive as a species if we coupld work harmoniously in groups, etc.
But it's interesting how you can take any piece of information and view it in a way that fits with your argument or beliefs I think.
I had it in the back of my mind that Albert Einstein said something relevant (he believed in God)... I Googled and found it: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Whilst searching I found that many famous scientists also believe God had some imput into our universe: Copernicus, Newton, Descartes and Mendel to name a few. Now I loved science at school but can't say I am an expert... however I guess I do trust these guys.
For balance i'm now going to Google Atheist scientists... unless anyone knows any?
James Watson the Structure of DNA
Francis Crick Molecular Biology
Alfred Kinsey Human Sexuality
Just a couple of Atheist from The Scientific 100:
A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present
Alfred Kinsey is a personal fave of mine, not just athesit scientist but visionary - what a great stand for him to make at that time!!
In general the religious Scientists existed longer ago. Once all science came from the Church because all the learning was in the Church, the Church knew Latin and could write it down.
I think that to a massive extent religion comes "through the milk" from our early baby-hood. Never having a religion is a different stance (IMO) to having been brought up in one and rejected it. It is very common for people to reject their religion and then have their children brought up in said religion. Probably because saying "this is the choice i make for my soul" is not the same as saying "this is the choice i make for their soul". Our children are precious, we want to do things right and if our own morality/spirituality/religious feeling came from a church before we rejected the ideas, it's perhaps difficult for us to imagine our children could grow up without that church and still be able to have morality, spirituality and religious feeling. This would not be any different for scientists. Being a scientist doesn't mean you did not once sit on your mothers lap in church, full of wonder and belief. Children believe with far greater ease than adults. So many things seem mysterious to them, religion is but a small leap. Such beliefs, that we held onto during the confusing times of childhood and adolescence, are not easy to throw away without feeling we might be throwing away a part of ourselves.
Children are reverent creatures. They worship. Their parents, their friends, their favourite toys. Children are naturally full of wonder and ready to be inspired. I think so long as that need is met by SOMETHING, it needn't be organised religion.
Bx
I was wondering what the name was for my belief's or lack of. Thanks Rory!
I guess I believe that there has to be more to life and the universe than just us and there is a (or more than one) higher being.
I would never say that one religion is less or more important than the other. I personally don't like religion/s or religious leaders that dictate what you must wear or discriminate against gender and etc..
I'm still figuring it all out in my head I guess. Never say never, but I couldn't imagine puting a lot of effort in to a religion.
I do thank 'God' most nights/days for all that I have though.
I was thinking about this thread today. It popped into my head as i was reading a future forecast in a book "The Spike"....anyhow. I thought about what we know now, as a race, compared to what our ancient ancestors knew. How blown away would they be by the internet? How impossible would it have sounded to them! How humbling would it be if we could be given a glimpse into our future (if we survive predicted climate change) how many things would seem miraculous? Can we really humble ourselves just for one minute to admit that we know nothing compared to the human race of a thousand years hence? Absolutely nothing?! of course we can't. We will proudly point to example of our knowledge; look at this laptop, look at this medicine, look at this camera that can tell when a specified person smiles and only take a picture at that precise moment (invented in Japan recently so we can all look forward to taking more successful photos of our babies!). We are so damn proud of ourselves hey? We are like primitives pointing proudly to our stick of fire.
If there is a God then we are just babes playing with fire in comparison. With the benefit of recorded history we can look backwards and say how clever we are... but are we really? I think a little humility goes a long way and the thing with atheism is that there is a denial of anything greater than ourselves. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that it is only via spirituality that people are encouraged to be humble? Please correct me if I am wrong. It just doesn't sit right with me that we, at this point of our development know all that there is to know.
Do you mean individual humility, racial humility or species humility?
I know a lot of people who are better than me and i know the technology i am using right now would not have been possible without the scientist who developed the stick of fire your primitive was holding.
An awareness of how insignificant humanity is, in comparison with the universe, doesn't rely on the existence of God. An athiest doesn't believe Man is God. He believes there is NO god. It is not about comparative greatness, it is about conscious force driving the universe (or not).
Bx
All forms of humility, all of above. I think, as a race, we have become so arrogant, our egos are our Gods and we serve them daily. Advertisers know how fragile we all are when it comes to our egos and love to reach us through them. The only time I am reminded to be wary of serving my ego is via my spiritual readings. How do atheists deal with this? how are they motivated to be humble if they acknowledge no greater knowledge than themselves (the human race)?
