My point was that whether or not God exists doesn't change the person I am, or wish to become. I would still choose to do the best I can. I would try to have the best life I'm able to achieve. Not for some god or gods, but for myself. I am here, might as well make the best of it.
The bigger question, I believe, is not if there is a supreme being, but if there is a supreme morality without one.
@shabadoo
there is a supreme morality without a supreme being?
really good question...
and if there is a supreme being why should he care about a supreme morality at a human level?
do we care about ants or bacteria morality? why something so superior to us, creator of universes, not a little insignificant part of the creation, even if to some extent intelligent and self conscious (not enough to avoid wars, to ruin the environment, to let other people starve or probably cause other people starvation to allow few have more then they possibly use) should be interested in our morality?
and why a so superior being should have created us so imperfect to have to fight with ourselves as we have both morality and egoism in a world so filled with temptations? is it some sort of perverted social experiment, like the ones we do with bacteria, ants and rats?
is martin luther correct in his de servo arbitrio or is erasmus correct in his libero arbitrio? do we really have a choice?
or is the advaita vedanta correct and there is only the superior being and we and the rest of the creation are nothing but illusion?
if you want arguments i have plenty...
still it seems that is in the human nature to have some sort of morality, which sort is affected by the place we live, inherited from the family, the religion and the experience, but there is also a personal way to have a morality that is peculiar to each one. even those rare persons that seem to lack of any morality have lost it, or forgot to have it, trough a series of experiences that had ripped it out from their inner being.
if the morality is a way of the evolutionary process to make possible for the human kind to avoid to destroy itself and the planet or is something that a god puts into our hearths and minds is not known, as we don't have any proof about the existence or not existence of a superior being, but is sure that there is inside us some sort of morality as well as other aspects of us that make us diverge from it.
as we have some inner morality, does not matter its origin, i can not argue with what you say. much better to try to follow it then to try to erase it from our inner being to gain an apparent freedom that almost never brings true joy to the life.
I'm also interested in seeing that divide, but I'm hesitant to create a whole new poll to figure it out. Every new discussion pushes an old one onto Page 2.
The terms agnostic and athiest have many interpretations (as I learned in the religion thread, thanks @FinneousPJ !). It is difficult to know what someone means without clarification.
A poll along these lines might give us a more accurate picture of religious attitudes in the forum:
I still think there is a subtle difference between a viewpoint that does not address belief at all vs. not holding a belief. That's why I would be ok accepting agnostic _____ as a more accurate label of my attitude. But, again, that is very subtle.
Hmmm, why are the gnostic theists happier than everybody else and the gnostic atheists look super gloomy? I wonder who might have drawn that picture...
Good on you for noticing the hidden imagery. A lot of visual or semi-visual media makes clever use of light to imply things without saying them. Videos with a partisan angle will often play ominous music when showing their intended "bad guy" and alter the lighting to make it darker. Likewise, the intended "good guy" will be shown in more sunlight with brighter music.
Hmmm, why are the gnostic theists happier than everybody else and the gnostic atheists look super gloomy? I wonder who might have drawn that picture...
Isn't it obvious? Can't you see the sun shines only on them?
@gorgonzola, Of course we have a choice. How could it be otherwise? Some make better choices than others, some let others decide. That's why there are so many people searching for answers in a higher power...uncertainty aka fear. Fear of making a mistake, fear of being judged, fear of death and what may or may not lie beyond. Its easier...or rather, more comforting to think of someone or something having an answer and a purpose, even if we don't know it. "It's all a part of God's plan" does not make me feel better about tragedy. If there is a plan, it's a crappy one.
Either way, I live. I desire. I attempt to acquire. I treat others as I wish to be treated. Not so much because of morality, but so others will reciprocate. It just makes things a little easier if you're not killing, raping, robbing, or otherwise offensing(?) people. Our own "natural" morality comes that simply.
Hmmm, why are the gnostic theists happier than everybody else and the gnostic atheists look super gloomy? I wonder who might have drawn that picture...
