329 replies to this topic

[Splicer]

My own identity.

That's a good answer actually. Wearing a uniform defined by others is generally a bad idea.

-Splicer

[kismet]

Splicer, would you consider Nietzsche a biopunk?
On a good day I'm more of an agnostic, on a bad day a nihilist. However, everyday I wish there was something divine or some deeper meaning to life.

[Martinus]

I can say I am a "strong atheist" since I have my own theories on why there's no such thing God or so and what render some humans to believe there is.

"Stepping out of this" is like stating "I don't under select ess with it or get into it, I believe in nothing". Which is pretty stupid, since you should in my opinion take a side which in your case atheism and stand for it.

I also say, you can't totally yet prove or , so why in the first place start to believe in such thing?

I can answer that. I can tell why people believe in god, and my reasoning explains why there is not.

But I stand for it, I am an atheist, and I believe in no God, and I will disprove it.

I did understand you, but I think that's a weak attitude to the subject.

-Infernity

My congratulations on a superb website and forum, Infernity. I think my continuous search for like-minded individuals may be imminently over.

My main interest is in collective Humanism, a term of my own choosing, to describe a variant of Humanism that is inclusionary of like-minded Humanists, regardless of their other affiliations.

I do find secular humanism to be rather tiresome, it being an emasculated version stripped-down for a brawl with fundamentalists -- a monstrous waste of time.

Rather than atheism, could you consider yourself a Humanist if doing so meant that you affirmed members of your own species and their projects and destiny? Telling people you're an atheist is like saying you're naked under your clothes. But I digress...

I shall now return to trying to figure out how to work the wordwrap on this message..

Best regards.
Dwight.
Man.org

Edited by Martinus, 30 September 2008 - 05:46 PM.

[.fonclea.]

I am defenetly an atheist since my birth.

My mother used to tell me a story about me and her.

We were in the underground in Paris for a day. I was just a little "provincial" in the capital and was not accustomed yet tosee black people round of me. A black man sat down front of us so i decided to discuss with him to know why i was different from me. My mother fell terribly embarassed... after exploring many theories the man told me: God made me black and you white. I answered: No, me it's my mum who made me.

[HereInTheHole]

Atheist. I see no reason to believe in a god or gods or anything supernatural.

Would you be so open to allow yourself to be swayed to not believe? Or is your belief essential? Are you brave enough to live without thinking you'll continue forever or that the universe cares about you? The advantage most believers have over non-believers is that comfort. At critical times, it's no small thing to have the faith that this isn't all there is, that you're part of something larger, that something loves you no matter what, and that you'll continue on forever.

But what if your god turned his/her/its back on you? Are you strong enough to get through the tough times alone?

Edited by NarrativiumX, 06 October 2008 - 12:35 AM.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Answered "Pagan". I'm an eclectic Heathen with very strong influences from Hermeticism and Daoism.

[Natascha]

Atheist/Secular humanist. Don't know any secular humanists who are not atheists/agnostics anyways =\

[Connor MacLeod]

Are you brave enough to live without thinking you'll continue forever or that the universe cares about you?

Other than possible bragging rights and perhaps getting dates with nihilistic goth chicks, I can't see why this matters one way or the other.

http://www.google.co...i...tic&spell=1

The advantage most believers have over non-believers is that comfort. At critical times, it's no small thing to have the faith that this isn't all there is, that you're part of something larger, that something loves you no matter what, and that you'll continue on forever.

If it offers a significant advantage then why not embrace it? I suspect any reasonably intelligent person should be able to devise a belief system or adapt an existing one, that simultaneously allows him to tap into this reservoir of comfort, while at the same time benefiting from the latest advances in science and technology.

[yipe]

I chose other, and by other, I mean bits of all but really none. Perhaps it would be better to just say that I'm very inconsistent

[imarobot]

The agnostic attitude seems odd to me. Agnostics are typically partial agnostics: open only to the religion which they experienced as a child.

But why limit the suspension of disbelief to just a particular religion? Why not suspend your disbelief towards all similar claims? If I drop my cell phone, will it fall up or down? Don't know -- leaving open the possibilities. Do leprechauns exist? Don't know -- leaving open the possibility. Does the Earth sit on the back of a giant turtle? Don't know -- leaving open the possibility. The guiding principle (open before proof) behind common agnosticism is silly when applied uniformly. But what kind of guiding principle is it when it's not applied uniformly?

