329 replies to this topic

[DJS]

rgvandewalker: I'm a christian, and I'm also mildly certified as a philosopher- (I have a B.A. in it). 

The fundamental assumption of science is occam's razor, that is, let the available facts determine the best current theory.

Actually, Ocs razor is the scientific principle by which the simplest solution to a problem is assumed correct, unless evidence is produced which supports a more complex solution. Can you produce such evidence, or do you resort to calls for faith? As a materialist I have an aversion to sky hooks...

Science as such doesn't guide one about where to seek relevant facts.

I strongly disagree with you on this point, but let's see where you go with your supporting argument...

By an accidental lack of exposure to the right facts, a scientist using the above methods to build an ethical system (for personal use)can easily make some very wrong life decisions.

The same can be said of theologians and their interpretations of religious texts. When it comes to ontology there is no such thing as 100% certainty. Human error is by no means confined to science. In fact, the scientific method acts as a safe guard against many of the logical fallacies that humans being tend to make.

That is, science is good for finding explanations, but it can easily go very wrong for running an operation that has to fail safe, such as an immortalist life.

A statement of opinion.

Engineers don't do this (I'm also an engineer, B.S. computer science).  We use theory as a starting point, but no system goes into service without documented historical experience with it, from testing and industry standards.

great...relevance?

In human ethics, such experiments have to span several human generations to be meaningful.  That is, if we care about how our children turn out.

I encourage all you atheists and rational materialists to examine the real historical bases and personal outcomes of religions, which are in large part "industry standards" for ethical systems.

So stick with what works, right? Wrong. There are numerous flaws in the tapesty known as the Judeo-Christian ethic. This is largely the result of this ethical systems memetic evolutionary origins and the blind developmental process which was utilized in creating it. Within modern society in particular, religious tenets have consistently stood in the way of progress. Frankly, they have out grown their usefulness, and your complacency in accepting their legitimacy is disheartening.

It is my contention that a system of ethics based on evolutionary theory and naturalism would be much more effective in creating a greater level of social cohesion and societal progress. Antiquated ethical systems such as Christianity should be relegated to a kind of "memetic preserve", where we can marvel at the beautiful design of the system, all the while understanding it to be a fallacy which has been replaced by a superior way of looking at the world.

"It is time for humanity to grow up." -- Daniel Dennett

Your place value on utility (which I think is misplaced), but what about truth? Is the truth of our reality as important, if not more important, than social cohesion??

My personal experience, backed by a lot of reading of biographies and interviews is that most religions are utter bunkum, and a few of them have very careful, well-documented historical support, backed up by millions of happy human lives lived in a wide range of circumstances, including the most complex civilizations ever.

Actually, I think a great deal of the technological and social progress that has arisen within modern "complex" civilizations is not a result of religion, but science. Second, you make religion sound like McDonald's... 99 billion served. What about all of the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion? Or is this just an inconvenience for you?

That is, be conservative. You'll live longer.

I don't want to live longer, I want to live forever.

I admit that I'm a late adopter.  I just bought my first Palm, and I still run Win '98.

How about evolutionary theory? Have you bought it yet, or are you still satisfied with the older version?

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Clifford, I understand what you're saying.. but digits are theoretical points artificially derived by humans to explain a fuzzy universe.

An amazing thing about mathematical principles is their omnipresence. No matter where you calculate the square root of two, the result will be exactly the same. Phyiscal processes are truly fuzzy but fundamental numerical relationships are immutable and omnipresent.

[Bruce Klein]

Sure, it's realy cool how humans have found repeatables in mathematics.. but this omnipresence of numerical relationships does not imply some outside divined force.

I suspect the universe is more mundane than most seem to give credit.

[ex_banana_eater]

Objectivist (which is also atheistic).

Objectivists believe reality exists and is knowable through reason. They believe life is the standard of man's ethical values, therefore that which is in his self interest is a virtue. That the political system consonant with reason is freedom, and thus laissez-faire capitalism. Art is viewed as a selective recreation of ideas.

The philosophy is Objective because it is a philosophy for man qua man. This recognizes man has a specific nature--his ability to reason--which is his only method of survival.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

[automorphist]

I am an atheist.

