Occasional^Blonde

I know Im new here so here I go...

Can there be a middle, an Agnostics viewpoint?

I have recently been visiting a forum where there is much debate as to whether or not Agnostics are just fence sitters or can believe that there is both a possibility and impossibility that God in any form can exist.

The thread that drew most of my attention is, Isn't It Time Agnostics Got Off The Fence .

In this discussion, some/most Atheists command that Agnostics are "Reticent Atheist." Or in other words, reluctant, hesitant, or kept silent as to the non-existence of a God(s) or superhuman deity.

In my opinion, they probably sense that we are Agnostic in a hypocritical sense, that we sway, teetering on the balance so if there is a God(s) we don’t offend and still make it to the “prize” set forth in religious teaching. And if there is no God, no harm done.

That is some of the things some Atheists have said to me. But I beg to differ and I will explain.

First off, the majority of Atheists I have met or read about, make most of their argument against the Christian God or teaching of creation. Very few I have found will argue with or about other deity beliefs, my theory is that Christianity poses more a threat against Atheism. In bringing about possibility of a superhuman creator for the origin of life and universe where the only proof given is life itself and the Holy Scriptures that three main religions of the world use as reference. Christian, Judaism and even Muslim.

All other religions, where either the god or goddesses are/were human at one time, or were a part of nature isn’t argued as much but more of story to explain the existence of life on Earth rather than explain the origin/creation of all life and the universe.

Though I am not a theology, mythology, metaphysical student. Nor do I feel that I know more about creation or evolution than anyone else. But I have my own beliefs on the matter and feel that I am within my right to express them as any Theist or Atheist.

What is Atheism? Atheism is; belief that God does not exist.

What is Theism? Theism is; the belief of Gods or a God.

What/who is God? “God is 1. (in many religions) a) superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc; deity. b) image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. 2. (God)(in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being. 3. a) adored, admired, or influential person. b) something worshiped like a god (makes a god of success).

What is Alien? Alien is; 1. a) unfamiliar; unacceptable or repugnant. b) different or separated. 2. foreign. 3. of or relating to beings supposedly from other worlds.

What is Belief? Belief is; 1. a) religious conviction. b) firm opinion. c) acceptance. 2. trust or confidence.

What is Faith? Faith is; 1. complete trust or confidence. 2. firm belief exp without logical proof. 3. a) system of religious belief. b) belief in religious doctrines. 4. duty or commitment to fulfill a trust, promise. etc; allegiance.


What of this possibility? What if a God, not one that is talked about in the Bible, or Allah of the Muslim religion. Nor Odin, Zeus, Buddha etc. created mankind. What if there were some supernatural being to our understanding, possibly alien, created us thousands of years ago in whatever form he created us to evolve into the creatures we are today? And after he/she/it created us just got bored or felt that what he created was good enough and went on to other parts of the universe and continued on but left us with our learning capabilities to fend for ourselves? Is that not possible?

I am going to assume all Atheists will reply "no" straight off the back, because if they were to admit to the possibility of it, then they are can no longer agree they are Atheists and that they can accept the possibility of there being some form of being, deity, God or creator of life.

Now I’m going to pose a hypothetical situation. Suppose you are researching your ancestry, you can trace your family history back say several hundred years. Lets assume you are able to trace it back to England 1300’s somewhere about.

First off you have “faith” that both the people you have known to be your mother and father are in fact your natural parents. Secondly you also have some belief that each parent prior is also their natural parents. But in reality, you don’t know if in fact they are your natural parents or ancestors as any who could have witnessed and made for certain no other person but those two were the actual parents of the child.

Lets say, for instance that you were created in a lab, possibly test tube baby, or even more elaborate, a clone. You are still human as both your parents are human. But you don’t know who they are, you know, have faith and believe that you have parents, though you may never see them or knew who they were/are.

Alright you so the Atheist will argue now that, because the human race exists then that argument cant be used.

Ok, fine. Can you say for certain that life on other planets in the vast universe does in fact exist? What actual physical proof is there that life on other planets in the universe does or does not exist? On this forum, there is a link to SETI, or Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence. So in other words, Atheists have “faith” that there is life outside our existence on Earth without solid proof it exists. They have a “belief” or come to an understanding that there is a “possibility” that life outside our realm of existence does or can exist, otherwise they wouldn’t be wasting time searching for life outside our planet.

Would that not be the same as Theists who believe in a deity or creation and their proof is everything they see and even don’t see with the naked eye but does exist? Or Agnostics who say there is proof for both the existence or nonexistence of a deity or creation by a deity?

So we live with the “belief” that life outside our planet either does or does not exist. That as humans, or the species we are, we can not know with absolute conviction that life other than our existence with its many species on this planet is not duplicated elsewhere on other planets through out the universe.

Or… Could it be possible that there are creatures we will never understand with our limited knowledge of the universe that could have possibly created us and therefore could have been a “God”?

