Atheist bus campaign

^"being" an agnostic, does it lead you to sometimes believe? and sometimes completely denie God's existance?

Raff wrote: James wrote: It's all silly terminology anyhow. I don't believe in God and know there isn't one.  Some would say I am an atheist, some would say I am an agnostic.  Nobody can seem to agree as to what they are; that amuses me. Therefore, I don't need a label to say what my beliefs are.  I am just me and I know what I do and do not believe in. If you 'know' there is no God, then you're an atheist. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not, and basically doesn't care. This is the original meaning of the word in Greek, as I'm sure the Baldies will be happy to confirm.

Yes, I am an Atheist -- in regards to the definition (unlike Pnoom! who thinks I'm pompous and actually Agnostic )

However I don't like to term myself as one; even though I am one.

It's like me saying I'm an existentialist or a socialist.  I'd rather just be me and not use terms to describe myself.


Edited by James - March 01 2009 at 17:17

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: cacho wrote: ^"being" an agnostic, does it lead you to sometimes believe? and sometimes completely denie God's existance?   Agnostic is a person who simply believes that God's existence or not, can't be proved with human senses, so there's no reason to care about this matter.   And no, they don't reach any knowledge on this issue.   Iván

So I don't know what I am, after all

The Doctor wrote: A little etymology here.  Atheist comes from Ancient Greek meaning "godless" - a = without, theos = god.    Gnosis was also an Ancient Greek term meaning "knowledge" in particular spiritual knowledge.  Hence Agnostic = without spiritual knowledge.

Literally, yes, but agnostic and atheist have come to be separated from those terms in some circles at some times, which makes talking about it and defining the terms annoying. Because literally, yes, that's what the etymology of the words is, but they have come to mean different things to different people with varying knowledge on the subject.

Slartibartfast wrote: I don't believe in agnostics, atheists on the other hand...

stonebeard wrote: There's a difference between being agnostic and not willing to choose a side and being agnostic and acting like there probably isn't a God. Even Richard Dawkins says that no one knows if God exists or not. No one. Anyone who is sure of the matter is a fool. But he, like myself and many others, act day to day as if there is not a God, because it seems highly improbable.

Why does it appear highly improbable? I don't see that at all; on the contrary. A certain image of God is improbable; I agree to that. But God as being THE process is not improbable at all.
You seem to doubt a process can have consciousness. Yet where does your own consciousness arise from? Don't say "my brain" because it is definitely not true; no-one has been able to explain how consciousness arises from it. It is not the brain itself, it is the process which is going on it which is your consciousness, that's the only thing we know. Once you are dead your consciousness is gone, because the process has ended, although the brain is still there.
So there is a process with consciousness. Is it not logical to follow that the process which is going on in the universe, with its myriads of sub-processes, does have a consciousness too, simply because it is incredibly more complex than the process in your brain?
You may take the position that no-one knows if consciousness really ends when you are dead, and you have a point there. However, wouldn't that position be quite contrary to your original position?

Slartibartfast wrote: For me it all boils down to: Who made God? And why does anything exist anyway? And of course, why does six by nine equal forty two?

That last question is easily answered: In a number system based on the number 13 (instead of 10, as we are used to) 6x9=42 indeed (4*13+2=54).

But the way I perceive God, as the cosmic process, "he" is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Omnipotent, simply because everything that happens is part of the cosmic process: whatever can happen will happen.
Omnipresent: Definitely too; the cosmic process is everywhere.
And omniscient? Yes, that too, as it appears. The latest scientific developments seem to suggest that the universe is of a holographic nature. You may know that even a tiny fragment of a hologram will still contain the whole picture, and this is how the world appears to be too.
As to omnibenevolent: That would depend a lot on the definition of "benevolent". One might argue that the simple fact that we exist proves this benevolence; where God malevolent we wouldn't. However, I don't see why omnibenevolence would necessarily have to be a quality of God; actually not even the God of Christianity is omnibenevolent. Or would you call the deluge a "benevolent act"? That would be stretching the word indeed.


Edited by BaldFriede - March 01 2009 at 20:48

BaldFriede wrote: And omniscient? Yes, that too, as it appears. The latest scientific developments seem to suggest that the universe is of a holographic nature. You may know that even a tiny fragment of a hologram will still contain the whole picture, and this is how the world appears to be too.

Well, that doesn't seem to imply that there needs to be a consciousness in the universe, but if there was, then I guess that makes sense to say that thing is worth calling omniscient.

However, this is all fine for speculation, and I'm sure atheists would find much less to criticize (except for that this consciousness you're describing doesn't seem to demand a religion based around it) if everyone were to believe in God this way.

You seem to be describing pantheism, in a way. This is a concept of God I really have a neutral standpoint toward. It's more of the singular, outside of the universe and mettlesome God of the monotheistic religions that has everyone up in arms.

No, Iván.

I'm a strong atheist (not that I like to use the term, as I mentioned earlier).  I do not preach this.  I know God (not just in the traditional sense) does not exist.  I do not need any facts (not that any exist) of his existence or non-existence.

There maybe others who think the same way as me but that's neither here nor their.  I do not converse with these people and neither do I convert others over.

And it's not denial either.  I do not need evidence.

Having said that, I do not like to label myself.