I wont go into a detail defination of my opinion here since others have done it already (see Sophianic's posts near the begining of this thread, as far as I can tell from everything he or she has written on this here, our views are very similar).


Personally, I find it hard to understand why individuals who define themselves as Christians (or other similar mythologies) are on this forum in the first place. Christianity is all about death. Only after you die do you experience "eternal life". Physical immortality, the kind this website is concerned with, from a Christian viewpoint would only serve to keep you apart from god.


James

[jaydfox]

Personally, I find it hard to understand why individuals who define themselves as Christians (or other similar mythologies) are on this forum in the first place. Christianity is all about death. Only after you die do you experience "eternal life". Physical immortality, the kind this website is concerned with, from a Christian viewpoint would only serve to keep you apart from god.

For the vast majority of Christians, I would agree. However, the Christians who have, (whether by "fate" or mere coincidence), found their way to this forum, are not like the vast majority of Christians.

I myself am ashamed of the way most fundamentalist Christians view the world and "moral" issues such as stem cell research (though at some level I at least admire their willingness to stick to principles; the ones that aren't being hypocritical, anyway. *cough* Bush *cough*). On the other hand, the majority of people in the U.S. who call themselves Christians don't exercise any serious level of faith, and it is more of a cultural backdrop for them.

For myself, my particular "sect" of Christianity actually meshes well with the goals of this website, and indeed the entire anti-aging/transhumanist movement. I believe that Man's destiny is to become immortal (truly immortal, as in unable to die, not just unaging) in our *physical* bodies, not just in spirit. In the Resurrection, those who have already died will be given perfected, immortal physical bodies. Those still alive after Christ's return will simply have their current bodies perfected at some point during the Millenium.

The earth itself will be reformed into a glorious, perfect world. Each and every one of us (okay, the faithful and repentant sinners; we can argue the merits of that elsewhere) will have the power at our disposal to create new worlds, new life, and even new sentient life (for the remaining souls who have yet to live).

And all of this will happen during the Millenium, the approximately one thousand years after Christ's return (an event I associate closely with the Singularity, though I'm not sure why). Given the exponential (or doubly exponential according to people like Ray Kurzweil) growth of technology, a full millenium should be ample time to literally bring to pass all that Christianity (as I know it) promises.

I have embellished the language a little to tie my religion into the transhumanist movement, but the elements are clearly there. We *know* that we will someday conquer aging, and we *know* that nanotechnology will allow us to prevent a lot of accidental deaths (see the work of Robert Freitas). Much more will be available in the next thousand years, preventing basically all forms of death but the most drastic (being blown up in an antimatter storage container breach comes to mind). The ability to upload our minds at the very last microsecond and be restored to a physical body later may even make these most drastic forms of death mostly avoidable.

As for the earth being "perfected" and made glorious, nanotechnology will give us a good start. Pollution cleanup, whether through nanobots or genetically engineered bacteria, will help. Climate manipulation will provide a further help. I suspect this will only be the beginning of how we "perfect" the earth.

As for the power to create worlds and life? Well, I think everyone here suspects we'll have that technology within the next few millenia. I know I do. Will we have in just one millenium? Well, faith tells me yes.

Finally, what about those who have already died? How will they achieve immortality? Until aging and death are cured, cryonics will allow people who "die" today to be saved tomorrow.

But that still leaves those who died without access to cryonics. What of them? We don't know yet, though we could speculate. We may not ever be able to "travel" to the past (or do anything else that might create a time paradox), but that's not to say that we won't ever be able to "see" the past. If we could "see" the past at atomic/quantum resolution, we could literally "upload" someone's dying mind into the present (our future, of course), and put them in an immortal body. This ability to "see" the past would also mesh well with the popular Christian meme that all are sins will one day be revealed, that our lives will be as an open book.

Getting back to the dead, perhaps "souls" really do exist beyond death (see Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy), and we'll find a way to reclaim them from death.

The only issue that I have trouble resolving is the Second Coming of Christ. I'm not saying that I don't believe, merely that I don't know and cannot speculate on how that would happen. However, that's where "faith" comes in. I associate that event with the Singularity, not because I foresee Christ the Man himself returning, but because of the societal chaos that could ensue given the right political and "coincidental" environmental factors (disasters of "Biblical proportion").

