Why Atheists and the Religous are Both Wrong

When it comes to religion, there are three sides to this debate. There is the side that is comprised of Atheists who believe that Religion is ridiculous ancient myths that need to be gone away with, and then there is the side of the religious people who believe in God, Allah etc. Then there is the Agnostic side, the camp I fall under, who aren't on either side and instead are somewhere in the middle about religion. As an Agnostic individual I can plainly and proudly say that both sides aren't entirely wrong, but both sides are not entirely right either.
When it comes to Atheists the big arguments they make is something like "Religious books are nothing but ancient myths and legends that spout nothing but BS" or something like "If there was no religion, there would be peace on earth because every single war, plague, and awful thing that has happened to humanity is because of religion." Now both of these arguments again are not entirely wrong and they're not entirely right either. When it comes to the religious texts being "myths", I can tell religious people as a person who specializes in history, that there is actual evidence that Jesus, Muhammed, the Buddha, and others like Moses were actually real living people at one point in time. So this idea that everything that happens in these religious texts is a bunch of BS is kind of not true. Because we do know, through historical evidence that a lot of the individuals that were in the religious texts were real people. Also it is true that a lot of suffering has happened around the world in the name of religion. The crusades, Islamic Terrorism, the catholic rape scandal and etc. But not everything that has happened around the world that is bad is due to religion. Mother Teresa was a wonderful human being who spent her life helping people and she was religious, Joseph Stalin and Moa Zedong were well known atheists and systematically killed and tortured religious people, also Adolf Hitler, who killed over 6 millions Jews, was not known to be religious. Technically there is no evidence historically that allows us to know for sure why he killed those Jews. So these points brought up by atheists are not entirely true.
Then there is religious people. Christians I am sorry but the world was not created in seven days and the world is not 6000 years old. There is too much scientific evidence that doesn't support the idea that the world was created 6000 years ago. Also history itself goes back longer than 6000 years because it was over 6000 years ago that writing and record keeping became part of human life. So sorry.

To conclude, the point I am getting at is that I try to be as open minded as possible and what I see are two sides of a debate and neither side is entirely right or wrong.

 

so you believe all religions are possible, the sun God ect....

 

They are both wrong in that they espouse certainty. That they KNOW. Neither side knows it, we are dealing with beliefs, lacking evidence that would yield certainty. And neither side will admit it. That is where we are. This is the reality of the matter. If there were certainty, these two sides would not fight one another over it.

What interests me about this, is I wonder why both sides are driven to intellectual dishonesty...is it emotion based? Perhaps fear drives it on the religious side, and an adolescent kind of rebellion on the atheist side?

 

My agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

 

Yeah, but if we're both wrong who cares?

 

I consider myself an agnostic for the simple reason that there is no way I can truly know the truth. No one can. I don't believe there are or have been Gods & other metaphysical deities and I do believe that humans, using their intellectual abilities, are capable of understanding their physical world given the time & resources. However, those are beliefs and I understand them to be such.

Something doesn't become universally true just because I think it should be. If there is evidence then that makes it more likely, and at a certain point we treat likelihoods as facts for convenience, but that doesn't put them beyond contestability. I'm not so insecure that I demand my worldview must be universally acknowledged as true and I'm not so fragile that I can't live in a universe where there are more questions than answers.

 

Watch this first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwASABbCRVY

As an Agnostic-Atheist I say there is insufficient evidence of a supernatural realm this includes deity claims and lack the knowledge of a supernatural realms including deity claims they are separate. And am open to evidence then I will decide if its good enough to prove supernaturalism is real.

Under the original post the fundamental structure is wrong to start.

 

I don't know about any "sides" but I know you're wrong.

Atheist in it's fundamental terms just means not believing in any god or gods. It makes zero reference to religion - there are even some atheistic religions and certainly many that aren't traditionally theistic by contemporary western terms. Agnostic doesn't sit as any kind of middle ground between theism and atheism, it's in reference to a different question, about our knowledge of the existence of gods rather than our beliefs. Like lots of people (including yourself I suspect), I happen to be both atheist and agnostic (though neither element plays a massive role in my daily life).

All of this is again a step away from the other things you refer to, such historical and archaeological study of people and events depicted in specific religious texts or the philosophical, psychological and political assessments of the practical impacts and consequences of religious belief and practice. We can (and generally should) look at them entirely separate from the personal questions of belief and faith to avoid concious or subconscious bias.