I believe that a conscience power greater than ourselves and God may be intertwined. Like someone posted in the 'Religion' thread #1 there are many examples of guidelines in the Bible of rules (for example, the storage of food) that were laid down before any knowledge of bacteria... the bible said "just do it" no explanation. Who are we to judge that our level of technology/scientific knowledge is enough to help us get through this life unscathed? I'm not saying that the Christian model is the right model... just that we should be open to the idea that there is a higher consciousness that can see more than we can see and needs us to follow advice regardless of whether it makes sense to us or not. A bit like how we tell our children to "just do it" because we understand the consequences of not doing it. We expect our children to have faith in us without explanation. It just seems to me that we are often too prideful of our knowledge and abilities.
You mean whites? I don't know what race you are Bath...?
One doesn't have to believe in a "higher knowledge" to understand one's own knowledge is partial and lacking. There are many things which aren't known. You don't have to think everything that is known is all that there is to be known! Atheists don't believe that humans know everything, they just don't believe in a god that knows everything either.
The bible was written by people. Yes, God may have instructed people not to do x, y and z in order to keep them safe, but cause and effect is not dificult to determine. How many people need to die after eating too-long-dead meat before you realise it's a bad idea? We were not there when the bible was written, many religious books with common sense could be the documentation of a long oral tradition of education of information learned through trial and error. Most animals have instinct to protect them. In the subversion of instinct brought on my civilisation (which demands we ignore some instincts in order to allow it to run smoothly) we might well have needed to write such instinctual knowledge down before it left us.
I would not say "just do it" to my child because i don't believe it fosters a sense of natural curiosity and a love of learning. I would always explain my requests, so i don't know about that bit. I have to admit i feel a bit saddened with the idea that humanity can only recognise it's own failings under assumed scrutiny by and comparison to some higher being. It makes me think of children who will misbehave as soon as the teacher leaves the room. Some kids (i was one of them) behaved whether the teacher was there or not.
Bx
I'm of the "human" race Bec :) I know I know you all thought was some space cadet from some distance universe :P
Regarding telling our children what to do for their own good: I agree that where possible it is a good idea (to explain) but it is not always possible, especially with the very young. Even after explanation many children will just do what they want to anyhow because they don't believe you. I'm sure most parents feel this frustration. And yes I also was a good kid even when the teacher left the room LOL but many aren't. And why should they? Why should they follow our definition of what is "right" if there is no higher authority then why the hell can't they do as they please? Who decided what is right anyhow?
"human" is a species, "caucasian" is a race. Sorry for the confusion.
Bx
I was speaking in broad terms... have often heard the term "human race". I guess it's a misnomer?
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are rules that man knows he must follow that man himself did not devise. I of course mean mankind. We do not follow these rules because they always benefit us, we often follow rules that inconvenience us but which we know are The Right thing To Do. I just want to know where these rules came from. They often to seem to be like the laws of physics. There really seems to be more than one kind of "reality"... our reality and an "ideal reality". Some of us try to ignore anything beyond our own reality... but anyone who has a conscience I think feels that greater reality pressing on them everyday as we make a thousand decisions about what is 'right' and 'wrong' each day.
If you know right from wrong does it matter who first told you what is right?
If an atheist behaves well does it matter that it is his conscience and not a bible which directs him to do so?
Bx
ETA - what i mean is, if you believe in God you believe the bible is from him, but if you don't believe in god, you believe it is from men, from mankind. So following it makes no sense. Without the faith it doesn't matter. But the faith isn't intrinsic to the behaviour.
Ah but this "conscience" thing.... where does that come from? How come most of us seem to know innately what is wrong and what is right? What dictates the rules of what is "fair". When two kids are playing a game and one cheats they BOTH know that one of them has chosen to play unfairly... this isn't something that an adult needs to teach a child. Even a child raised by the worst parents understands "fairness" even if he chooses not to practice it. Mankind did not devise "fairness" in itself only some of the rules pertaining to it's use. I think it's one of many rules that are above and beyond the facts of man's behaviour. It's a law we didn't make but which we are compelled to follow.
ETA: I just found C.S Lewis' take on atheism: he reckons it's too simple (although he used to be one): "If the whole universe has no meaning then we should have never found out it has no meaning: just as, if there was no light in the universe, and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. "Dark" would be a word without meaning".
Thanks Kelly!
How did you go with your reading Rory??
Heh heh! Lent the book to my mum and now I am around 37 weeks pregnant - might try once the baby is born LOL!!!