What is your personal belief?

What is your personal belief.

I am personally an apatheist

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God as I don't feel there is enough proof to support that he exists. I feel it is upon those believers to prove He exists, and not on us non-believers to prove He doesn't.

I started following the Buddha's precepts some 2, 3 months ago. I'm also still an atheist though.

religion is a social control mechanism, nothing more, nothing less. I have no faith in an omnipotent creator either. Purely there to explain what people counld not explain with knowledge and science in bygone eras.

I am an atheist. I often have to explain the difference between agnosticism, atheism, deism, pantheism, and etc. because there are many different definitions for each of these terms.

You should explain what you think each of these terms means.

Agnostic: Thinks that certain things (eg. the existence of God) aren't or cannot be known.
Atheist: Rejects the claim by theists that God/gods exists.
Deist: Believes that there was a God who caused the beginning of the universe and since then hasn't meddled in universal (and human) affairs.
Pantheist: Believes God is the whole of the universe ('Nature').

Those are the definitions I usually use.

Maybe you can set me right: I'm an agnostic, in that I don't know there's a god (or giant turtle/devil/Zeus) and I don't beleive that you can prove there isn't one (how do you prove a negative?).

But I don't think there is a god (space-goat/Hera/Yoda), as I think science explains much of what a god would be required for (origins of the universe, cause and effect, evolution, freak weather systems, the existence of life on earth, Nathalie Portman). So does that mean I'm an atheist?

I accept the possibility of god, but don't beleive its actuality. Maybe I should stick to moving chess pieces about and resigning.

From what I am hearing, you would fall under being an agnostic, since agnostics believe its impossible to prove that god exists or doesn't exist.

Echoes my thinking exactly, Dave. Especially your last paragraph. I think that more-or-less sums up an agnostic/free-thinker. Someone who is prepared to believe in some thing (such as a god), but only when that thing has been proven by way of science, logic, or reason.

The position you describe makes you an agnostic atheist, just like me.

agnosticism is your position concerning knowledge or claim of knowledge (you don't claim to know) while atheism describes your position when it comes to belief (you lack the belief in deities).

I think it is a mistake trying to place "agnosticism" onto the same axis with theism and atheism, as a sort of a middle position, as atheism/theism addresses the question belief, or lack thereof, while agnosticism/gnosticism addresses the question of whether you claim to know with certainty.

Anyone who describes themselves as an "agnostic" still hasn't answered the question of what they believe - they merely state that they don't know. I would dare to say that any reasonable person, who's put any real thought into their world view, whether theist or atheist, is also an agnostic.

Thanks chaps! So I am an Agnostic Atheist. Its an interesting distinction between knowledge and belief; put this way, my atheism is just another form of "faith", just not faith in a god-type character.

I also consider myself a "sceptic" in the modern sense of the word and I like the work of Michael Shermer. Can you be a Sceptic Agnostic Atheist?

By the way, I'd recommend reading Shermer's Why People Beleive Weird Things to any Science over Superstition fans.

Stegocephalian wrote:

"I would dare to say that any reasonable person, who's put any real thought into their world view, whether theist or atheist, is also an agnostic."

A good point there, I think. It annoys me when people don't think and just accept things blindly. But if someone has thought it through and come to a different conclusion to me, good luck to them; I'd still enjoy arguing about it with them though!

I think that's something that vexes many of us in this group - the way that some manage to believe so 'strongly' in something they have been told or have read, without questioning it at all.

No, I would not say that atheism is just another form of faith - faith implies trust in something that goes beyond what the evidence would warrant. Atheism can be a belief, in that you can actually believe that there is no god (as I do), or it can be even less than that - a lack of belief, where you don't actually make a positive assertion of any belief, but merely reject the notions of god offered to you as implausible or unlikely.

If you do have a belief that there is no god, that still does not imply faith in there being no god. I don't believe in a god, but this belief in the lack of one isn't something that I have faith in - if good evidence to the contrary were presented to me tomorrow, I'd switch my position, and become an agnostic theist. My belief is a tentative belief, subject to change with evidence, not a position of trust and conviction, of willingness to defend and hang on to it in the face of good evidence to the contrary, which is what "faith" would imply.

My belief in there being no gods is of the same kind as my belief that, say, that it's not going to rain tomorrow where I live. I don't put much weight on it, nor would I be resistant to someone changing that belief (to another tentative one) by, for example, showing me a weather map predicting a stormfront closing in.

Faith is absolute conviction, while belief can be either something adherred to beyond what is reasonable, for bad reasons, or something held tentatively, for good evidentiary reasons, subject to change with new evidence.

As to your question of whether a skeptic can be an agnostic atheist, in my experience the great majority of skeptics are agnostic atheists (I am one too).

There is nothing in skepticism that precludes beliefs in things, only that a skeptic should require good evidence for his beliefs, be ready to critically re-evaluate them in the light of new evidence, and to keep his beliefs tentative, always subject to change with evidence.

For example, skeptics don't generally believe in there being any such a thing as a "real" psychic, but if a claimed psychic demonstrates his ability under proper observing conditions, where natural techniquest like cold reading are ruled out by the experimental setup, and ends up wining James Randi's million dollar challenge, I'll be the first (well, maybe the second, after Randi himself) to acknowledge that there clearly is a phenomena worth investigating there. Were I to have "faith" in there being no real psychics, as opposed to a tentative belief, I would not be ready to expose that belief to possible refutation by experiment, nor would I be ready to change my mind when presented with good counterevidence.