I compare my faith to the faith of Evolutionists from a century ago, who had to have faith that Evolution is true. They didn't have nearly the scientific support and explanations that we have today, but that didn't stop them from pursuing the theory. In their minds, perhaps, they believed they were pursuing science, but given how very poorly they understood how Evolution truly works (not that we know for sure either, but we're certainly much better off today), their perserverance can be easily attributed to faith. However, they turned their faith into knowledge through the scientific method, and today, I suspect that Evolution is far less of a "religion" than it once was, and far more of a "science".

Perhaps the same will happen with Christianity. Perhaps not. At any rate, 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

[automorphist]

I compare my faith to the faith of Evolutionists from a century ago, who had to have faith that Evolution is true.

Actually, you may want to pick up a copy of a little know book called “The Origin of Species”. It may not be as refined as what evolutionary biologists have published recently and supported with modern technologies like DNA evidence, but the facts were there 150 years ago… No faith required.

However, [the evolutionists from last century] turned their faith into knowledge through the scientific method…

No, Darwin had a theory he developed though observation and testing, not revelation.

…the majority of people in the U.S. who call themselves Christians don't exercise any serious level of faith, and it is more of a cultural backdrop for them

You *may* be right on this, however if many Christians don’t exercise any serious faith, what keeps/makes them Christian? Fear of death probably. It is unfortunate that they do not seriously question the premises they base their, and the lives of their loved ones on.

We *know* that we will someday conquer aging, and we *know* that nanotechnology will allow us to prevent a lot of accidental deaths…

NO, we do not. It is possible that these things will occur, and many individuals here are undoubtedly hopeful (and a few actively working towards it), however, any number of horrible things could conspire to wipe out humanity or civilization before hand. I worry about those who create protectors in their mind; imaginary friends who will protect them from an uncaring, random, and hostile world. Such beliefs often work to undercut real action. For example, why go through the heavy expenses and hassles of cryonics if you will just be resurrected anyway? There is no logical reason to do so. Nor is there any reason to support others’ desired to do so. At worst it shows you lack faith. It shows that you doubt this all-power voyeur than can see your every thought

A philosophy such as this will likely kill you. Prayer and a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. If you want your immortality, you will have to work for it, god will not help you. He died long ago, when the first human decided not to fear the world around him, but instead seek to understand and control it.

[jaydfox]

Actually, you may want to pick up a copy of a little know book called “The Origin of Species”. It may not be as refined as what evolutionary biologists have published recently and supported with modern technologies like DNA evidence, but the facts were there 150 years ago… No faith required.

By and large, the evolutionists drew MANY wrong conclusions. They didn't understand it properly. But they had a good idea. It *made sense*. But it was not by any means scientifically proven, and many holes in the originals "facts" have been found. Nevertheless, they persevered. They knew that, *conceptually*, the theory was correct, even if they could not explain in detail why is was correct. The portions they could not explain, they left to "faith". Call it what you want. Say they simply presumed that in light of the few facts they had, if A led to B, and C led to D, and we know that A leads to D, then B probably leads to C. They made assumptions, and had faith in them. At some level, this is true in anything scientific. However, when trying to debunk the religions of their time, and address the issue of Creation itself, only an idiot could claim nothing more than mere assumption: faith was required, however nobly they may have tried to avoid it.

I'm not saying their faith was of the deeply religious nature that drives the zealots you pity today. But the jump from Natural Selection to Evolution is a *huge* one, as it makes assumptions about what is biologically *possible* that we could not know then, and which we are only beginning to understand now.

In essence, Intelligent Design, as its proponents would set forth today, was as likely a scenario given the knowledge we had 150 years ago, yet they chose not to believe it. They chose instead to go with the purely stochastic process of "Darwinian Evolution". While to them, the choice may have been between Creation via the Bible, or Evolution, there were certainly alternatives, even *scientific* alternatives, which they discounted.

Make no mistake, faith operated, whether they were consciously aware of it or not. Having been one myself who admantly supported Darwinian Evolution, I know how ingrained that mindset is, and how one can turn a few facts into far more than they are at face value. We "reason" additional facts and assumptions into existence, and use those to create "science".