Where I think it gets difficult for an agnostic is the line between disbelief and dismissal. It's like the line between prejudice and discrimination. Agnostics don't want to dismiss (discriminate), so they try to remove disbelief (prejudice).

Two of our most advanced social systems work with disbelief as the guiding principle. Science has countlessly shown that, even though science can't provide all the answers immediately, it can hone in on the answer faster and more accurately than any other system (such as religion). The judicial system in modern societies also works from the scientific "don't just claim it, prove it" principle.

Both systems will listen to all claims, but if you're not forthcoming with the proof, you're not going to be believed ("I can too fly like Superman!"). And if you make too many unproven claims, you will rightly be dismissed.

These systems evolved because of -- not in spite of -- spurious claims. There had to be some criteria to separate the fact from the fiction to be effective. Agnostics could do well to learn from that.

Edited by imarobot, 02 January 2009 - 06:03 PM.

[mattbrowne]

I think there are 5 categories

1) Dogmatic religion
2) Non-dogmatic religion
3) Agnosticism
4) Non-dogmatic atheism
5) Dogmatic atheism

based on the following views respectively

1) "It is a fact that God exists"
2) "I believe that God exists"
3) "I don't know if God exists or not"
4) "I believe that God doesn't exist"
5) "It is a fact that God doesn't exist"

I'm a non-dogmatic Christian who believes in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I also believe in enlightenment and scientific method. Here's my view on the bible:

Reading the bible requires reading skills. Understanding the bible requires intellect. The bible was written more than 1900 years ago. It

1) offers social guidance
2) addresses ethical questions and offers advice
3) records historical events
4) documents myths inspired by oral traditions
5) contains poetry revolving around the marvels of the world
6) uses many metaphors and symbols
7) tries to answer fundamental 'why questions', explaining the world based on the knowledge available at the time
8) contains some statements that we must reject today
9) describes rituals which help humans to strengthen the bonds between social groups

Matt Browne
IT professional and part-time science fiction writer.
My website is at http://www.meet-matt-browne.com
My motto is "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
(quote from Eleanor Roosevelt)

[RLvB]

My motto is "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
(quote from Eleanor Roosevelt)

Wise minds don't judge other minds.

[mattbrowne]

My motto is "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
(quote from Eleanor Roosevelt)

Wise minds don't judge other minds.

What are you trying to tell me?

[Taelr]

I prefer to avoid accepting a label in this arena since it otherwise allows those to use their often very pre-conceived perceptions of those labels and apply them to me. The label atheist is seen by many religionists as someone who is evil, immoral, etc. There is also much confusion as to whether atheist means a belief that a god or gods do not exist, or simply a disbelief in their existence. The distinction is important since the disbelief in a proposition is not the same as a belief that the proposition is false.

The Agnosticism concept presents other issues since Gnosticism and agnosticism are perspectives of epistemology whereas atheism and theism are perspectives with regard to theology. This can give rise to atheist agnostics and agnostic theists. Most will find that very confusing.

In common vernacular agnostic has come to mean one who does not choose between theism and atheism, supposedly leaving the option open. More precisely atheism simply means without belief in theism. It follows that everyone must be either be theist or atheist, i.e. if one is not convinced there is a god then they are by default atheist. Unfortunately many would prefer not to accept the label of atheist, since as I pointed out earlier it carries with it unfortunate pre-conceived perceptions.

So when asked, I simply say I do not find any theist argument convincing. This is not to say I am not open to the potential existence of a god, but have simply not seen any argument that demonstrates that one could be possible.

Given the lack of convincing arguments it is then rational to proceed in life assuming there are no such entities, until such time, if ever, such an argument appears.

[thisismadness]

I voted Buddhist because they have the most rational religion, eg God is everything. This makes sense logically, and ascribes to God all the qualities of the universe (in a physical scientific sense), while putting us all in the position of co-creators. Of course, co-creator is an illusion because we are all one (energy continuum, common source, does not contradict BigBang theory) As a result, all we have to do to experience Godhood is to sit still and clear our minds, duh [wacko] in other words JUST BE.

I agree on the rationality of Buddhism, adding also a note on its empiricism--its insistence that practitioners subject its truth claims to their own experience rather than accept them dogmatically (which ultimately does more harm than good). This Buddhist emphasis on empiricism resonates with scientific method (I'm thinking of the many interchanges with western scientists set up by the dalai lama).