Why would that idea be impossible? Thousands of years ago, if you told King Henry VIII that humans would be able to fly through the air thousands of miles in a vehicle that weighed more than a house, or showed them a television with people on the screen you would have been put in the dungeons or burned for witchcraft.

If humans can create things we use today, why would it be impossible for some other being to create us? How arrogant it would be of us to assume that we are the most intelligent beings in existence. Just because we don’t see any miracles or creation happening right before out eyes today, doesn’t mean that it never happened. Or can we?
Cloning, could that possibly be a form of creating life?

For some just because of our limited understanding of the origins of life we have to assume that because we don’t have proof, such as photos, videos or actual recordings of the creation events doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Just like for the majority of us don’t have videos, photos or recordings of our “personal creation” when our parents or ancestors got together and created us.

Why do we need proof to believe in a God or deity that for the most part without institutionalized or organized religion dictating what or who we should believe in? If we were created by some being, why would it be wrong to give that being the due respect that he/she/it would deserve as we would our own parents who also brought us into this world if some people deem it necessary in their lives to do so?

If there were a God or deity that is responsible for all creation what harm is there worshiping or respecting that being for what he/she/it provided for his creations whether or not he/she/it plays an active role in our existence today or even if he/she/it were no longer in existence today?

What if I were to worship or pay respect to say the “big bang theory” for our existence, would that be considered wrong? We don’t have absolute proof that that is how life on our planet came into existence but many believe or have a form of faith that is how our existence came to be. Would not having some sort of respect for the life it gave me to exist and the bountiful things that I can enjoy including the freedom to chose to believe in this form of beginning of our existence such as we do every forth of July for our independence in America?

According to a statement on the home page of their site:

"Welcome! The Secular Web is an online community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

Our goal is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of a supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself.

We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise. To disbelieve in the gods, as Emma Golman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty."

If we are to agree that Atheists are right, why the need for SETI, If they believe that "the natural world is all that there is?

goat37

You posted more questions than I care to reply to... but key points that I did want to answer:

I am agnostic (at least that's how I feel about it). To me this means that I am open to the possibility of there being a creator to the universe, but I have not been given enough proof to say for certain that there is. (in fact, on a completely objective scale, I would have to say that I am leaning toward the non-existance of a creator). I do not believe in any religion, however, because since I cannot prove the existance/or non-existance of a creator, then in no possible way can I determine its motives, until I am sure it does/does not exist.

With that being said, the universe was created with matter and energy. With our solar system being no exception to the rest of the universe, then while I cannot say that there is or isn't life elsewhere, I do have to concede that it for 100% sure that it CAN happen. (why? because we exist, proof that the universe has life in it. Since energy can neither be created/nor destroyed, then we were created with energy that existed in the universe before life started, therefore, it would be feasible that it could happen elsewhere since that same energy exists)

If the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply 'be'. What place then for a creator? (credit: A brief history of time, by stephen hawking)

diana

Hi Occasional^Blonde.

I admit I didn't make it through your post. About halfway through, I'd already encountered several misconceptions that have beaten to death here lately--which you admit up front that you know already, having read the thread with the inciteful title, "Why Don't Agnostics Just Get Off the Fence?"

From what I read, though, you are basing your entire argument upon a definition of atheist that most of us will take issue with. If atheist means "one who believes there is no god," and only can mean that, then I am also agnostic. However, most of us use the word in its literal sense: a-theist--without a belief in a deity.

My lack of belief in all deities is based on anyone's offering anything approaching convincing evidence of their existence to date. This is not the same as my claiming that no deities do or can exist, which is a universal negative and a bit silly to attempt to prove.

Another thing you've brought up that has also been beaten until it's hardly a waxy spot on the carpet anymore is the idea of "faith" and what it means. I don't have faith that I have parents or ancestors; reason dictates that it must be so--even if I'm a test tube baby, there had to be a sperm and egg donor. This isn't even on the same scale as assuming the existence of a being to deal with the gaps in your knowledge.

d

Roland98

Since no one has responded to this part yet--just wanted to point out that aliens would obviously be part of the "natural world"--so I'm unclear as to why that would make atheists (or the goals of this site) wrong. Aliens are not supernatural beings.

Asha'man

Atheism is not about proof. Absolute proof only exists in the fantasy world of mathematics and theology.

I hold certain beliefs, and I have levels of certainty about those beliefs. I believe that the sun will rise in the morning, and the evidence supports holding this belief to an extremely high level of certainly. (This is not faith, since it is a belief that is strongly supported by evidence!)

I believe that the xian god is a myth, a fantasy, a fictional character invented by ignorant and superstitious man. This belief is held with a high level of certainty, and well supported by evidence.

I also believe that the very concept of gods is imaginary, mythical, a fantasy, also invented by ignorant and superstitious man. The certainty level on this is marginally lower than the previous belief, since I am extrapolating further using the same evidence, but the confidence level is still reasonably high.

So do I believe in any gods? No.
Do I have proof? Proof is irrelevant.