Consider for a moment the theory of panspermia. A ludicrous idea only decades ago, it is now becoming more and more popular. But at first glance, the theory is ridiculous. Mathematically, the odds of such an event occuring are astronomically low. Once set forward, the theory and the math behind it have been debunked time and again. A good scientist would have given up, and chalked up it as another good idea that doesn't work.

But those who support it have turned "religious" in their zealousness. They *want* to believe that it is true, and they continue to find new ways to answer their critics' objections. New objections are raised, and they go back to the drawing board, and find more evidence to support their theory.

We don't know yet whether Panspermia is true. But it is much like Evolution of Darwin's day. Too many holes to be taken seriously, and yet in the minds of many, that doesn't matter. They have faith that the holes will be filled, that they will find the keys to fix the problems, and to finally demonstrate that their theory is highly plausible.

Theories related to creation (and we could lump certain theories in modern physics in this category as well) have this effect on people. It's more than just scientific curiosity. It goes to the core of what it is to be human. And we apply "scientific belief", or *faith*, beyond the point we would normally give up and wait for more evidence.

True science is currently bearing out that Evolution is indeed true, but that statement could not by any means be made back then, no more than the theory of phlogiston. Who knows if Panspermia will ever be accepted?

Deep down, faith and mere belief are hard to distinguish. But on issues that define origin/creation (of the species, of the worlds, of the universe itself), I doubt there are many people alive who can in all honesty claim that they are being purely scientific with their belief, thus justifying the statement that they have not faith. To say this implies that they have never themselves wondered what their origins are. To say this implies that they are not entirely human, for the desire to know "why" makes us who we are. Everyone, at some point in their life, even if only once, stops and questions why. Those who don't are merely robots in human shells.

At another level, this explains how some get stuck in the sad state of religious blindness: they start with that human characteristic, the desire to know why, and they latch onto something that either makes sense, or is familiar to them. I for one have learned to keep a somewhat more open mind, having moved from Atheism to Agnosticism to Christianity to my current state, a blend of Transhumanism and Christianity, which leans ever more to the former with each passing week. But I have had experiences which hold me to Christianity, so that I do not see myself losing it any time soon. Logically, I realize that if presented with enough overwhelming evidence of its falsehood, I should give up Christianty. However, experiences in my life make me firmly believe it now, to the point that I hope against reason that my faith should never falter. This is the difficult state which I suspect some people are in: the conflict between reason and experience. The prophet who truly believes he's had a vision (though it could have been a hallucination) will keep his faith against reason. I'm not a prophet. Nonetheless, my faith is based on more than just belief in scripture!

Jay Fox

[Kalepha]

Jay, I disagree with the generalization that few scientists are true scientists. In the true scientist (or philosopher) there is no element of faith. There are merely theories and principles awaiting falsification and challenge in an ongoing process, which, on a social scale, translates into an intersubjective ethics rather than a dogmatic framework. It’s fine that fortunate people like you have experiences easing the leap of faith, but this often leads to delusional certainties, where there aren’t any, and the assumption that human minds are fully competent in modeling reality.

Perhaps some Christian morality at the micro level increases effectiveness at that particular level, but it becomes a problem when those mores begin to show their true colors in an ethics, something that no one has to fear from the true scientist or philosopher. You were doing just fine at agnosticism, in my opinion!

[jaydfox]

In the true scientist (or philosopher) there is no element of faith. There are merely theories and principles awaiting falsification and challenge in an ongoing process, which, on a social scale, translates into an intersubjective ethics rather than a dogmatic framework.

In most areas of science, I agree that it is possible to remain "impartial" for the most part, and to let the facts speak for themselves. I contend that this was not the case with Evolution in the beginning, nor is it today the case with most who "believe" in it.

That's not to say that one could not be without faith in accepting it, but to do so, unless you happen to have a PhD or three in evolutionary studies, would require you to by definition be highly skeptical of it. I suspect that most people who agree with Evolution accept it as "fact", and therein lies their faith. They have no problem being skeptical of other religions which cannot be adequately disproved, yet they become ardent apologists for Evolution.

[Kalepha]

Ah, okay—I didn’t know you were implying that few people are true scientists as opposed to few scientists are true scientists.

