am I turning into an atheist?

[ChristineM]

Its the opposite in my opinion

Agnostic leans towards theism, why I think that you can read in the above post (#14)

I am sure we pretty much agree but i give a middle ground in which the agnostic is incapable of making a decision one way or the other.

Sure some lean towards theism but world like evidence of whatever god to help make up their mind while some lean towards atheism but cannot take the final step because there may be a doubt. And some just don't care either way.

It is not a black or white situation, there is, i believe, a very wide grey area

 

[Nakosis]

Theism is just the term we use about those that believe in God, I don't think the approach would matter or do you mean something else?

I don't know of anything specific. I'm just throwing it out their.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But for me, you are an atheist.

Agreed. Many others have said that I am not an atheist if I am agnostic. They treat these as mutually exclusive categories, which is strange given how many people claim to be without a god belief or an opinion about whether gods exist. These are the definition of atheist and agnostic that most atheists use these days, and most would call themselves agnostic atheists by this reckoning.

A-gnostic means that we can't get knowledge about a given thing and in this case God. But to say that we can't get knowledge of something that hasn't even been demonstrated to exist in the first place, doesn't really make sense to me. Because that is sort of like admitting or acknowledge that God or gods exist, but we simply aren't able to get knowledge about them.

I don't think agnosticism is admitting that gods exist. I'm agnostic about everything that is possible, but not yet demonstrated to be the case or not, usually because these things don't exist, but it cannot be proved to be nonexistent. Once one understands the limits of knowledge, he becomes agnostic about just about everything, including whether there is a world outside of his mind. It should be emphasized that this is philosophical doubt, which is understood, not felt. I don't really feel like there is no outside world, but I understand the limits of my knowledge, and accept that it is logically possible that reality is not what it appears to be at all. Psychological doubt is what one calls the feeling of uncertainty, as when somebody is late picking you up.

Anyway, since it is neither helpful nor logically sound to just say that things that can't be ruled out don't exist when one can say that there is no reason to believe that they exist. That's how I view vampires and leprechauns. I have no psychological doubt about whether they exist, but because I understand that I have no experiment, argument, observation, or algorithm that can soundly arrive at the conclusion that such things don't exist, I don't say that. I say that I am agnostic, but also don't believe. I am also an avampirist and an aleprechaunist, but the agnostic version of each for reasons given. And that doesn't mean that I believe that they exist or even lean that way a little.

But as agnostic, if one don't believe such knowledge about God(s) can be obtained, then one don't really have a position, while still given the possibility of God(s) without any demonstration the benefit of doubt. Which to me simply doesn't fit with the default position of atheism as much as it does with theism.

I hope my words explain to you that using the definitions for atheism and agnosticism that I use, that I am both. What makes you think that somebody like me has anything to do with theism? Do you also think I lean toward vampirism and leprechaunism? I'm also agnostic there for the same reasons.

 

[Nimos]

Agreed. Many others have said that I am not an atheist if I am agnostic. They treat these as mutually exclusive categories, which is strange given how many people claim to be without a god belief or an opinion about whether gods exist. These are the definition of atheist and agnostic that most atheists use these days, and most would call themselves agnostic atheists by this reckoning.

Its not incorrect either as I see it, as I wrote to someone else, all atheists are agnostics, but for different reasons, will explain later. Strong atheists might not admit it, don't know, but in that case that would be incorrect in my opinion.

The reason is to put it very simple.

I don't believe God(s) exist, and if that is the case, it should also be impossible for me to believe that any knowledge about them could be obtained. So im an agnostic atheist by default. But to me, the agnostic doesn't add anything except confusion.

Agnostic seem to simply replace the words "I don't know" for a lot of people with something more fancy. But again as I understand how agnostic is defined, it means to be unable to obtain knowledge about God.

If one isn't certain about whether God exist then I would call them an atheist. If one think that God is beyond our understanding, they are theists. And you can have people that doubt in both camps as I see it. One might just as well believe that God(s) or some supernatural being exist, but might not be a 100% sure and its also fine.

Again people define agnostic differently, but I would say that those people are mistaken and you are per default agnostic as an atheist, it just doesn't add anything in my opinion. Also just to avoid confusion, being an agnostic atheist doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. meaning that even if you believe that no knowledge can be obtained doesn't mean that it can't.

I don't think agnosticism is admitting that gods exist. I'm agnostic about everything that is possible, but not yet demonstrated to be the case or not, usually because these things don't exist, but it cannot be proved to be nonexistent.

I think its more about default position more than anything else, to be honest.

I don't think what you write here makes sense, if something have been demonstrated to be possible or not, then you ought not to be agnostic about it. So you can't be agnostic about what you know is possible, if that makes sense. Because if it hasn't been demonstrated, then you don't know if its possible. Unless im misunderstanding you? But I understand it as you saying that you are agnostic about time travel or travelling faster than the speed of light for instance? But I don't think we are agnostic about that, because at least, with our current knowledge this is not possible, doesn't mean that it couldn't change in the future, but in that case we can surely obtain more knowledge about it than we currently have, so it would sort of be a contradictory statement.

