Are cavers (on this forum at least, and those who choose to respond) atheist?

[Bob G]

I'm agnostic; I can't see how anyone can know (evidence-based) if a particular god exists.

This is worth a look - it won't change anyone's views but some of the arguments are interesting.
http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

 

[graham]

I'm agnostic; I can't see how anyone can know (evidence-based) if a particular god exists.

Would you not get a bit of a hint if, say, the Red Sea suddenly opened up in front of you and your fleeing friends, stayed open for just long enough for you to cross & then closed behind trapping or killing your pursuers?

I'm sure that I can think of other bits of evidence that might help, as well.

 

[badger]

there is a book worth a read," Jesus the Man", it is one scholars interpretation of ancient scripts, in particular, the gospels, it gives a very different interpretation than the one that we actually see in the bible.

opposite to that, the turin shroud which may be geniune or not, there is questions over the authentisity of the carbon dating, the sample given apparently does not match the rest of the cloth, it also has a chain of evidence that cannot be certain, however the face cloth used to cover jesus face, matches the turin shorud cloth, the blood apparently matches and it has a chain of evidence which suggest it is authentic.

Muslims believe Jesus was real and survived his crucifixation, smuggled out of the country and lived, still being a person doing good, and had a family.
the french (those who are not catholic) believe mary magdelene moved to france and lived in a holy state, according to some was black

for sure none of know the answers, we have experts who tell us this or that, who knows if they are right,
we have ever powerful telescopes looking into space, and from these images the experts tell us about planets, are they right.

evolution is traceable and fact
the earths climate changes can be proved

I could give you names of families I have dealt with who say they have had visons which proves to them there is a god, these a very educated people,

I personally reserve judgement, read material on both sides of the discussion, and will find out for sure once the envitable happens,
I neither believe or disbelieve, for that reason I call myself Agnostic.

 

[Subpopulus Hibernia]

I'm agnostic; I can't see how anyone can know (evidence-based) if a particular god exists.

When people say that they are agnostic I always find that to be slightly meaningless because gnosticism relates to what you believe you can know. An agnostic would be someone who believes that you cannot ever know whether god does or doesn't exist, a gnostic believes that it is possible to know conclusively whether god is real or not.

I don't think very many people claim to know that god does or doesn't exist, but most theists would simply have faith that one does. Likewise most atheists would acknowledge that their belief in a lack of a god can never be proven.

The real question is whether you believe in a god or not i.e. are you a theist or an atheist? When you say you are agnostic I presume that you don't really know which side of the divide you fall on, or that you don't really care. If you don't really care then perhaps you are an apatheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism), which is a more exact term for what people more normally call agnosticism.

 

[Rhys]

there should have been a third option.

Agnostic.

The poll is unambiguous. It's either atheist or something else. By my logic, you need to answer "no".

Rhys

 

[badger]

therefore I did answer no on the poll,
and I obviously fall in the catorgory which has now has been pointed out, an apatheist.

 

[Roger W]

I'm agnostic; I can't see how anyone can know (evidence-based) if a particular god exists.

When people say that they are agnostic I always find that to be slightly meaningless because gnosticism relates to what you believe you can know. An agnostic would be someone who believes that you cannot ever know whether god does or doesn't exist, a gnostic believes that it is possible to know conclusively whether god is real or not.

Interesting comments, S.H., the only problem is that the word 'gnostic' has come to have a particular and restricted meaning - namely, a follower of certain, mainly second-century, religious groups believing that matter is inherently evil and that salvation can be obtained through special knowledge or 'gnosis.'  Have a look in Wikipedia if you're that interested... 

Like Goydenman, I've been a Christian for a good few years now - since 1965, in fact.  I've never had the Red Sea open up in front of me (I'm a bit too young to have experienced that one!) but I have been specifically warned of impending redundancy by the Lord, who not only assured me that I'd be well looked after but also organised a job for me in China where I was able to work for ten years and help in with the church there...  A lot of very unlikely - but very good - things have happened to me over the years.  If you don't believe in God, I suppose you could always say that they were just a string of very unlikely coincidences - but if you don't believe in God, and hence don't know him, then I suppose that's all you could say.  On the other hand, if he's been a good friend to you for the last 47 years...   

 

[graham]

I've never had the Red Sea open up in front of me (I'm a bit too young to have experienced that one!)

S'funny how the all the big multi-witnessed events happened an awfully long time ago, before everybody had mobile phones to capture them on

... but I have been specifically warned of impending redundancy by the Lord, who not only assured me that I'd be well looked after but also organised a job for me

Serious questions. What objective reasons do you have for thinking that this job was specifically organised just for you by that entity?

If he can act, now, on such a personal scale why didn't he help all those - his followers and others - who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Boxing Day tsunami hit in 2004?

 

[Fulk]

Well, Roger W, that?s an interesting post.

I?ve had lots of good things happen to me ? but I?ve also had a few fairly unpleasant things happen to me as well ? I imagine that his is the norm for most people (at least, most people in our society).

