Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

Wait a second. The people in Aristotle's time didn't know that buildings were made from bricks?!

 

As for philosophy, what's wrong with the concept of "I don't know"?

Of course, bricks from a house will automatically suggest that there will be a indivisible smallest particle and that everything consists of it, the particle itself being invisible to the eye

 

 

I don't know is a valid but transitional philosophy. Generally speaking this should only be in used during transition of understanding one of the three beliefs better. If you die an agnostic, you failed to understand life. Controversially speaking, can you live with that?

[danielsangeo]

Life is what you make of it. If I die an agnostic, I'm fine with not knowing certain things. In fact, I think agnosticism is stronger because it's not arrogant. We can't know everything in our short lifespans.

 

Also, yes, bricks on a house does automatically suggest smallest indivisible particle. What are bricks made of? Crushed stone. What is crushed stone made of? What is that made of? What is THAT made of? And so on.

[ProHypster]

Life is what you make of it. If I die an agnostic, I'm fine with not knowing certain things. In fact, I think agnosticism is stronger because it's not arrogant. We can't know everything in our short lifespans.

 

Also, yes, bricks on a house does automatically suggest smallest indivisible particle. What are bricks made of? Crushed stone. What is crushed stone made of? What is that made of? What is THAT made of? And so on.

 

It's not as simple as that, why would you not consider the more logical theory at the time that crushed stone material is where the ladder ends, noone thought that there could be invisible things smaller than the actual material, but forget it, I'm sure if you lived back then you would teach everyone a lesson or two

[ProHypster]

Life is what you make of it. If I die an agnostic, I'm fine with not knowing certain things. In fact, I think agnosticism is stronger because it's not arrogant. We can't know everything in our short lifespans..

 

I think you are moer of a Freethinker then Agnostic.

 

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as 'freethinking', and practitioners of freethought are known as 'freethinkers'.[2]

[danielsangeo]

I don't think "freethinker" and "agnostic" are exclusive nor do I believe that "atheist" is exclusive from freethinker an agnostic. I'm also a male. I'm also what most would consider "white" or "caucasian" (note the small "c"). I'm also a liberal, ideologically. I'm also a fan of pepperoni pizza. None of these things are mutually exclusive from each other and I can have them all without a bit of cognitive dissonance.

 

As for the "ladder ending" at crushed stone, why? Why not ask what it's made of? If you don't know, say "I don't know". I don't understand the need to come up with some sort of fanciful story behind it except for entertainment purposes or as a means to come up with a test for its existence.

 

But maybe I just have too much common sense.

[Axeldeath]

Watch out for that common sense, that's very controversial in some groups...

[Dan-95]

Quote from Danielsangeo: "Just curiosity. If the subject is driving (a car, a motorbike, an RV, whatever)...and I say that I'm not doing that, am I still driving?"

 

What if we don't know if there is anyone driving, or the act of driving is being done (Sorry, hard to translate a verb into a noun with this metaphor)? I think these kind of metaphors don't do the situation justice. We are not talking about what is there and what we know is there, we are talking about belief, the only way to not have belief is to not know, not care or claim equal possibility to available circumstances. That's why i see agnosticism as the kind of 'default' or 'off' position, still, there is strong agnosticism, which i would say is also a belief. This is also why i acknowledged atheist/theist agnosticism, which i missed.

 

Quote from smart guy: "I think you are moer of a Freethinker then Agnostic."

I personally think we all have different beliefs, we are just labelling ourselves for the convenience and to sum up our individual thoughts to that of a group.

 

Quote from Romano: "However, I still remember what I wanted to say about beliefs. I say that science is a belief because its link with truth is not different with the link between truth and faith."

I would argue science is only a belief if you choose it to be, the laws of nature are indisputably laws of the nature we see and know of this physical reality. Science is based (mostly) upon deductive thinking whereas faith is more inductive. I don't think that's what you meant though, is it?

 

@kookaburra

Perhaps you should look more closely at the labels for types of agnostic belief there is, it may or may not help with definitions. This is why i mentioned forgetting about atheist/theist agnosticism. It's kind of hard to look at the main 'families' of the beliefs in a broad sense and debate on a more detailed level.

 

 

P.S I said Agnostic(ism) a lot

[Willt41]

I would place myself as Agnostic, as humans we really know very little so in my opinion to claim that there is no form of higher power is just as baseless a claim as the ones presented by most religions. I never really have had a problem with religion, at the end of the day even if it is all false most still prescribe a good moral value system.

[danielsangeo]

I don't agree with the assertion that the only way not to have belief is to not know. There are many things that I know that I don't believe in.....such as magic. I don't believe in magic but I know what it is. I see belief as an activity, an action that one can either do or not. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you believe in ghosts or you don't. Either you believe in flying saucers or you don't. You know what all these things are but I disagree with the assertion that you "either you believe in flying saucers or you believe that flying sauces don't exist".

 

I just find it as odd as saying that I have a hobby of not collecting stamps.

[Dan-95]

OK, fine, i'll do the whole metaphor thing...

 

If you're not driving(Theist), you're a pedestrian(Atheist), if you're not a pedestrian, you're a cyclist(Atheist agnostic) or a passenger(Theist agnostic) or your sitting completely still(agnostic) or even refuse to ever move and think that other people shouldn't move (Strong agnosticism).

 

Also, to the postman one heard earlier.

Being a postman is a job, you could be a president or an office clerk. You could be working part time, full time or flexible hours. Yet again, you can be jobless.