But you should never prove a negative, no one goes out and say "I want to prove that camels doesn't exist on Jupiter, just in case they are planning something bad up there.", you do something, if you have or believe there is a reason for it. But as long as we have no reason to believe that camels live on Jupiter, our default position is that they don't, until we have a reason to believe otherwise.

Anyway, since it is neither helpful nor logically sound to just say that things that can't be ruled out don't exist when one can say that there is no reason to believe that they exist. That's how I view vampires and leprechauns. I have no psychological doubt about whether they exist, but because I understand that I have no experiment, argument, observation, or algorithm that can soundly arrive at the conclusion that such things don't exist, I don't say that. I say that I am agnostic, but also don't believe. I am also an avampirist and an aleprechaunist, but the agnostic version of each for reasons given. And that doesn't mean that I believe that they exist or even lean that way a little.

I see what you mean, but again its the confusion, because you know where vampires and leprechauns came from and that we made them up. So you are not agnostic about that. You are obviously as you say an Avampirist etc. for the very reason that you know we made them up.

I don't know, I think the word agnostic is just broken or simply apply to the question about God and even here it makes little sense. I think, I will try to look into what exactly the person that came up with it meant by it or what philosophy people think about it.

I hope my words explain to you that using the definitions for atheism and agnosticism that I use, that I am both. What makes you think that somebody like me has anything to do with theism? Do you also think I lean toward vampirism and leprechaunism? I'm also agnostic there for the same reasons.

Following on from above. You have knowledge about vampires etc. and I don't think anyone are serious about claiming that they are real, as those we see in movies or read about in comics or whatever.

Hopefully I explained it above, but just to repeat to why agnosticism in my opinion leans towards theism, is because atheism is negative position. Its not a claim whether something is possible or not. So when you attach agnosticism as you do, like we can't obtain knowledge about God(s), that to me is not the same as to refuse the claim that God(s) even exist to begin with. So to me, its sort of like this:

Atheist:
I don't think knowledge about God(s) can be obtained, because I don't believe they exist.

Agnostic
God(s) might exist, but I don't think we can obtain any knowledge about them if they do.

Difference being, that as an agnostic it only makes sense to assume that no knowledge can be obtained, if God(s) is equally as possible as not, otherwise the logic seems to fail in my opinion, because you draw the conclusion that God(s) don't exist, while admitting that no such knowledge for reaching set conclusion is available, and that to me doesn't work.
Where the atheists position is the other way round, the reason we are agnostic about God(s) is because we have no good reason to believe they exist, and if they don't, obviously there will be no knowledge to be obtained.

Does that make sense?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Atheists and agnostics both ignore the question of our existence and our future I think.
How did we get here and why?
What happens next when we die?

I think it defies human nature to say I don't care to ask such questions or wish to demand answers to them.

In terms of the above questions...To say I can't prove God exists therefore I'm going to exclude the possibility leaves one with what option exactly. I would argue the answer is to give up and accept that your existence is essentially meaningless and it is a certainty it's hopeless (we are polluting our environment so rapidly the likelihood of a mad Max movie set future is a given)

 

[Nimos]

Atheists and agnostics both ignore the question of our existence and our future I think.
How did we get here and why?
What happens next when we die?

I think it defies human nature to say I don't care to ask such questions or wish to demand answers to them.

Atheists and agnostics don't ignore it, we are just not convinced that we know about it yet. There are some theories out there like evolution theory, big bang and people looking into the Universe and what is going on.

I don't think any atheists, agnostics or religious people for that matter is closed to the idea to know more.

What would you suggest we should do to try figuring it out?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Atheists and agnostics don't ignore it, we are just not convinced that we know about it yet. There are some theories out there like evolution theory, big bang and people looking into the Universe and what is going on.

I don't think any atheists, agnostics or religious people for that matter is closed to the idea to know more.

What would you suggest we should do to try figuring it out?

perhaps you might be interested in a question i put to someone about the alternate model of our origins (ie the big bang)
its found here Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

 

[Nimos]

perhaps you might be interested in a question i put to someone about the alternate model of our origins (ie the big bang)
its found here Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

Correction:
Apparently it is now considered incorrect that the universe started with a singularity. So just ignore what I write here.

I assume that it is these?

1. Would not the above categorically dispute the idea of infinite universe?
2. Surely if something is expanding, it has to have a center...a point of origin.
3. Does this not mean that it must therefore have a beginning?

Now i know that one could make the claim that questions 1 and 3 contradict each other, however, i think that is exactly the point. Without God, it would seem to me that we are left with an inexplicable contradiction!