[automorphist]

By and large, the evolutionists drew MANY wrong conclusions.

Like what? Darwin amassed a huge body of evidence as to the function and method of evolution by natural selection using very sound science.

Make no mistake, faith operated, whether they were consciously aware of it or not. Having been one myself who admantly supported Darwinian Evolution, I know how ingrained that mindset is, and how one can turn a few facts into far more than they are at face value. We "reason" additional facts and assumptions into existence, and use those to create "science".

What “additional facts” did Darwin and company “reason” into existence?

Everyone, at some point in their life, even if only once, stops and questions why. Those who don't are merely robots in human shells.

Ah, here you are arguing my point.
Faith requires you do not question why. Faith is acceptance and belief in something simply because you want to believe it is true (or have been told to by an authority). It has nothing to do with actually finding out the truth. In fact, it obscures it. Faith destroys knowledge by undermining the very process one would need to use find and verify the truth of a proposition. Arguably faith is the single most destructive meme ever to exist.

[fueki]

They have no problem being skeptical of other religions which cannot be adequately disproved, yet they become ardent apologists for Evolution.

How could u "adequately disprove" Evolution? Go ahead please..

[thekingsfool]

i choose agnostic, simply because i am more agnostic than anything else... after all... but i am not fond of "labels".
"labels" are flawed (in many ways... most of which i won't get into here). they don't cover a wide enough range to necessarily encompass all of those they are meant to describe.
i also... have troubles with, not only organized religion, but also atheists, because they do not acknowledge that the other's (for atheists: orginized religion; for organized religion: atheists) veiws could possibly be true (for the most part, although that is not necessarily true of all of either "party"). they often both stand firm in their beliefs and are blind to the perfectly valid points that the other side may have to offer (granted that most certainly does not go for all of either, but quite a few -sadly- do fall into that very broad description).

[DJS]

Its funny, because I also consider myself an agnostic, but for what I believe are different reasons.

Initially I was an agnostic, then I went briefly over to being an atheist, and then I went back to being an agnostic. However, I am not an agnostic in the sense that I believe there is the possibility of a traditional God or Gods existing. When it comes to Christianity, Islam, etc. I am an atheist. What makes me an agnostic is my positions on more abstract cosmological issues.

[susmariosep]

I had been brought up Vatican Roman Catholic from cradle to college. But now I consider myself a postgraduate Catholic.

I can consider myself also an academic atheist, agnostic, secularist, infidel, whatever.

At present I attend Sunday worship in a neighborhood Protestant free evangelical church where I exercise my sense of religion.

In other words, I maintain an open mind, but I still harbor all the good souvenirs of the Catholic faith where I was born into and grew up in, and studied in all the years of my scholastic years.

Susma aka Pachomius2000

[DJS]

Wow, I've read quite a few of your posts and I really DON'T get you, dude. [huh]

Do you mean that you go to church for the sense of community?

[DJS]

Okay, let me put it like this: Do you, Susma, believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, the virgin birth, the twelve apostles, etc etc? And I mean really believe, not just an academic interest. Second, if you do not have an actual belief in the tenets of Christianity, then doesn't attending church services make you feel uncomfortable, out of place, etc etc.

[susmariosep]

Wow]

Do you mean that you go to church for the sense of community?

Thanks for the compliment of reading my posts and interacting with me about my self-description.

Would you believe I pray to God, and Jesus, and Mary, and everyone who can help from above, or that it's seems better to pray than not to.

What do you think about that? philosophy, religion, or superstition.

Let's go to the thread I am going to start, about philosophy, religion, and superstition, from the standpoint of one claiming to exercise free independent thought.

See you there.

Yes, I go to church to worship God, and of course for social contacts, and what you might call fellowship with people. It's a good habit, so why give it up? Good all around, socially, psychologically, and materially, for me. So, why not?


Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

[susmariosep]

I just voted myself as Christian, because that is the religion I know most of and relate best with, and live comfortably with, and am optimally accustomed to.

And I also would like to click secular humanist, and atheist, and agnostic, and other whatever good for the advancement of peace and goodwill in mankind, and satisfactory or satisfying to myself.

