Atheism

[Fist and Faith]

It always seemed to me that fundamentalist atheism had a sort of intellectual arrogance about it - an "I'm right and there's no more to be said," element - that left no room for development. The possibilities of actually conceeding that it was okay not to know what our universe (or beyond) might be capable of, always seemed to me to be a more sustainable position. I mean, at present, in our current state of understanding, how can we know enough to make any such generalised statements. Maybe in the future, who knows.

That is not the position of any atheist I know, including myself. Rather, because the universe is stranger than we can imagine is a solid argument for the quest for understanding - and that can only be brought about through scientific enquiry as opposed to blind faith in a fictional being.

This is more a discussion for the Close, in which I’d be happy to participate in a respectful manner if you’re interested

I've always called myself a practical atheist. For all practical purposes, I'm an atheist. Meaning, I don't consider any possibility of any god or God when making any decision or taking any action. It simply doesn't occur to me.

Doesn't mean I don't think there's any possibility of there being any god or God. Anything's possible.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'm mostly the same, but I think that's generally considered agnostic, as I find most atheists as insufferable as most religious folks.

I tend to take a relatively Buddhist approach to life, but that's more of a belief system than a religion.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree it's agnostic. But I differentiate to make the point that I don't think or act with the possibility of any deity in mind. Another agnostic might want to hedge their bets in some way. I'll think and act with a deity in mind when said deity reveals itself to me and tells me what it wants. And that's only a maybe. I wouldn't do so for the Christian God that I'm told about.

[StevieG]

There are unsufferable people and arguments on both ends of this spectrum, I agree. And based on the posts so far, I tend to think along similar lines to Fist. I don't really think about it much. It's mainly when a religious person starts proselytizing that I feel compelled (sometimes) to engage.

I haven't yet been able to understand a compelling reason why someone is religious, apart from historical reasons (my family has always been X, or I was brought up Y), community reasons, or other things like fear of punishment and so on. I have one particular antagonist who says that if atheists (or similar) are so sure of their position, why do they always seem more angry than religious people. Which makes zero sense to me - I'm sure it is simply to bait me.

I would be genuinely interested though, for a religious person to join this discussion and help me understand. I'm assuming no-one has a private line to the creator or has transcended our species, so there must be another reason, other than "I felt the touch of God".

[Fist and Faith]

I have one particular antagonist who says that if atheists (or similar) are so sure of their position, why do they always seem more angry than religious people.

There are plenty on both sides who attack the other side whenever they can. I can't be bothered, myself.

[peter]

In reference to StevieG's "blind faith in a fictional being," - I don't think that many agnostics are still bound by the limitations of scriptural description, of 'not knowing about the biblical God.'

No - ours is more of a "There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your (scientific) philosophies."

I just think that the limits of the scientific method as we practice it will never be revelatory of the totality, and that it will be 'out in this beyond' that true Gnosticism will be found (perhaps when our minds are sufficiently developed to the degree that insight and revelation can encompass it). Maybe this is the 'Omega Point' of Teilhard de Chardin, and it will even require that man progress to the transhuman state in order to achieve it.

(Or perhaps a multiverse based on the 'brute rules of physics' is simply too prosaic, to dull, for me to countenance. I require perhaps fireworks where others are satisfied with equations. )

[Fist and Faith]

Equations are fireworks.

[StevieG]

Equations are fireworks.

Indeed

Everything that has already been discovered about the cosmos certainly hasn’t come about just because we might believe in something higher.

I’m interested in your position Peter. From what you have written so far it seems that you think that there must be something more, and are hoping that future generations of our species will evolve to point of understanding?

[Avatar]

There are plenty on both sides who attack the other side whenever they can. I can't be bothered, myself.

Yeah, the kind of atheist that makes atheism their religion. I may once have leaned a little toward that pole myself tbh.

I think they mainly come in 2 types...the kind who were hurt in some way by religion, and are thus angry and resentful about it, and the kind that are angry about people's "ignorance" or superstition or whatever. (That was me, a teeny little bit.)

Nowadays I a) don't have the energy, and b) recognise that religion, whatever else it is and does, can motivate (some) individuals to do good things, and thus it has its positives in individual (and even some group) expression,.

The starving man doesn't care whether you're motivated by humanitarianism or by god if you're helping to feed him.

So yeah...whatever gets you through the day, as long as you're not hurting, oppressing, discriminating against others. *shrug*

--A