There are, of course, a lot of people who have had a lot of bad things happen to them, and some to whom little but bad seems to happen ? do we infer that God simply doesn?t give a damn about them, and favours a token few (you being one of the lucky / chosen ones)?

 

[Subpopulus Hibernia]

Interesting comments, S.H., the only problem is that the word 'gnostic' has come to have a particular and restricted meaning - namely, a follower of certain, mainly second-century, religious groups believing that matter is inherently evil and that salvation can be obtained through special knowledge or 'gnosis.'  Have a look in Wikipedia if you're that interested... 

Mostly the word gnostic conjures up memories of this painfully posturing essay  - http://www.tu-cottbus.de/theoriederarchitektur/wolke/eng/Subjects/971/Perez-Gomez/perez-gomez_t.html

That a word has two meanings isn't really a problem, it's usually possible to infer from the context. Agnostic itself carries several meanings, including in the non-religious context - you can be agnostic about electoral reform or whatever. What annoys me sometimes is when people use the word agnostic because they don't want to consider themselves atheist. Saying you are agnostic is fine but it's not very exact and open to misinterpretation. Below is a piece by poet Theo Dorgan, who doesn't consider himself atheist, despite not believing in god.   

"I say I found that I was an agnostic, not an atheist. Even as a gawky and often simple-minded teenager I thought it extraordinarily presumptuous to claim that there could be no God because I did not believe in one. I mean, I allowed for the possibility that I might be proved wrong. I am still unpersuaded by the many ingenious ?proofs? of the existence of God that thinkers down through the ages have offered, and I am equally unpersuaded by the hectoring tone and hysterical righteousness of ?scientific? campaigning atheists." - Theo Dorgan

There's still a fair bit of prejudice attached to the word atheist, not so much on this side of the atlantic, but in the US atheists are  the most distrusted minority group. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust

 

[bograt]

[ "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making] (Wiki)

Surprised no ones mentioned this religion yet.

 

[Subpopulus Hibernia]

It's not a religion though...

 

[graham]

It's not a religion though...

Borderline

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

My emphasis. Given that the highlighted part is really the whole of humanism, it would seem that the latter does not really encompass the ... ahem fundamentals of religion.

 

[mrodoc]

Yes, Graham. Ethics are what society agrees on. A book that made me see this was Harry Harrison's The Ethical Engineer about somebody who survives by exploiting the ethics of whereever he is. An entertaining but thought provoking read.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Like Goydenman, I've been a Christian for a good few years now - since 1965, in fact.  I've never had the Red Sea open up in front of me (I'm a bit too young to have experienced that one!) but I have been specifically warned of impending redundancy by the Lord, who not only assured me that I'd be well looked after but also organised a job for me in China where I was able to work for ten years and help in with the church there...  A lot of very unlikely - but very good - things have happened to me over the years.  If you don't believe in God, I suppose you could always say that they were just a string of very unlikely coincidences - but if you don't believe in God, and hence don't know him, then I suppose that's all you could say.  On the other hand, if he's been a good friend to you for the last 47 years... 

See there's the thing really, God can do no wrong. Anything good that happens was a prayer answered, God doing good works, performing miracles. What about the bad things? Is that the Devil? If it is the Devil why doesn't God put a stop to it?

The thing that really gets me is the torture and murder of small children (Victoria Climbie to name but one). I, like most people, simply could not do that, it is just not within me. So why does god allow anyone to do this? Surely if god could do just one thing it would be to stop such abuse and suffering. Is an omnipotent god who allows such terrible abuse and suffering worthy of worship? 

 

[graham]

Yes, Graham. Ethics are what society agrees on. A book that made me see this was Harry Harrison's The Ethical Engineer about somebody who survives by exploiting the ethics of whereever he is. An entertaining but thought provoking read.

Thanks for the heads up, Peter, I'll get a copy of that. I find Harrison to be a very interesting author.

 

[graham]

So why does god allow anyone to do this? Surely if god could do just one thing it would be to stop such abuse and suffering. Is an omnipotent god who allows such terrible abuse and suffering worthy of worship? 

It is a simple and inexorably logical deduction that a god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

 

[Les W]

An interesting discussion of some of the points raised here can be found at the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic...
http://uctaa.net/contents.html

 

[TheBitterEnd]

So why does god allow anyone to do this? Surely if god could do just one thing it would be to stop such abuse and suffering. Is an omnipotent god who allows such terrible abuse and suffering worthy of worship? 

It is a simple and inexorably logical deduction that a god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Yes but I'd like one of the Christians to have a go, why are they down on their knees WORSHIPING some being that permits child abuse?

 

[graham]

Yes but I'd like one of the Christians to have a go, why are they down on their knees WORSHIPING some being that permits child abuse?

Child abuse is one thing. They may argue that if humans are to be granted free will then there must be consequences of that. However, that does not cover why their god(s) allow childhood leukaemia, for example. Or the mass suffering and death that follows events such as earthquakes or the tsunami that I mentioned earlier.