If you think this is being funny or ridiculous, then think more and you will agree with me, namely, since religion is free and guaranteed protection in our society, the westernized modern democratic community of today, then better get as much of it as is good for yourself and for your family, home, and your neighborhood.


Susma

[susmariosep]

Okay]believe[/i], not just an academic interest.  Second, if you do not have an actual belief in the tenets of Christianity, then doesn't attending church services make you feel uncomfortable, out of place, etc etc.

What is it to believe? Does it mean I have to kill or get killed for my beliefs, or submit my lifestyle and my intelligence and free determination to the dictates of my beliefs, or to people who are supposedly in charge of my beliefs, as regards what they are and how they are to be understood.

No, I don't think that I have such an idea of belief.

I will get back to you, later. My better half is calling me to dinner, and to wash dishes afterwards.

But you will be surprised, I am one believer that can get along with my faith without compromising my free thought and free will, and still feel that God is all right with me, or that if He exists He does not have to interact with me like an idol of an uncompromising robot, but just like an intelligent and practical chap, the way I imagine myself to be and want to live so in that manner, of being an intelligent, free, and practical chap.

Susma aka Pachomius

[susmariosep]

Okay, let me put it like this: Do you, Susma, believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, the virgin birth, the twelve apostles, etc etc? And I mean really believe, not just an academic interest. Second, if you do not have an actual belief in the tenets of Christianity, then doesn't attending church services make you feel uncomfortable, out of place, etc etc.

Do you, Susma, believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, the virgin birth, the twelve apostles, etc etc? And I mean really believe, not just an academic interest.

Certainly, I don't have any problems believing in them, because they are beliefs, aren't they? You can do it also; it's very simple. It does not require me to jump in the lake, does it? Will it require you to jump in the lake?


OK, let's do it this way, you tell me what my beliefs are supposed to lead me to do outside my mind.



Second, if you do not have an actual belief in the tenets of Christianity, then doesn't attending church services make you feel uncomfortable, out of place, etc etc.

Not at all, because it's all acting, only the acting here is more solemn and more sober and more sombre. I happen to know that all life's stage, and all the men and women players. No, I don't say "mere", but players yes. So is citizenship, so also the presidency, and marriage, family, and a job, or making a living with one's wits and resources.

Only in life there are many acts and plays you just can't or don't walk out of, in the context of society and civilization, unlike the play in a an amusement theater stage. If you don't like the role assigned to you or you don't need it, you just walk out and nothing will happen to you, except maybe you might miss some extra income from acting on an amusement theater stage.

Now, in a Sunday service, if you don't like the service or the sermon or the length of the service, owing to so many additional numbers like special guests who have to given time and a captive audience, you can also inconspicuously leave, maybe pretending to visit the bathroom, but in fact not returning but going home or wherever you have to go after the worship service on a Sunday.

As a matter of act, it is even more satisfactory to go to church service on a Sunday, than to the country club. Much less strenuous, easier on your pocketbook, and more humanizing and socially plus psychologically uplifting than the tiresome and expensive act in the country club.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Insofar as beliefs go and actions or behaviors consequential upon beliefs, can they be rational in any sense of rationality, namely the beliefs themselves, or which kinds of beliefs; and also in the consequential behaviors how they can be rational?

Maybe the question briefly is can there be a rational religion, and do we have any, and should we fashion one?

Or is religion by its intrinsic character all pure superstition?

That is why I started a thread on philosophy, religion, and superstition.

People interested, please proceed to that thread, also in this section, religion.

Susma aka Pachomius

[chubtoad]

Perhaps the term nonreligious might be a simpler and more direct title that atheist because
1. an atheist could still believe in things like an afterlife or devil but most atheists here certainly don't believe in such things
2. the word atheism has negative connotations, for example definition 2 for atheism on dictionary.com " Godlessness; immorality. "
3. the term athiest is somewhat ambiguous (strong and weak atheism etc.)

[ocsrazor]

Chubtoad, I think agnostic is more appropriate than nonreligious, because its literal meaning is "one who does not know". The avoidance of dogma is the stongest intellectual position possible.

[susmariosep]

Chubtoad, I think agnostic is more appropriate than nonreligious, because its literal meaning is "one who does not know". The avoidance of dogma is the stongest intellectual position possible.