 

I'm merely saying that I believe that I don't know and that anything is possible in my point of view. I'm simply trying to say that I keep an open mind.

 

Well, while there certainly exists atheists or theists who proclaim their stance as the only true one, I find that many (and in particular the ones who turn up in open debate) acknowledge the lack of information but resolve it in different ways. Many on the theist side bring up the open mind argument, and many on the atheist side argue solely from a stance of lack of evidence. It seems to me adopting an "open mind" does not resolve the issues at hand.

It is common for people to attack the "purest", and therefore most extreme version of opposing view points. Atheists like pointing out religious people who deny their children healthcare on religious grounds, even though the vast majority of religious people are not that. Theists like pointing out communists killing Christians, even though the vast majority of atheists are not that.

This sometimes makes it seem like there is room for a "third" stance in the middle, but I don't think that holds up to a fuller understanding of the spectrum of opinions. There is room for a stance, sometimes known as an agnostic stance, which does find itself unable to attach itself to either side, but in my opinion, that often has more to do with an interest in placing oneself between the other two sides than a consideration of the actual issues (since an "open mind" easily can put you in either camp anyway).

 

Do you believe that it is possible that michael jackson was infact god?

 

Actually, one side is wrong, and the other is right. There can't both be a god and not be a god. The problem is how certain we can be of it. I would contend that really there are two sides. People who lean towards belief, and people who lean towards lack of belief, in a god or gods. Agnostic is just a word for an atheist who lacks conviction, because the prefix a- just means without... without theism doesn't mean you're completely certain there is no god, it just means you are not a theist. It is binary.

I will say that it seems unlikely there is a god of any kind, given what we can see in the world and universe. I will also say that I am certain of almost nothing, but I am really sure the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all other religions I have studied are incorrect about the nature of any god that might exist. This isn't a matter of evidence so much as logic. Christianity, for example, proposes a completely illogical moral system that sounds more like the wet dream of an insecure megalomaniac with multiple personality disorder than a benevolent, wise god. Yeah salvation for believing You had your self/son tortured so that You wouldn't have to send me to hell because I am as You made me. As to some other kind of god? Doubtful but possible.

 

BALONEY!

Fact is, atheism is just a word some agnostics use because they do not have the guts to use agnosticism. Mostly they are afraid their fellow self-identified atheists will mock them for doing so.

In any case, both theism AND atheism are replete with BELIEF...which, of course, is the word people use when making blind guesses...but not wanting to acknowledge they are making blind guesses. Theists guess that gods exist (or that it is more likely they exist than that they do not)...and atheists guess that no gods exist (or that it is more likely that none exist than that at least one does).

By the way...atheism DOES NOT derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief that a god exists) = without a belief that a god exists! That is a fiction that some atheists use. It cannot possibly have derived that way...since the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism.

Atheism derives from the Greek through the French. It come to us as "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = without a god...NOT without a belief in a god.

<<MOD EDIT - Rule 4 - Baiting and Taunting

 

What about all of us who would use both (if either at all)? Do we get our own personal insults or are we just lumped in with everyone else regardless?

I don&#8217;t see how belief (in anything) is a blind guess. Belief is a subconscious conclusion, not an active choice and it will be based on all of our knowledge and experience (however limited) worked on by our subconscious minds (however flawed). Literally everyone aware of the general concept will have a set of beliefs relating to gods, even you.

 

`
`
The third option is those of us who just don't give a sheet. In real time (not online), ruminating, discussing or arguing about God or its non-existence takes up 0.00001 of my time per year. I happen to believe in a supreme divinity and it costs me nothing to accept and acknowledge those that do. The evangelical/protestant christians can be an annoyance at times. Only if it interferes with my life, rights or time, do I care.

With atheism, those that I do know with no belief, in RT, are quiet about it. Online it becomes problematic as many so-called atheists use it as a troupe or literary device to bolster an argument. The "I used to be a Catholic but....." atheists are so numerous on the net, you'd think they are common in real life, but alas, they are not. Then there are the biblical scholar atheists who are against abortion and homosexuality. These types are a real hoot. Then there are the hater atheists whose contempt for anything or anyone even remotely religious, fills them with rage and they spend all their time attacking religion and faith.