Isn't it obvious? Can't you see the sun shines only on them?
I've moved some comments to the Religion and Philosophy Thread regarding the question of whether atheism constitutes a religion. Harder theological arguments belong in the other thread; not this one.
Atheism and Agnosticism don't belong together, at all.
I'm curious how the poll results would look like if those two options were separate.
Christian and I have to agree.
On a side note, I often find agnostics to be very humble and grounded folks. My wife is agnostic and we get along just peachy. Same with my best friend. I have a hard time relating much to staunch atheists though.
Staunch atheism requires just as much faith as zealous religion, only the staunch atheist is now on tap to disprove the existence of any god, whereas the religious zealot is only on tap to prove the existence of his/her god. Which requires more faith?
I am a Christian, and thus I believe in God, but I also know that there is no faith if you can simply prove something. Thus, there isn't that much ground between myself and an agnostic.
I'd say you got it wrong there. AFAIK, no atheist has ever claimed that they can prove that God doesn't exist, and none has even tried. They just believe that the chances that God exists are so low that they can be dismissed for practical purposes. Some religious people, on the other hand, do make cases to prove the existence of God often.
I'd say you got it wrong there. AFAIK, no atheist has ever claimed that they can prove that God doesn't exist, and none has even tried. They just believe that the chances that God exists are so low that they can be dismissed for practical purposes. Some religious people, on the other hand, do make cases to prove the existence of God often.
Your explanation of how atheists think sounds more agnostic to me. Atheists do not believe in God or gods, period. If they have any doubts as you describe then they aren't, technically, atheists.
I like to think of it in the following way: (a)theism and (a)gnosticism are orthogonal and independent aspects of a person's religiosity.
From Greek gnosis, gnosticism refers to a state of knowledge or certainty, so gnostic means certain in your belief whilst agnostic means uncertain. Theism on the other hands refers to a personal sense of whether or not a deity/some deities (with attached supernatural powers like universe creation and influence) exist, so theistic means believing/feeling there is some sort of deity/deities, whilst atheistic refers to a lack of such belief. (Remember "a-" just means "without": a-gnostic = without knowledge, a-theistic = without god.)
Thus:
1. Gnostic theist = believes for certain there is a god;
2. Agnostic theist = is uncertain but has belief in a god;
3. Gnostic atheist = believes for certain there is no god;
4. Agnostic atheist = is uncertain but has no belief in a god.
I for one prefer people define precisely what they mean by god/gods before we even start to discuss our thoughts about these things. I find the definitions invariably sufficiently lacking in substance that there ends up being nothing to discuss, provide one has no preconceptions and adheres to the scientific method. By the scientific method, then, I wind up settling on option 3 above.
Excuse me, Mr Elminster, sir? Would you have a moment to listen to the gospel of the TRUE God of Magic, Boccob?
Sorry, the demands on my time are formidable and I'm too busy to listen to this. At the moment I'm all booked up with observing motley bands of lower level adventurers trying to deal with a world ending crises. You know, what anyone would expect from a high level wizard
Comments
You worship a-gnome-stick?
The ability to sneak back onto forum threads within six weeks, ...
The bigger question, I believe, is not if there is a supreme being, but if there is a supreme morality without one.
if you put it in those terms i can not do anything but agree...
there is a supreme morality without a supreme being?
really good question...
and if there is a supreme being why should he care about a supreme morality at a human level?
do we care about ants or bacteria morality? why something so superior to us, creator of universes, not a little insignificant part of the creation, even if to some extent intelligent and self conscious (not enough to avoid wars, to ruin the environment, to let other people starve or probably cause other people starvation to allow few have more then they possibly use) should be interested in our morality?
and why a so superior being should have created us so imperfect to have to fight with ourselves as we have both morality and egoism in a world so filled with temptations? is it some sort of perverted social experiment, like the ones we do with bacteria, ants and rats?
is martin luther correct in his de servo arbitrio or is erasmus correct in his libero arbitrio? do we really have a choice?