1. This is currently unknown, some believe that the known universe is finite, but that doesn't mean that space doesn't expand infinite. Others that multiple expansions could have happened, so we are talking multiverses in the sense that others universes could exist else where but be so far apart that they are not observable. So basically you could imagine taking a piece of infinite paper and add a drop of ink one place and one another which each would represent a universe. There seem to be a lot of theories about this, but again it is currently unknown.

2. The expansion is happening in all directions at the same time, so it doesn't as such have a center, but a singularity. Which is why saying that big bang is an explosion gives the wrong impression as an explosion have a center, but we are talking about an expansion. I think it is best explained by using the amazing image of the universe I made :

So if we pretend to be on the dark blue dot and observe the universe as it expands, you can see that the distance (red line) as the universe expand doesn't reach the other galaxy anymore. So from our perspective the expansion is happening as if we were the center and everything moves away from us.
But this is the same for all the dots, so if you move the dark blue dot somewhere else, it would appear just the same for them. So the expansion is happening everywhere and therefore it is not possible to say that the universe had a center, but rather a singularity, so as you keep collapsing the image you will eventually reach that point.

3. Yes, the known Universe (our universe) began at big bang. We don't know what caused it or set it in motion.

So these doesn't contradict each other, but there is a lot of unknowns.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I assume that it is these?

1. Would not the above categorically dispute the idea of infinite universe?
2. Surely if something is expanding, it has to have a center...a point of origin.
3. Does this not mean that it must therefore have a beginning?

Now i know that one could make the claim that questions 1 and 3 contradict each other, however, i think that is exactly the point. Without God, it would seem to me that we are left with an inexplicable contradiction!

1. This is currently unknown, some believe that the known universe is finite, but that doesn't mean that space doesn't expand infinite. Others that multiple expansions could have happened, so we are talking multiverses in the sense that others universes could exist else where but be so far apart that they are not observable. So basically you could imagine taking a piece of infinite paper and add a drop of ink one place and one another which each would represent a universe. There seem to be a lot of theories about this, but again it is currently unknown.

2. The expansion is happening in all directions at the same time, so it doesn't as such have a center, but a singularity. Which is why saying that big bang is an explosion gives the wrong impression as an explosion have a center, but we are talking about an expansion. I think it is best explained by using the amazing image of the universe I made :

View attachment 59276
So if we pretend to be on the dark blue dot and observe the universe as it expands, you can see that the distance (red line) as the universe expand doesn't reach the other galaxy anymore. So from our perspective the expansion is happening as if we were the center and everything moves away from us.
But this is the same for all the dots, so if you move the dark blue dot somewhere else, it would appear just the same for them. So the expansion is happening everywhere and therefore it is not possible to say that the universe had a center, but rather a singularity, so as you keep collapsing the image you will eventually reach that point.

3. Yes, the known Universe (our universe) began at big bang. We don't know what caused it or set it in motion.

So these doesn't contradict each other, but there is a lot of unknowns.

I like your diagram...can you provide me with a definition of expansion that is universally recognised as meaning other than the following

expansion
/ɪkˈspanʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈspanʃ(ə)n/
the action of becoming larger or more extensive.
"the rapid expansion of suburban London"

Similar:
growth

increase in size
enlargement

extension

augmentation

development

evolution

diversification

build-up

buildout

scaling up
aggrandizement
spread

proliferation

mushrooming

multiplication

evolvement

Opposite:
reduction in size​

• • the political strategy of extending a state's territory by encroaching on that of other nations.
    "German expansion in the 1930s"
• a thing formed by the enlargement or broadening of something.
  "the book is an expansion of a lecture given last year"

Because as i see it, whilst Science is claiming we dont know the Bible claims we do know and the person who created it all is the Almighty God!

 

[Nimos]

I like your diagram...can you provide me with a definition of expansion that is universally recognised as meaning other than the following

Not sure why I should give another definition of expansion, that is what is meant. Some like to demonstrate what I did with a balloon and you paint dots on it, and as you blow air into it and it expand the distance between the dots will increase in the same way. I just showed it in 2D.

Because as i see it, whilst Science is claiming we dont know the Bible claims we do know and the person who created it all is the Almighty God!

Science doesn't claim anything about the bible specifically, in some cases there can be an issue when it comes to stuff like the creation story, virgin birth etc. Because that is not supported by science. But whether the bible is true or false as such is of no interest to it. Also whether the universe is expanding or not, doesn't tell us anything about God.