 

One more time:

You might have a different hobby to stamp collecting such as posting on forums ( ) if you do not have a hobby, you are hobbyless. I really don't know a middle ground here though :S

 

The act of not believing is still an act. Not acting is the lack of an act, not knowing is the lack of knowing.

Whenever you believe with a certainty, i consider that an act. So the lack of an act = not acting = not believing = not knowing.

[danielsangeo]

I'm sorry, but the "act of not believing" is not an act. It's "not acting". Once again, you don't have a hobby of not collecting stamps. Yes, you can have other "hobbies" or "jobs" ("believing in extraterrestrials" for example) but not believing in God/deities is the same as not collecting stamps. It's not believing. It's not a hobby.

 

I don't believe with a certainty. I don't believe at all. This isn't the same thing as not knowing the subject matter.

 

A pedestrian isn't driving but knows what driving is.

[Koach]

yeah... atheism isnt too much of a big deal. nowadays, you can choose what you believe and what you dont. personally, i give everything the benefit of the doubt. it's not a yes, nor a no, but a maybe. do you guys agree?

[danielsangeo]

Nothing is ever 100% conclusive but I don't think that's the point. Something can be so close to 100% conclusive that the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it isn't is irrelevant.

 

For example, my table is classified as a solid. When you get to the subatomic level, however, it's almost completely empty, so is it a solid? Yes. Yes, it is. Based on how we define "solid".

 

Can we conclusively prove that the table even exists? All tests done on the table (observation, measurement, physical tests, etc) show that it does, but are these tests accurate? Does it matter? According to the laws as we currently know them, the table exists and can be used for holding my computer (which also apparently exists as I'm typing on it right now, but is that evidence completely conclusive? And does THAT matter?) up at a level in which I (yeah, we got it the first time) can use it comfortably. So, therefore, it exists. Without a doubt.

 

Unless you have some sort of extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and not just philosophical bullshit), my table, my computer and I exist.

 

There is much more evidence for my table, computer, and me than there is for any deity. In fact, there isn't any evidence for any deity that has ever been provided in the history of man. I wonder why this is....

[ProHypster]

[Never mind.]

[danielsangeo]

I dunno. I believe that you can be happy even if you're "smart" (though the more I learn, the stupider I oftentimes feel). I (in the same use as you use the word "I") don't feel like life is "shit". It's a gift from nature. I intend to enjoy my life as much as I can and I seek to leave the world better than I found it. It is through my arduous at self-education on a variety of subjects that I feel I can somehow distill all that I've learned and extend it to other people, in some vain attempt to "leave my mark" on others and, in turn, they can "leave their mark" with some sort of reference to my "mark" and someway contribute to the betterment of our species.

 

But that's probably my ego talking and it probably sounds rather pretentious but I don't care. It's how I feel.

 

(Well, shoot, now what do I do with my post?)

[ProHypster]

I dunno. I believe that you can be happy even if you're "smart" (though the more I learn, the stupider I oftentimes feel). I (in the same use as you use the word "I") don't feel like life is "shit". It's a gift from nature. I intend to enjoy my life as much as I can and I seek to leave the world better than I found it. It is through my arduous at self-education on a variety of subjects that I feel I can somehow distill all that I've learned and extend it to other people, in some vain attempt to "leave my mark" on others and, in turn, they can "leave their mark" with some sort of reference to my "mark" and someway contribute to the betterment of our species.

 

But that's probably my ego talking and it probably sounds rather pretentious but I don't care. It's how I feel.

 

(Well, shoot, now what do I do with my post?)

 

Wow I didn't know someone was already writing a response...

 

If I gave you slow poison as a gift, would you be able to enjoy it?

 

Anyways IMO the betterment of our species is a pretty ptimitive belief (key word IMO) You were born whether you wanted or not, a human, but there is no "better" there is only evolution. Judging smarter as better than stupid is not thinking deep enough. There is only smart and stupid there is no "better". Better can be used as a term in sports but not in life as we do not know what the ultimate perfect for our species is there cannot be better.

And perfect life can be different along our own species.

Some want money, some talent, some just want the opportunity to learn.

I already observed many years ago that one human can be almost entirely different in opinions then another human. Just look at how many subcultures there is: Goths, Geeks, Hypsters, Philosophers... all very different, all with a different perfect.

 

Is that what you think is the ultimate goal of life? The betterment of our species?

 

Also, making me an agnostic made me feel pretty shitty, now I can accept anything as i already know that things aren't as good as they are told and live at almost the same level but for some the truth can kill.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Axeldeath]

Is that what you think is the ultimate goal of life? The betterment of our species?

 

Sounds about right to me, do you have a different opinion?

[ProHypster]

Is that what you think is the ultimate goal of life? The betterment of our species?

 

Sounds about right to me, do you have a different opinion?

Yes, so far I think that there is no ultimate goal in life. You live. But that is a pretty pathetic thought as I am not smart enough to know that and the chances of that being true are just as high as anything else.

 

The betterment of our species seems quite frankly as just another religious type of belief to me.

Just something to give you meaning as the atheists say.

[ProHypster]

I mean quite frankly for me perfect would be if I was born 2000 years ago in the greek city of Athens. I would enjoy that life very much. Drink wine with Aristotle, discuss the world, help fellow athenians... enjoy clean air, natural sights as well as marvelous artistic structures.

 

Otherwise being a deity would be perfect.

[ProHypster]

But that's probably my ego talking and it probably sounds rather pretentious but I don't care. It's how I feel.

 

(Well, shoot, now what do I do with my post?)

 

Hey, if we don't say how we really feel we will not get anywhere, I liked your post for that. I encourage everyone to tell their true feelings.