Forums such as this are good venues for those people who wish to proselytize, argue or otherwise vent their spleen about such stuff.

 

Technically Jesus was not a "religion" but an alien like he said-
"I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world...though you do not believe me, believe the miracles...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23/10:38/Matt 13:35)
In fact the whole Bible is a fascinating chronicle of close encounters between humans and offworld beings spanning many centuries of earth history..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We are ALL agnostics, Joe. If you append "atheist" to it...IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

Which probably means you have a belief...a belief that there are no gods.

Really.

I do.

In some cases, perhaps so.

But when speaking of things like the REALITY of existence...and what the REALITY contains or does not contain...

...using the word "belief" is just disguising the fact that one is making a blind guess.

No I do not. In fact, I do not even do any guessing on the issue.

Here, once again, is my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

 

These are some bold claims given the amount of people around here who consider themselves atheist by a very different definition.

If we google "definition atheism", let's see what comes up.
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (Google)
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (oxford dictionaries online)
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity" (Merriam Webster)
"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." (dictionary.com)

While it certainly is true that the position that no gods exist fall within the semantic bounds of atheism, these definitions also acknowledge the position of lack of belief or disbelief (a word which a similar search will include a lack of belief).

It is of no importance how the word fits into your understanding of things, or what usage you have picked up (how did you come up with your understanding of the word?), a word is defined by its usage, and the above indicates that the usage of the word include some agnostic positions.

Now, this is a contested line of thought. I certainly know of people who use your understanding. Whenever there is an argument for which it matters which definition of atheism is in effect, one should specify which one one refers to.

Edit: Now, it is true that most atheists lean in favour of no gods existing, but they rarely argue that point (or at least not very well). The center of the argument that is often produced is that we have no reason to believe in a god. Whether one goes not only there but also to state that gods do not exist is rarely of interest to atheists, and I would wager most wouldn't care to attempt to argue that. I could be wrong.

 

I understand you are trying to find a middle ground but you have made several mistakes.

No atheist claims that all evil in the world is the result of religion or that if religion were done away with the world would be at peace.

I do not speak for all atheists but most seem to agree that religion has done more harm than good and without religion the world would still be imperfect with wars and crime etc but not as much.

You are also sadly mistaken about many of your examples. There is indeed evidence that Mohammed and Buddha were very real. Mohammed was an illiterate pedophile warlord who may have existed and started a religious revolution but there is no evidence he was any prophet. Buddha seems to have been real and started a philosophical and quasi religious movement. Since many consider his teachings to be more philosophical than religious he is often ignored by atheists or at least not considered a religious leader.

You are in fact very wrong about Jesus and Moses however there is no evidence whatsoever that either of these individuals existed. There is in fact a great deal of circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that they were fictional characters but none at all that they were real people.

Mother Theresa is often revered but the idea that she was a wonderful person who spent her life helping people is actually false.

Yes Communists are often an embarrassment to atheists until one considers that communism itself is a religion.

It is not merely the idiotic claim that the earth is 6000 years old that religious people are proven wrong about.

I have nothing against agnostics personally but many other atheists do. Agnostics seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to question religious texts and ideas and ignore inconvenient religious rules while still clinging to some hope or faith that there is a god. I see nothing wrong with this but it is what it is and yes it is a little wishy washy.

The biggest disagreement between atheists and theists is really about IS THERE A GOD. The burden of proof is always on the believer or theist and always where they fail and fall flat.

 

This all really boils down to the problems of the terminology which is why I generally don&#8217;t apply those labels to myself or others. If you really want to understand and individual&#8217;s world view in this context (and it will be individual), you need more that generic labels.

For example, I wouldn&#8217;t say that I believe there are no gods with any kind of certainty. I don&#8217;t believe in any specific god or gods. The word &#8220;atheist&#8221; has been applied to both concepts but I think they&#8217;re significantly different.

Again, &#8220;guess&#8221; implies a conscious and deliberately assessment (of the evidence, which would suggest it&#8217;s not entirely blind either). Fundamental belief is a more instinctive and automatic concept. It can (though doesn&#8217;t have to) be developed in to something more structured and concrete but that&#8217;s why we have additional terms like philosophy, faith and religion. Again, a wider understanding of individuals is more important that these terms though.