Correction:
Apparently it is now considered incorrect that the universe started with a singularity. So you will probably have to read up on that if you want answers to your questions and simply ignore what I wrote

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Apparently it is now considered incorrect that the universe started with a singularity. So you will probably have to read up on that if you want answers to your questions and simply ignore what I wrote

you know i was just listening to a former Jehovah's Witness who left the organization talk about the lie of enlightenment forwarded by that denomination. His claim was that with the leadership of the JW organization, enlightenment regularly involved a redirection or change of belief...and sometimes even a return to a former one. He described it a bit like entering a dark room with a flashlight. In the corner, one might make out the shape of what appeared to be a car. As one moves closer, more information about said object in the corner becomes visible and sure enough, it was a car, however one could now determine its color, still closer and its make and model...and so the story went on.

This member left the JW movement because in their scenario (ie Watchtower), that car in the corner, as one got closer with the flashlight kept changing into things like bicycles or even something else! the reason it changes is because in the original doctrine, that object could not be a car...for it to be one destroys their entire theology! That is clearly not enlightenment or the evolution of knowledge!

The background radiation discovery by the two astronomers back in the 60's was at first utilized as a champion of evolution...it proved that things had a central beginning (I maintain the dictionary definition i posted earlier here because it was from a google search algorithm result performed earlier today!). Now science it appears has realized the disaster that has created for them (woops there's that Christian word again) and quickly it fades into the shadows and the "red car" from my illustration above, has now changed into a bicycle!

For me its easy...a singularity and sudden appearing of the universe is in perfect harmony with my theology. I absolutely believe this fact! Some atheists might be shocked at such a claim, but when you think about it,

if the proposition, there was nothing and suddenly something appeared from nothing = true

would not this explain exactly what a creator God would have done? The bible certainly makes this claim in its first chapter of Genesis! The discovery of the background radiation i think is a wonderful testament to a bible manuscript making that claim, has been dated using a secular dating method to be at least 1800 years old (Dead Sea Scrolls)! Who back then could have possibly known about background radiation or any of the modern science in order to conjure up a wild hair brain random prophecy in the hope it might actually be true!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Atheists and agnostics both ignore the question of our existence and our future I think.

This one doesn't. I've obviously wondered as to such, and tried to understand the possibilities for both. The first, no one knows, and I accept that I will be unlikely to know just as the rest. Why would I waste time on trying to know such when there are better things to do in life - like living a decent life? The same goes for the future - I will never know.

I was reading magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American in the early 1960s as a teenager to hopefully keep up with the science that might explain our existence - the Steady State theory was around then to oppose the Big Bang theory - and I probably did as much as I could but I realised it was a fruitless task. Religions just seemed man-made to me then, and still do, and with very unsatisfactory answers coming from such.

How did we get here and why?

Well that is one area where we can learn something - as to evolution and how we are part of all other life - even if some of the religious prefer a God-made solution. Do we need a why as to why we are here?

What happens next when we die?

Simplest is often best - we die. Given that we don't have any serious proof as to life after death.

I think it defies human nature to say I don't care to ask such questions or wish to demand answers to them.

In terms of the above questions...To say I can't prove God exists therefore I'm going to exclude the possibility leaves one with what option exactly. I would argue the answer is to give up and accept that your existence is essentially meaningless and it is a certainty it's hopeless (we are polluting our environment so rapidly the likelihood of a mad Max movie set future is a given)

It perhaps is foolish to spend one's life on a fool's errand when there are so many other possibilities to explore - like dealing with the pollution and other issues that humans often create. Perhaps if more people spent time on real human issues than religions we might deal with our problems, and not be so divided. Since that is often what religions do - divide us.

 

[Nimos]

Now science it appears has realized the disaster that has created for them (woops there's that Christian word again) and quickly it fades into the shadows and the "red car" from my illustration above, has now changed into a bicycle!

Science is mistaken all the time, that is no secret. But we are also talking about stuff that is not exactly easy to figure out. And that science is capable of correcting itself as we learn more is a strength and not a weakness of the method, it is working exactly as it was intended.

For me its easy...a singularity and sudden appearing of the universe is in perfect harmony with my theology.

Well apparently this is not the case. Im not an astronomer, so my knowledge about these things are extremely limited. Also why I suggested you to look into this on your own so you can get the correct explanation of why they don't think this is the case anymore.

if the proposition, there was nothing and suddenly something appeared from nothing = true

would not this explain exactly what a creator God would have done?

I don't think it is as simple as that.

As humans it is natural to think that everything needs a creator or a cause at least, because everything we observe seem to be like that. But the beginning of the Universe is rather strange and unknown, so I think one makes a mistake simply jumping to a conclusion about this.

If what you say is true that God created it, you still have to demonstrate it. You also have to demonstrate that its the God you think it is and not someone else.

Even if we assumed that all of science is wrong about the Universe, that doesn't mean that God or a God automatically steps in and fill the gap. There is no free pass here, ALL claims has to be demonstrated independent of whatever any other claim might say, this applies to science as well as religious claims.

Its a huge mistake made by many people that oppose science to believe that if they can just prove evolution or whatever they don't believe wrong, that they are then correct, that is not how things works.