But I respectfully disagree on the notion that 'God is everything,' which works for Spinoza but not for Buddhism, whose cutting edge is radically a-theistic. [Gods, of various sorts, are recognized, but these are not self-realized beings. There is no alliance of 'God' and 'man,' nothing about being "co-creators." Reliance on 'Him' (or plural them) can only be a hindrance and ultimate delusion. In Tibetan buddhism there are helpful spiritual presences,tied to specific places or lineages, called Rigdens, and one might wish to apply that gaseous word 'god' to them too but doing so would not demonstrate an essential linkage with theism.]

[Hagazussa]

I chose Pagan but I might as well have said other. I do practice a Pagan faith, I am also an occltist and I consider myself to be multi religious. I think different religions are just different languages to speak with the Divine. As such I might say a Christian prayer one day and do a Shinto ritual another. I think that knowing several of theese luanguages, several ways to comunicate with the Divine is beneficial for me, besides I see wisdom and beauty in every religion.

[erzebet]

i was curious what was the predominant spiritual belief of immortalists when i found this topic. i have chosen atheist. i never felt the need to have an imaginary friend not even when i feel very alone. i find no comfort in religion, i prefer to know what my senses and scientific devices "tell" me.

although i don't like that organisms die, i am better to know that once they die, they decay and that's it. this is what i have seen at corpses. i prefer to know this than to lie myself with afterlife.

i am not a dogmatic atheist as i respect anyone no matter the religion, race or sex. still there is a religion whose lifestyle i appreciate: Buddhism. this is not because i might need religion, but because i am a minimalist. i hate clutter and it is through this religion that I've learnt people can live with very little stuff. there is nothing that makes me happier than getting away with less and less stuff each day, especially when the peer pressure insists i should buy more and more!

[Qualzernoth]

I'm about as basic an Atheist as they come. I don't believe in God, but if someone was to give me concrete evidence, then I would do the intelligent, scientific thing, and test it for myself, then accept/reject it accordingly. I'm not fond of the mentality that Atheists think that they are above God or above religion. We all must learn to recognize one anothers beliefs and respect them. Half my family is Christian, and the other half is LDS. I love them all to no end, and religion simply isn't a factor. We respect and accept each others views. I am just the same toward all people. All of humanity could use this lesson to their benefit. For those who deny immortality on the basis of heaven, or fate, or whatever, Earth will be whatever heaven or hell we make of it. We are responsible for the fate of ourselves, and for the fate of our planet.

[exapted]

A tea-pot agnostic who believes that modern religion is just really specious, parasitic and life-renouncing, especially in it's basis. Society lacks resistance to it (especially where it thinks it does not).

Edited by exapted, 30 September 2009 - 08:09 AM.

[Oliver_R]

I don't see a need to die to go to my God, because my sect of Christianity teaches me that in the last days, God will return to us, and there will be a generation, presumably ours, that will not need to die to become perfected. Heaven will literally be made on earth.

Jay Fox

Actually, from my reading of church history that is what the early Christians also believed. They were no terribly interested in "dying and going to Heaven", as they thought Jesus was coming back at any moment to create a new Heaven on Earth (and resurrect those faitihful followers who had died in the meantime).

However I just mention it as I am interested in religion. Personally I'm an atheist

Edited by orlando, 30 September 2009 - 10:17 PM.

[ForeverYouthful]

I don't choose an -ism, but I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I guess my beliefs would be defined as a believer in metaphysics, that there are laws of the world yet to be fully understood by science, but 100% understandable in due time. Some would call the spiritual laws, but that term just serves to make them sound liek they aren't part of the world, when IMHO they are.

My interpretation of most religions is that they attempt to explain metaphysical principles in very metaphorical ways, because they were written for a very uneducated mass of people.

I don't personally mind if someone else is agnostic or atheist, that is their choice of course, and I used to be one as well until I tested some metaphysical principles and found that those principles have proven themselves true. Not scientifically proven, but proven to my own experimentation.

FY

[ForeverYouthful]

Accidentally chose "atheist", because I didn't really notice "other" as an option. I'd prefer to change that.

I'm not a theist, and I'm very much into science (it's my current occupation, i.e. I make money in the field) but I have experienced (and still at odd times experience) pretty weird and unexplainable things that cannot be considered mere coincidence, things I don't contribute to a higher being but now classify as some kind of bond with a global or cosmic conscience (and the power it might cause or insert in my mind).