You just described some of your beliefs. You believe the existence of gods isn&#8217;t impossible, you believe the existence of gods isn&#8217;t necessary, you believe we have insufficient information to reach any definitive conclusion on the matter. Not only do you have beliefs but they&#8217;re very similar to my own.

 

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are knowledge claims, Atheism and Theism are belief claims - I posted a link to a video earlier that will explain this. In simple terms Agnosticism has nothing to do with a belief or unbelief in god and never will that was a Christian concept to remove the four aspects we are really talking about.

Gnostic-Theism
Agnostic-Theism
Gnostic-Atheism
Agnostic-Atheism

All religious considerations for debate falls into one of these four positions. And seeing it this way its simple if you aren't sure and you lack sufficient knowledge of a deity existing your usually an Agnostic-Atheist if one is honest.

 

Actually, some atheists try to sell the idea that the word derives from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) therefore: atheism = without a BELIEF in a god.

That is, as I mentioned, BALONEY...which is the reason I countered it.

As for a "lack of belief that a god exists"...I LACK A BELIEF THAT ANY GODS EXIST. But I am NOT an atheist.

I also lack a belief that there are no gods...and that does not make me a theist.

I might point out that the definition (usage) of "lacking a belief in a god" is relatively recent. For most of its existence in various languages, the word denoted a formal belief that no gods exist...OR...an assertion that no gods exist. Try to find a dictionary published before 1950...and the definition will be "an assertion or belief that god(s) do not exist."

I've seen atheists who argue that the existence of gods IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

I certainly have been specific.

I'll leave that be, but I will say this:

There is no way to arrive at "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" using reason, logic, or science. So, anyone who asserts that there are no gods...or who asserts that it is more likely that there are no gods...IS ASSERTING A GUESS.

 

Well I just described my agnosticism.

Describe your take...and we will go from there.

All that could be. But it appears to me that people make blind guesses about the REALITY (specifically about whether or not there are gods involved)...and try to disguise the fact that they are making blind guesses. I can understand why. It is a LOT easier to say, "We have to respect each other's BELIEFS" than to say, "We have to repect each other's BLIND GUESSES."

I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING.

I did not say that! I said, "I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible."

Deal with that. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I did not say that. I said, "I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; "

Deal with that. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I KNOW for an absolute fact that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I do not.

I make guesses; I make supposition; I make estimations...and I make certain that I identify them as guesses, suppositions and estimations. I do not do "believing."

We may have similar outlook on these issues, Joe...but I do not do "believing."

This matters...and I hope we continue to discuss it, because I'd love to have you see that it matters.

 

It seems you just have a warped view of that word, probably holding too much association to religion with it to accept the more fundamental definition of simply “things we think are true”. The main problem with your position on this is that it seems to negatively colour your attitude towards pretty much anyone who happens to be described with such generic and fundamentally neutral words (which is potentially pretty much everyone) and certainly towards anyone who dare describes you using them. If you continue to resent anyone who has “beliefs”, you’re setting yourself up for a very lonely time of it. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s anything more I can contribute.

 

Sure, I have no interest in the etymology (for the purposes of this thread). What the usage has been in the past, or how recent it might be may be interesting in itself, but it has no direct impact on the usage today.

I think my definitions made it pretty clear that lacking belief that any gods exist is by definition atheism. It's true that your position is not the same as the position that rejects all gods, but they both fall under the heading of atheism, as defined above. Just like Orthodox and Catholic Christianity are not the same thing but they both fall under the heading of Christianity.

I think my logic is clear, the word applies when the definition is met, you meet the definition, therefore the word applies to you. I have provided dictionary definitions that support my argument. The strongest point I can see you providing here (mind you, I have not read the whole thread) is rewriting the argument, but this time in caps. What is the reasoning behind the statement "But I am NOT an atheist"?

Of course, lacking belief that there are no gods does not make you a theist. This is reflected in the fact that the definition of a theist does not include "lacking belief in that there are no gods". Thus, the idea that "lacking belief in no gods means theism" is not comparable to "lacking belief in gods leads to atheism".

In that case, I'll leave this be too. My argument (for the moment) pertains to when the word atheism applies, not whether or not any particular version of it is true.