Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've long considered myself to be agnostic. I don't find anything compelling about modern religion because upon close inspection its content seems entirely of this world. Nevertheless, I do tend to think there is some greater organizing principle at work in our universe. I don't know why this is the case, but I look around the world and see a great deal of organization in nature, a degree of tidiness that seems to be far beyond mere chance.
A lot of Atheists I know not only do not believe in God, but seem to take great pride in knowing that this is the case. I can't relate to this sentiment. The late Christopher Hitchens explained that his anti-thesim originated from a desire to be free from constant supervision, i.e. not being a "slave" to a celestial force. I get this is some ways, but I think all it really does is confirm the secular conception of God and its relation to us. If such an entity does exist, or some force like it, how do we know our relation to it is hierarchical in nature?
Most atheists don't make a "great leap". Atheism is a knowledge position only. Agnosticism is a belief position, specifically, that the existence of god is unknowable with certainty. Most atheists, myself included, acknowledge that deities are possible, however, I see nothing that makes me think them likely or to afford them belief.
If a deity exists, we DON'T know that our relationship to it would be hierarchical. I think Hitchens was addressing the Abrahamic god typically on offer and that was predominant in his culture.
I might say rhetorically as a former evangelical that one of the things that motivated me to rethink my beliefs was that if I continued to believe in the fundamentalist / literalist Jehovah / Jesus, I would have to be confused, angry and betrayed, and life is too short for that. So not believing sweeps away all those unrealistic expectations. However, that is just a happy benefit. How I feel about a proposed deity has no bearing on its existence.
So your decision is whether to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I recommend the latter personally.
Nevertheless, I do tend to think there is some greater organizing principle at work in our universe.
And all of it based on the Laws of Physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e130478
I don't know why this is the case, but I look around the world and see a great deal of organization in nature, a degree of tidiness that seems to be far beyond mere chance.
It only appears to be organized. Scratch the surface and you see chaos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e130478
A lot of Atheists I know not only do not believe in God, but seem to take great pride in knowing that this is the case. I can't relate to this sentiment.
It often depends on the path you take leading to the atheist position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e130478
If such an entity does exist, or some force like it, how do we know our relation to it is hierarchical in nature?
There are many hierarchies. In the Grand Scheme of things, you are merely a subset of Earth.
A lot of Atheists I know not only do not believe in God, but seem to take great pride in knowing that this is the case. I can't relate to this sentiment. The late Christopher Hitchens explained that his anti-thesim originated from a desire to be free from constant supervision, i.e. not being a "slave" to a celestial force. I get this is some ways, but I think all it really does is confirm the secular conception of God and its relation to us. If such an entity does exist, or some force like it, how do we know our relation to it is hierarchical in nature?
I have no problem at all in saying that literal readings of the abrahamic scriptures, as they pertain to who god is and what he is concerned about, are so much bull puckey. Including the hierarchical relationship.
I don't have much problem with the idea that "godhead" and "universe" are different words for the same underlying reality, and that it is literally impossible for the human mind to encompass that reality. But I prefer to use the language of science rather than the language of religion. Because the second I use the word "god", my listener assumes a whole lot of stuff about what I am talking about that I don't mean at all.
Before I completely shed my religiosity, I read a lot of eastern religious philosophy, and it clarified things greatly. For huge numbers of people in the world, the word "god" is not associated with the hierarchical concept that (so rightly) revolted Hitchens.
Zen buddhism and Vedanta hinduism are places to look if you want to follow up on this train of thought.
Plain and simple, as a child realizing the complete absurdity of the stories I was being told in sunday school, being an avid reader and looking into the origins of religion and idol worship. Logic, basically.
Man has been chastised for having the audacity to believe in himself, so he's gotta believe in something, however antiquated and nonsensical.
How do you make the non-intellectual leap to faith sounds like a better question to me. Atheism is a little step from reasonable to reality. Belief in your particular flying spaghetti monster, whichever that may be, now that requires mental gymnastics, leaping, jumping, flights of fancy.
I read voraciously from the moment I could read, and a lot of what I read was science. Granted, it was age-appropriate, at least generally, but it was still science, and squaring science and religious belief requires considerable intellectual contortions. That was enough, combined with the fact that I never received any religious input as a child - what belief I had was merely an awareness that pretty much everyone had this God-belief thing, so I was not emotionally vested in it. Also, I possessed critical thinking skills and wasn't inclined to subordinate them to obvious nonsense. No contortions for me, thanks.
I did not make a leap to atheism. Atheism is the default position. I don't see order in the world, I see lots of unnecessary variations and specialized adaptations, and exceptions to the rules. Nothing in my experience points to any sort of design or purpose to life on earth.
It wasn't a leap, it was an observation and a deduction. When it became obvious to me that the logical support for every religion is, at some point, going to crumble, I wondered, "what is its purpose?" My conclusion is that it has served, and still serves, as the default explanation for the ineffable, that which cannot be explained but can be felt. Does Mozart make you cry? Do you love your child in a way you cannot describe? Are you awestruck by a sunset, or a tornado? The feelings are real, and some people here believe that they are proof of some sort of amorphous god thing.
I disagree. It is what it is. I only feel smug to the extent that I see religion for what it is-- mythology for a time that increasingly no longer needs it. Mostly I'm angry at the still-disproportionate influence has on the country, state, and society to which I belong, and when religionists try to impose their beliefs on me and those around me, I lash back.
I think C.S. Lewis said it does take a lot of faith to be an atheist, more faith than it takes to be a Christian. In my mind, you will have to learn to ignore many things and try to unsee them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