Best explained by giving day-to-day life examples, perhaps;
I've often found myself utterly flabbergasted because I switched on a random source of music-play (a radio-station or other type of source with external control of its content) at a random time of the day, and then noticed that while I had a particular song by a particular artist clearly in my mind just minutes before I switched on that radio/tv (or other controlled-by-others music-media-source) it would play that exact song for me. All in a matter of - for example - 15 minutes time, with too uncommon factors in the entire equation to make me think "hey, that's funny, I just wrote down the title of that song, thought about it, and it gets played minutes after that!". Considering that I rarely listen to a music source that does not play what I choose it to play (i.e. isn't controlled by my input), it has totally overruled chance. It just does not compute. It can't be that a particularly rare old pop-song enters my mind, and then when I enter a supermarket somewhere this exact rare old pop-song starts playing in there. I have often tried to put this experience into words, but it still is hard to explain. I can't really qualify it as a gift, but when I was really young I sort of found out that the way I experienced it was not very common (while for me it was), and I might 'suffer' from some type of clairvoyance. Being the skeptic that I am, I wanted to be able to prove to others and myself that what I experience is not just chance or luck or coincidence. How does one do this? One really can't, because the experiences occur in an unpredictable environment and/or situation. I do have some close friends who have often noticed a strange abnormal capacity of predict-ability in what I would whistle or hum, minutes or even seconds before it would play on the car stereo and similar odd things like that. They would then look at me puzzled, suspecting me to work at the particular radiostation (because I have been employed at some in my life), but I could prove I did not. It's mostly connected to music, has been all my life. So what type of belief would that imply? What causes that? Telepathy? More direct access to a global or cosmic conscienceness?

Hi Benedictus,

You should look into metaphysics.

[Esoparagon]

Satanist

Edited by Esoparagon, 27 October 2009 - 06:49 AM.

[brokenportal]

Agnostic

[Esoparagon]

When asked the question, "Do you belive in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

from "http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=54501"

This is how I feel but couldn't be bothered to eloquently express it when someone else had already done so. Agnostic is not an answer. Weak atheist agnostic or strong atheist agnostic are. Most agnostics are really weak atheists who are strictly agnostic. I am strictly agnostic. I'm strictly agnostic on anything that is pure speculative nonsense

Unicorns, devils, flying spaghetti monsters, monsters, dragons, fairies, big foot, spider man, jedi mind powers, magical powers, the galactic tea pot that flies around our sun, psychic abilities, yetis, god, zeus, thor, gods of any kind, ghosts, spirits, heaven, hell, angels, rabbits with 10 heads, dogs with spider legs and no eyes but instead they have xray vision, xenu, Michael Jackson.

All these things full into that category.

Edited by Esoparagon, 02 November 2009 - 03:46 PM.

[brokenportal]

Nah, if we say that then we'll have to include weak theist, strong theist, strong atheist, weak atheist, atheist mix, and all kinds of things like that wont we. Straight up agnosticism isnt only an answer, it seems it may be the only real answer.

We can be willing to bet that this or that is more likely, or less likely at any given time, but those bets are constantly subject to change, until we can really truely know the answers. We may never be able to do that. But many of us hold out great hope for them in a future of extended time to search for them, and a growing, more powerfully growing box of tools with which to search and explore the universe and existence with.

[Teixeira]

When asked the question, "Do you belive in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

from "http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=54501"

This is how I feel but couldn't be bothered to eloquently express it when someone else had already done so. Agnostic is not an answer. Weak atheist agnostic or strong atheist agnostic are. Most agnostics are really weak atheists who are strictly agnostic. I am strictly agnostic. I'm strictly agnostic on anything that is pure speculative nonsense

Unicorns, devils, flying spaghetti monsters, monsters, dragons, fairies, big foot, spider man, jedi mind powers, magical powers, the galactic tea pot that flies around our sun, psychic abilities, yetis, god, zeus, thor, gods of any kind, ghosts, spirits, heaven, hell, angels, rabbits with 10 heads, dogs with spider legs and no eyes but instead they have xray vision, xenu, Michael Jackson.

All these things full into that category.

God is infinite love. The other things are other things. They got nothing to do with God!! In another topic I demonstrate the (mathematicaly) possibility of God´s existence, so, nobody can be so sure about the non-existence of God!

[warner]

1. I'm an "atheist" about god in same way that I'm an "atheist" about martians. It would be misleading to say that I'm "agnostic" about martians, even though that would be technically correct. But if someone broadens the common definition of martians to include microbes, then I'm an "agnositic" about that. (In the same way that some definitions of god are so ill-defined as to force one to be an agnostic about such speculation.)

