Why don't atheists meet?

[NoIDidn't]

I think most believers do question their beliefs. I have heard many a preacher discuss the fact that this is natural and that one should simply have faith. Which is another way of saying, "don't think, just accept". But to your point, "unknown"/"unclear", I don't see much difference.

 

Maybe not "much" difference, but a difference nonetheless.

 

 

 

I'm not telling people to believe or not. I'm suggesting that they already do believe or not. But that people can often flip flop back and forth. And that calling yourself agnostic is not only incorrect usage of the word, but it's disingenuous. A described agnostic tends to lean one way or the other and often does not ponder this question enough to know what they believe.

 

I don't agree with you on the bolded. For a person to take the time to post in a thread like this one, shows that they do ponder the question and often have some ideas on what they believe or not. I think its more disingenuous for a person to claim they haven't given much thought to what they believe, than to the person flips back and forth. Confusion is very different from a person deliberately seeking to have people think they believe a certain way.

 

 

Of course, all of this is sort of irrelevant to the terms theist and atheist. I don't know why deist is included as a separate category. They are still theists. It's still a religious sect.

 

Thanks.

[627]

in the middle east we meet. needless to say islamic laws breach human right laws women's right and freedom of belief and non belief. we do not meet to discuss being atheists... we meet to discuss plans of actions, supporting some sort of protests or movements, making more blogs, bailing one of our friends from jail etc...

[Trojan John]

For agnostics :

 

Are you actually agnostic about every single supernatural deity (there are over four thousand) that humankind has imagined, or just the Abrahamic deities?

 

I understand the logic of not being able to form a conclusive statement because of a lack of evidence as to existence or non-existence, but I wonder if you are the same way with all things natural and supernatural that lack sufficient evidence either way. For example, would you put fairies, the Loch Ness monster and vampires in the same "unknowable" category as the Higgs boson and other supersymmetric theories, or say theoretical physics in general?

[westernxer]

For agnostics :

 

Are you actually agnostic about every single supernatural deity (there are over four thousand) that humankind has imagined, or just the Abrahamic deities?

 

I understand the logic of not being able to form a conclusive statement because of a lack of evidence as to existence or non-existence, but I wonder if you are the same way with all things natural and supernatural that lack sufficient evidence either way. For example, would you put fairies, the Loch Ness monster and vampires in the same "unknowable" category as the Higgs boson and other supersymmetric theories, or say theoretical physics in general?

 

Vampires and monsters of the unknown are metaphors of superstition, created by our primitive human natures to explain a deep-seated fear or lack of insight.

 

Higgs particles, quantum physics, theories of the cosmos... those are derived from painstaking scientific research and process of elimination.

 

One involves belief and emotion that is often accepted without question, the other rational thinking open to testing and peer review.

 

Personally, I love all the gods, especially in comic books.

Edited August 13, 2011 by westernxer

[Trojan John]

Vampires and monsters of the unknown are metaphors of superstition, created by our primitive human natures to explain a deep-seated fear or lack of insight.

 

Higgs particles, quantum physics, theories of the cosmos... those are derived from painstaking scientific research and process of elimination.

 

One involves belief and emotion that is often accepted without question, the other rational thinking open to testing and peer review.

 

Personally, I love all the gods, especially in comic books.

 

Totally agree, but what I am leading towards is questioning whether agnostics hold with equal uncertainty the supernatural as heretofore "unproven" natural phenomena. I had initially started typing a supernatural vs. supernatural case, but people tend to get offended or myopically state that, "one thing is completely imaginary".

 

In my personal opinion, not being able to conclude either way implies that one is ignorant of the probability of the conflicting hypotheses. The empirical evidence in one case far outweighs the other. In numerous cases, claims that a certain deity is the cause of events X, Y and Z have been proven false time and time again. Take, for example, creation myth -- all of them. Reading each narrative one after the other, then realising that people believe one or another to be absolutely true should elicit groans and head shaking.

 

With that, I find myself wondering how one can still be ambivalent as to the existence of a deity.

[Zaphod B]

For agnostics :

 

Are you actually agnostic about every single supernatural deity (there are over four thousand) that humankind has imagined, or just the Abrahamic deities?

 

All.

 

I think by definition you have to be otherwise you can't really consider yourself agnostic.

[D-Lish]

Vampires and monsters of the unknown are metaphors of superstition, created by our primitive human natures to explain a deep-seated fear or lack of insight.

 

Higgs particles, quantum physics, theories of the cosmos... those are derived from painstaking scientific research and process of elimination.

 

One involves belief and emotion that is often accepted without question, the other rational thinking open to testing and peer review.

 

Personally, I love all the gods, especially in comic books.

 

Great post Western- couldn't agree with you more.

[shadowofman]

Let me put words in the modern agnostic theist's mouth for a moment.

 

I think most are atheistic with respect to any of the deities described by the worlds religions past or present. But theistic about the concept of a creator/all powerful being. They are agnostic about the name it might be called or the very nature of it. Maybe it's a single consciousness or an entire population of individual beings.

 

Bottom line is that we all tend to be agnostic, and a very large number of us want there to be and in fact believe that there is "something" out there.

 

Personally, if there is "something" out there, I don't care how powerful it is, it is merely an alien. Not worthy of worship, and therefore cannot be called a God.

[Heart On]

Bottom line is that we all tend to be agnostic, and a very large number of us want there to be and in fact believe that there is "something" out there.

 

I disagree.

 

I feel I am a "devout" Atheist in that I don't believe in ANY GODS nor do I want to believe there is something "out there" that is in control or going to 'save me' in anyway shape or form.

 

I don't sit on fences.I have the courage of my convictions.It takes alot of "faith" in Science and Evolution to be an Atheist and no one could make me doubt my thinking....especially not a delusional person or cult who puts all their "stock" in the unknowable and relies solely on the bible for all thier arguments.

 

I wish there was a place that atheists met....I'd be there.