Occasional^Blonde

Anything that is not of a "natural world" would then be considered Alien as in my description of Alien... "What is Alien? Alien is; 1. a) unfamiliar; unacceptable or repugnant. b) different or separated. 2. foreign. 3. of or relating to beings supposedly from other worlds." (Oxford American Dictionary.)

If the beings or life existence that we are searching for were "natural to our world" then it would not be called "Alien" or "Extraterrestrial Intelligence". It would already be known and understood, familiar to our existence.

I was not saying Atheists are wrong in the fact that they believe in Aliens from outside our "natural world" but that they go by a belief without proof that they do in fact exist. Such as Theists believe in creation by means of a deity without ever seeing first hand creation, miracles or physical deities.

Neither makes one more right or one more wrong... basics to how Agnostics in my opinion believe. Do theists need proof that a deity does in fact exist or should they have to provide proof of such a deity for them to believe or have faith that all creation came from some God or unknown deity? Do Atheists have to show proof to the contrary because they have faith or believe that we didn't come from this source? No to both.

So why then must an Agnostic jump on one bandwagon or the other for their conviction that there is both a possibility for creation by means of a deity or that life as we know it was caused by some unknown source such as the Big Bang theory?

We as humans, in my opinion, don't have enough understanding of the universe or the origins of life as a whole to determine with absolutes to deny the existence of a deity or agree without a doubt there is proof of a deity because of life.

We may have in fact been created by an Alien from a solar system zillion light years away, does that make him/her/it a God? Depends on who you ask. Someone or something you worship or give your allegiance to can become a God or form of God to you. Even your own parents.

A God (deity) does not have to be someone superhuman, it can also be anything that is worshiped. "What/who is God? “God is 1. (in many religions) a) superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc; deity. b) image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. 2. (God)(in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being. 3. a) adored, admired, or influential person. b) something worshiped like a god (makes a god of success). "(Oxford American Dictionary)

It all depends on how much a person wants to show his/her respect or devotion to the thing, God or big bang explosion for their existence.

Or as stated on the home page of this site... "We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise. To disbelieve in the gods, as Emma Golman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty."

By upholding the dignity of humanity and encouraging the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise, is in its self a form of worship or great respect for things from a human viewpoint. Putting humans in place of a deity as the thing to be worshiped, a God.

Jinto

Note: "other" worlds does not mean "supernautral" worlds. There are other natural worlds, in fact, there are eight other natural worlds in this system alone, as well as literally billions of other star systems. Alien does not mean supernatural.

Proof is only possible in mathematics. In real life, we use evidence, not proof.

For the same reason that we would consider you crazy if you were uncertain about whether Invisible Pink Unicorns existed - while belief in the absence of proof is all well and good, belief in the absence of evidence (read:faith) is ludicrous.

Ever hear of the fallacy of equivication? That's what you're doing.

And here comes the accusation that humans want to put themselves in the place of God. You'd make a great apologist someday. No, that is not a compliment.

RuthlessLogic

The fallacy here is that you are limiting your definition of "natural world" to earth. Once again, extraterrestrial does NOT mean supernatural. Unfamiliar to our existence does NOT mean supernatural. Not from planet earth does NOT mean supernatural. Beings from another planet WOULD be part of nature. Even if they were WAY more powerful and intelligent than humans, it would NOT make them: perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and transcendant. Read the various arguments - God is believed by theists to be outside of nature - not subject to the laws of the universe, whereas aliens would be.
Well, not all atheists believe in aliens, whereas ALL theists believe in God. Of course that's beside the point. Here are a couple of differences between these two arguments. One: there is actually a scientific SEARCH for alien life, where as there is no scientific search for God. Two: Given our knowledge about the universe and astronomy, there is a mathematical probability that there is life "out there." No such mathematical probabilities point to the existence of God. Three: belief and faith are not the same thing as was pointed out by Asha'man. Moreover, THEORY is not the same as belief. As Isaac Asimov said "Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

FWIW, I think it's far more likely that we were seeded by aliens than created by some invisible, omnipotent, omniscient god. Not that I believe that per se...I just think that of the two possibilities, the first is far more likely.

ComestibleVenom

Theories that are diconnected from reality and in principle useless remain classified as "false" "bogus" in my book. I have no problem accepting the fact that I am an atheist in the sense that I believe there is NO such thing remotely like a cosmlogical designer.

I see no reason for failing to acknowledge that invisible friends are generations of human imagination. It is the ridiculous conclusion of a silly animal who thinks minds like it's own constitute the centere of the universe.

God is real...ly a fantastic story to massage the equally fantastic egos of men.

CX

I'm sure I'm being far too pedantic and a bunch of people will be quick to refute me, but no two words are more often misused than atheist and agnostic.

Theism = belief in god
Atheism = nonbelief in god (different than disbelief in god)
Agnosticism = belief that god's existence or nonexistence is an insoluable question.

Atheism does not necessarily entail asserting that god does not exist.

Agnosticism does not entail that one is uncertain about god's existence, but rather that one view the question itself as unanswerable.