2. I would find praying to / worshipping / subjecting myself to an imagined powerful male patriarch to be repulsive and demeaning. The fact that people so readily do this says a lot about what kind of chimps we are, but little about whether such a god exists.

3. Slapping a "god" at the start of an otherwise physical line of causation adds nothing to one's knowledge of the universe. It is equivlalent to creating an imaginary friend, which will quickly lose its effect if one is forced to answer too many questions about such a friend.

4. The fact that so many people bend over backwards to deny being an "atheist" (vs. "agnositic", "other", etc.), even though they're everyday actions are devoid of any reference to god (or martians), says something about how hard it is for humans to be objective (scientific), how easily influenced we all are by the opinions of others, and what lengths we'll all go to to "fit in". (It would be like arguing that I'm Catholic because I do think that anything's possible, and one possibility is some abstract form of god, and lot's of Catholics don't really believe in much more than that, so I could be Catholic too, especially when I'm with a lot of other Catholics who would like to think that I'm a Catholic.)

[Forever21]

I am an Atheist.

[brokenportal]

1. I'm an "atheist" about god in same way that I'm an "atheist" about martians. It would be misleading to say that I'm "agnostic" about martians, even though that would be technically correct. But if someone broadens the common definition of martians to include microbes, then I'm an "agnositic" about that. (In the same way that some definitions of god are so ill-defined as to force one to be an agnostic about such speculation.)

Martians are absolutely 100% with out a doubt probable, possible, something to look for in this universe. We are a tiny, microscopic pin head of light here in the scheme of things, in this seemingly infinite sea of mystery. It seems we havent even begun to scratch the surface of what it means to exist yet. There is so much we dont know, havent seen, havent had the ability to test out, work with, think about, try out, experience yet.

You might be right, I understand what your saying, and maybe Im looking at this wrong, but from what I can see Im agnostic to the core. Im reminded of what Socrates said, "All that I know is nothing, and Im not even sure of that."

2. I would find praying to / worshipping / subjecting myself to an imagined powerful male patriarch to be repulsive and demeaning. The fact that people so readily do this says a lot about what kind of chimps we are, but little about whether such a god exists.

Well, I agree with the premise of this sentiment to many degrees. I think that it speaks to an almost utter lack of the permeation of critical thinking in societies around the world. If I werent so wrapped up in working with life extension I think I might be taking on that mission, working to petition for more critical thinking classes in elementary and high schools. Once I get time I am going to try to work it in to this cause, unless somebody else does first.

3. Slapping a "god" at the start of an otherwise physical line of causation adds nothing to one's knowledge of the universe. It is equivlalent to creating an imaginary friend, which will quickly lose its effect if one is forced to answer too many questions about such a friend.

Ya I think that too, unless they know there is a god Im not sure that they should act as though there is. Acting as though there may be one, fine yes, but anything beyond that seems destructive to rational thought to me, and rational thought is a cornerstone of everything that is good and constructive.

4. The fact that so many people bend over backwards to deny being an "atheist" (vs. "agnositic", "other", etc.), even though they're everyday actions are devoid of any reference to god (or martians), says something about how hard it is for humans to be objective (scientific), how easily influenced we all are by the opinions of others, and what lengths we'll all go to to "fit in". (It would be like arguing that I'm Catholic because I do think that anything's possible, and one possibility is some abstract form of god, and lot's of Catholics don't really believe in much more than that, so I could be Catholic too, especially when I'm with a lot of other Catholics who would like to think that I'm a Catholic.)

Being agnostic doesnt imply that we beleive in all the things we are open to. Im agnostic, but Im not a catholic. My every day actions, and Im sure many other agnostics too, directly reference, are directly related to things like martians, and the possibility of god, etc.. Thats why many of us fight for life, so we can have more of a chance to see what is illuminated as our speck of light in this sea of darkness continues to expand. I fight for life because I want the greatest chance I can get to try to know these things:

- the nature of infinity
- if there is a god, gods, no god, or something else
- how we got here
- how the universe got here
- what all else is out there like hover ability, light speed, aliens, populated galaxies, dimensions or whatever there may be.
- to know the all forms and extents of all pleasures current and undiscovered.
- to fulfill all goals that time brings you to want, restaurant owner, pro football, climbing mountains etc..
- universal elimination of fallacy (which causes a bunch of things, philosophy to work its self out, the best good for all etc..)