Tentative beliefs can be strong beliefs too, without being adherred to dogmatically, with faith - I could hardly be more confident in my belief that homeopathy has no actual medicinal effect beyond pure placebo effect, but despite the strenght of my belief in this, proper, repeatable, carefully scrutinized, peer reviewed double blind studies consistently showing an effect would make me change that belief.

I think where faith differs from reasonable, tentative belief is principally in the attitude towards that which you believe - someone that has faith in something views attempts to refute that something as personal attacks, and will defend that object of faith like they would defend their home against an armed robber. You don't negotiate with the armed robber to see if, after all, he might have a better, more just, claim to your property than you - and similarly, an object of faith is not exposed to any challenge that might realistically threaten that faith.

Scientific skeptic. Explicit de facto atheist owing to philosophical skepticism.  

    to believe in god or higher power is just that, a belief. to say you have to know god exists to believe dose not make sense to me. most of you want proof before you believe. i will try to input what i believe. sorry if this is uncalled for or in any way offensive.

    i believe science is proof that god exists... have you seen the incomprehensible way the world works, down to the effectiveness of our own construction and how it is incorporated in life. the intricacies of the body and mind working on a scale that can never be fully understood. (i watch a lot of discovery science programing, it's truly amazing) not only that but how our creation is melded in to nature as though it could not go with out the other.

     then the protective/ozone layer that is just perfect in our protection from deadly elements. so many things/elements exist in life and if they did not, we would not exist for sure. is it really just happenstance? if it is not random, then if god did not create life. how dose life exist? it is just too perfect of a construction, where we as mankind distort and poison it. from the ozone layer, what we put in our bodies , how we tend to nature, how we treat one another, our interpretations of of life, etc. just to name a few.

      it is us and our god given "will" that alter gods perfection. where to me, proof of god is evident. actions of an infinite number of actions changes the way this existence is lived. where people get confused about the existence of god is the "will" , god graciously gave to us. it is not to say that our "will" is not known and recorded before hand by god. god gives us free will and we choose to believe, act certain ways, neglect our duties to god and each other etc.

     god's will is in every one and every thing that existence. but allowing us to choose for our selves is where the test of life and reward of an after life come in to play. if we could not choose to believe or not to believe, by our own will, there would also be no reason for us to exist. unless you believe it is really just happenstance and we are created by an unpredictable factor. just read and follow the science of life in general. things like our make up, nature's greatness, our mind and bodies connection, our influences in to our lives that causediseases and deformations, birth and labor, psychology, etc. also in our history, true believing men and women where given signs and these signs where recorded by more then just believers of it's time.

thanks for your time.

125k_A - could you please edit your post a little, and break it up to paragraphs. It is very taxing to the eyes to try to follow a long block of text without any breaks.

I'm sure many here (including me) would like to comment on your points, but are put off by the formating. I'd say that when a text goes beyond maybe 5-8 lines, you should start thinking about inserting a break there. The "enter" key is your friend.

I like to think that human, and ofcourse other, life on this planet happened by way of a happy coincidence. I'm not sure whether this is a commonly-held view or not.

The suitable atmosphere (and planetary features) occured by chance, not design. If whatever natural occurence which happened to create Earth's suitable living conditions hadn't taken place, or had happened slightly differently, we may not be here today; or we may have been a completely different species (i.e. one that would suit the alternate environment).

Considering this way (and many other ways, I'm sure) of looking at how things became, it's difficult (impossible?) to imagine that somewhere out there, on the countless other planets, there exists no other sensual life. Any such claim is foolish, especially given that at one point (or perhaps still?) the theory was that there were living organisms on Mars - one of the first space objects that we have investigated in any sort of depth. I'm afraid I'm not at all up-to-date with the investigations into 'life on Mars', but the point is clear.

As to how the materials for this incredible process came to be; that's pure conjecture and there are (currently) no rights or wrongs, only opinions.

Its good to hear alternatvie viewpoints, like those of Mr. 125K. I would have to agree with alphastar18's responses (very well put).

I watched a documentary recently about life on earth and its place in the cosmos; one interesting point was that if Jupiter wasn't in our solar system, Earth would regularly be hit by comets, which would obliterate most life forms (like the Dinosaur extinction theory). But because Jupiter is so big, most large objects hit it before getting to Earth. I beleive that this is a "happy coincidence", rather than by some being's design.

However, I have read about some prominent scientists, in particular physicists, who beleive in God or something similar, because they see patterns and design in the fabric of the universe- super-string theory was one example given.

I wonder how much of our "godless" beleifs are really based on scientific method, or because of other psychological issues which can affect the way we decide to interprate the evidence presented. What I mean is, some very intelligent people beleive in God.

My atheism orginited during my adolesance, when I was questioning everything about my world, not just creation, ethics and causality. I would like to say that I came to the conclusion of agnostic atheism through a logical process, like Descartes' meditations, but to be honest, it was probably more about my dislike of the hypocracy of organised religion as I saw it (in particular the Church of England). Also, my friends at the time who also reached similar conclusions, were also non-conformist in other ways- they liked heavy metal music and didn't fit in with the main-stream crowd at school. I also think that most of them were above average intelligence.

I like to think that my beleifs are more rationally founded these days, but would like to ask the question:

Are some of us atheists because:

1. It annoys people in authority, like priests/vicars/headmasters/our own and other people's parents/The President of the United States of America?

2. Its an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream view that is (was?) taught in schools, and therefore cool?

3. Because we have a rebelious nature, and atheism is just a "rebel's religion"?

I am playing Devil's Advocate here (no pun intended), but how much can we really disassociate our beleifs from our own limited knowledge of the world and our emotions about it?