or is the advaita vedanta correct and there is only the superior being and we and the rest of the creation are nothing but illusion?
if you want arguments i have plenty...
still it seems that is in the human nature to have some sort of morality, which sort is affected by the place we live, inherited from the family, the religion and the experience, but there is also a personal way to have a morality that is peculiar to each one. even those rare persons that seem to lack of any morality have lost it, or forgot to have it, trough a series of experiences that had ripped it out from their inner being.
if the morality is a way of the evolutionary process to make possible for the human kind to avoid to destroy itself and the planet or is something that a god puts into our hearths and minds is not known, as we don't have any proof about the existence or not existence of a superior being, but is sure that there is inside us some sort of morality as well as other aspects of us that make us diverge from it.
as we have some inner morality, does not matter its origin, i can not argue with what you say. much better to try to follow it then to try to erase it from our inner being to gain an apparent freedom that almost never brings true joy to the life.
I'm curious how the poll results would look like if those two options were separate.
For the record I'm an atheist, as I've probably made clear before.
A poll along these lines might give us a more accurate picture of religious attitudes in the forum:
I still think there is a subtle difference between a viewpoint that does not address belief at all vs. not holding a belief. That's why I would be ok accepting agnostic _____ as a more accurate label of my attitude. But, again, that is very subtle.
It is not, but I understand why it's included in these kinds of polls.
Sure it is! You belive things without confirmation just like the rest of us.
Isn't it obvious? Can't you see the sun shines only on them?
@gorgonzola, Of course we have a choice. How could it be otherwise? Some make better choices than others, some let others decide. That's why there are so many people searching for answers in a higher power...uncertainty aka fear. Fear of making a mistake, fear of being judged, fear of death and what may or may not lie beyond. Its easier...or rather, more comforting to think of someone or something having an answer and a purpose, even if we don't know it. "It's all a part of God's plan" does not make me feel better about tragedy. If there is a plan, it's a crappy one.
Either way, I live. I desire. I attempt to acquire. I treat others as I wish to be treated. Not so much because of morality, but so others will reciprocate. It just makes things a little easier if you're not killing, raping, robbing, or otherwise offensing(?) people. Our own "natural" morality comes that simply.
Shine nuthin! That's white phosphorus! Run!
On a side note, I often find agnostics to be very humble and grounded folks. My wife is agnostic and we get along just peachy. Same with my best friend. I have a hard time relating much to staunch atheists though.
I am a Christian, and thus I believe in God, but I also know that there is no faith if you can simply prove something. Thus, there isn't that much ground between myself and an agnostic.
Your explanation of how atheists think sounds more agnostic to me. Atheists do not believe in God or gods, period. If they have any doubts as you describe then they aren't, technically, atheists.
From Greek gnosis, gnosticism refers to a state of knowledge or certainty, so gnostic means certain in your belief whilst agnostic means uncertain. Theism on the other hands refers to a personal sense of whether or not a deity/some deities (with attached supernatural powers like universe creation and influence) exist, so theistic means believing/feeling there is some sort of deity/deities, whilst atheistic refers to a lack of such belief. (Remember "a-" just means "without": a-gnostic = without knowledge, a-theistic = without god.)
Thus:
1. Gnostic theist = believes for certain there is a god;
2. Agnostic theist = is uncertain but has belief in a god;
3. Gnostic atheist = believes for certain there is no god;
4. Agnostic atheist = is uncertain but has no belief in a god.
I for one prefer people define precisely what they mean by god/gods before we even start to discuss our thoughts about these things. I find the definitions invariably sufficiently lacking in substance that there ends up being nothing to discuss, provide one has no preconceptions and adheres to the scientific method.
Excuse me, Mr Elminster, sir? Would you have a moment to listen to the gospel of the TRUE God of Magic, Boccob?
Sorry, the demands on my time are formidable and I'm too busy to listen to this. At the moment I'm all booked up with observing motley bands of lower level adventurers trying to deal with a world ending crises. You know, what anyone would expect from a high level wizard