Volumes and volumes have been written about agnosticism and atheism by students of these two systems of thought, and also by agnostics and atheists themselves, which often are the same peoples: the students and the protagonists.

One thing that I seem to miss about agnositicsm and atheism in writings by others and by themselves, namely, an examination of their emotional evolution toward agnosticism or atheism, from where they used to be previously. And I am sure most of them came from religious backgrounds at least in their family milieu.

Because if they did not come from such a background, they would not know anything in respect of agnosticism or atheism, to themselves worth talking about and/or motivating enough for them to talk about.

Let's consider the person who has no life contact whatsoever with any religion recognizing some one deity or several such similar or analogous beings, will you ever find him in any kind of interest to read about atheism and agnosticism, or to explain or to expound or to even take the casual trouble to defend atheism or agnosticism?

If they have to pass a college course on philosophy and specially comparative religion, they certainly have to read up on agnosticism and atheism, for no other reasons than to be able to answer acceptably to examination questions testing their information of these two topics.

Now, are there such people who never have any contact with any religion where a #1 deity is recognized or several, so that they can describe to us their emotional journey from their previous world of some positive religious intimation to one of negative attitude or disavowal against the knowledge of so-called God, agnosticism, or even the existence of God, atheism?

In my association with fellow humans, I would say: no and yes.

No, because in the world as we have it today, there is religion everywhere even among the most ignorant and benighted backward peoples; yes, because there are people who have lived generations without religion in their lives that for practical purposes religion and God or gods or hell or heaven or Nirvana or prayer or meditation don't count nothing for them.

The only reason why they might read up on agnosticism and atheism is to pass any kind of screening like an academic, as I said, examination for any school credits, or to show people they have to influence favorably in their own regard, that they do possess the elements of general knowledge.

These latters are the kind of people who will not concern themselves in any minimal degree with agnosticim or atheism: not in a positive, and not in a negative respect either; they are simply indifferent about them and would not care less to talk or even listen to any discussion about them.

These are the people who will never ever evolve emotionally into agnosticism or atheism.

But the first kind of people, the ones who have some exposure to religion from their very family origin, they are the ones who can develop and certainly always in an emotional way from some religious adherence, even on plainly community cultural assuetude or purely ethnic connection, into agnosticism or atheism; and will talk in exposition of the rational basis for agnositicism and/or atheism, and again also emotionally.

And that is one subject I like to see, the emotional evolution of the agnostic or atheist.

Susma

[Infernity]

I have chosen 'Atheist', I totaly do not belive in god.
"God" is just a simple (mendacious) way to face the fact that there are some phenomena that don't have an immediate explanation, that belief grew long time ago when techonolgy wasn't ripe enough to figure out theses unexplainable things of these days. Those beliefs are primitive and ancient; Sadly, some people don't see that, they are stick to that antique thought.
I belive that we are the gods of ourselves- with time and technology development, we shall be able to do everything! (NOTHING is for sure, but EVERYTHING is possible!)
The hard shall be done today, and the impossible shall be done tomorrow... that's one of the things I've managed to learn in my 14 years of life, it seems to be true.

~Infernity

[lemon]

I'm atheist which says absolutely nothing about me except a lack of theistic belief. Being atheist does not equate to a positive assertion "god(s) do not exist" (although "strong" atheists do exist that *do* make the assertion). I can not prove a negative. Just like I can not prove, for a fact, invisible pink unicorns do not exist anywhere in the universe.

Furthmore, agnosticism is a subset of atheism so is any form of supernatural belief that does not include a theistic construct (for example, some forms of Buddism). I do not subscribe to any organization that attempt to pin anything to atheism except simply, "without theism".

Atheists as a group are the most un-cohesive group with a label (a stigma we face which is why the term "secular humanist" is used and why atheistic organizations attempt to place positive assertions to the term.

In closing, my being an atheist is a non issue. Much like saying I'm a-IPU-ist (A-Invisible Pink Unicorn-ist). [thumb]

[amar]

I'm a Paradoxian. I believe in all things and don't believe in anything simultaneously. I believe in existence and I believe in the void. I'm a heretic, atheist Christian Islamist, a closed minded Ba'hai, and a harmonious Discordian. [sfty]