How about "I don't know if a god or gods exist, so I don't believe that they do"? That agnostic atheism. A person holding such a position (and I am one) is an atheist for not believing in gods, and an agnostic for not claiming to know either way.
I think that is a respectable position to take. I would call that an agnostic, but labels are just labels. In my mind, atheists are people who say “God does not exist” but I guess that would be considered positive atheism or hard atheism.
In my opinion, religion is evidence that humanity has a predilection for creating religions and nothing more, just as the Bible is evidence of nothing more than that it was written.
Whereas it is possible that the entire Bible was written by men who had nothing to do with any god (s) I find that highly unlikely. The primary reason I say that is because of the effect the Bible has had on millions of people.
Some of the events in the Bible might have taken place, but we cannot know unless we have other sources by which to verify them. Regarding the bodily resurrection, it is just a story, and a story is not evidence that the story is true; that is circular. Anyone can write a story. Unless there were eyewitnesses outside the story that can confirm that the events took place, it is not factual history. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to base their entire life on a story.
Sure, there were stories told about the Bab and Baha’u’llah, but they are verifiable from sources outside the Baha’i Faith. The life of Baha’u’llah is not called into question, what is called into question is whether He actually got communication from God. As I tell all the atheists I post to, nobody can prove that so it is a matter of faith, but it is a reason-based faith since there are many reasons to believe he was telling the truth about His claim.
The reason that religion is not evidence for a god is that evidence for a god would be something that made the existence of a god more likely, such as a bona fide miracle. We would expect religion to exist given humanity whether gods exist or not, so the presence of religion does not help us answer questions about the existence of deities.
Can you explain why you would expect religion to exist absent a God? Why would humanity invent religion? That makes no sense to me.
Even if a miracle happened how could anyone prove it was God who was responsible for it?
Yes, in my case.
When I decided to try out Christianity at about age 20 (I had been an atheist until then), I agreed to put my critical thinking skills on hold, that is, to suspend disbelief long enough to give God a chance to make Himself known, as one might test a pair of shoes to see how well they fit.
At first, the experience was ecstatic - euphoric. Surely I was filled with the Spirit. But then I moved cross-country following discharge from the military, tried a half-dozen other congregations that were all lifeless.
Eventually, I realized that what I had been feeling in my first congregation was the effect of a very gifted and charismatic preacher, and I had been mistaking my own mental state for a deity, and so, I returned to atheism after about ten years as a Christian.
Wow, that is quite a story. Thanks for sharing. You were raised as an atheist and decided to try out Christianity? I guess that happens but I consider it out of the norm, although I know of fallen away Christians who became atheists and later came back to Christianity as “born again” Christians. For example, my carpet installer was raised Catholic, became atheist, and then became the member of a small Protestant church.
I understand the psychology behind becoming a spirit filled Christian given my academic background id in psychology and I listen to “spirit filled” Christian radio a lot. It is emotionally appealing to think that the Holy Spirit is living inside you and that God is watching out for you all the time, guiding your every move. Sure would be nice if life was that easy. I get almost jealous of them sometimes but then I wake up to the reality that a body rising from the grave after being dead for three days, and later hen floating up into the sky, only to return from the sky some day after which time bodies will rise from graves en masse is not rational. I could never be a Christian unless perhaps it was an obscure sect that is associated with very early Christianity, before Paul and the Church entered the picture and changed the Revelation of Jesus Christ to something virtually unrecognizable.
I never came into the Baha’i Faith by way of emotions, it was all intellectual. My formerly Christian atheist friends laugh when I tell them that but it is the very truth. I am a very compassionate empathetic person when it comes to other people and animals, but when it comes to deciding what to believe I am very analytical. That is why I do not go in for mysticism either. Being “close” to God has its appeal but I do not think that is even possible and that is why I like Baha’i theology that states that it is
impossible, since God is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things, transcendent and independent of all His creatures. God is not going to have anything to do with humans directly. God remains in His own High Place, wherever that is. I am fine with that because I have no need to see God or even experience God. Knowing God exists and His Purpose for my existence is enough for me. Maybe I will know more in the afterlife. NDEs report that they experience God in some way.
The above might help you see that. You might say that I never really believed in God, but I would disagree.
I would never tell you that you didn’t because that was YOUR experience, not mine. I have discussed this with other atheists who simply lost faith that the promises in the Bible were true.
A disciplined critical thinker doesn't choose what he or she will believe. He simply finds some things believable and others not. I can choose to jump off a building, but I can't choose to believe that I will fly if I flap my arms or that I won't die.
I hear you. I consider myself a critical thinker even though I am a believer. Now I had better put on my flak jacket, as some of my atheists call it.
As I just explained to this Hindu poster I cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead after three days because it is incongruent with what is scientifically possible. He does not get it because he is a mystic who believes “God can do anything” and that Jesus said and did everything that is written in the New Testament. I see no reason to believe this, although maybe Jesus did do and say some of it.
I am very down to earth and pragmatic in my approach to religion. My initial attraction to the Baha’i Faith was its spiritual teachings that benefit individual character and its program that addresses the social, political and environmental problems that face all of humanity. I consider it really selfish to believe in a religion for personal salvation or just to have some kind of mystical experience with God.
Isn't that an argument against the religions that teach their god wants to be known, believed, loved, and worshiped?
God does want us to know He exists, but only on His terms, which means by recognizing His Messenger. God does want us to love and worship Him, but not for His sake, rather for our sakes, because it benefits us. This is one part of “being a Baha’i” that I am still working on as it does not come easy for me to love God.
It's not a matter of liking or disliking religion. I have no need of religion. It would fulfill no unmet need, so why bring it into my life?
I do not have religion to meet a need either. Rather, I simply believe that God exists and that the Baha’i Faith is the religion for this age and that it is in my best interest to acknowledge that and try to practice it, moreover in the best interest of everyone. Then again, I am a bit biased.
I do realize that not everyone will come to the same conclusions I have, it would be awfully narcissistic if I thought they would. We are all individuals.
I probably already told you this before, but for most of my life as a Baha’i, 42 years, I had hardly anything nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith, and even less to do with God. Only about six years ago I decided to give those two another chance. I guess I just reached that point in my life.
The rational skeptic believes that he needs empirical evidence for a god or gods before believing that such things exist, not that such evidence exists or should exist.
I do not know what you mean by empirical evidence. I consider Messengers OF God the best empirical evidence but that is because I believe that represent God on earth.
I'd say it's illogical to believe without it. I realize that a god may exist and there be evidence of it, but why would I believe that if there is no evidence? Because it's not impossible?
No, absolutely NOT. That is not a good reason to believe, because it’s not impossible. It is not impossible that there is no pink unicorn in my garage, but I am not going to believe that. It is not impossible that my husband will get off his duff, but I am not going to believe that until I have some evidence.
I know I must sound like a broken record, my atheist friends all tell me that, but the only real evidence for God’ existence is the Messengers of God. Some people think that Creation is evidence but I do not buy that because there are other possible explanation for Creation, whereas if we carefully examine the lives of the Prophets/Messengers and what they were able to accomplish and the long-lasting impact they had upon humanity, as well as how they suffered and what they sacrificed, and what they wrote or what scriptures were attributed to them, I am hard pressed to come up with another explanation, other than that they were sent by God.
“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273
If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society.
RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION
