Hi from an agnostic atheist that doesn't believe in any objective ultimate meaning.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » New Member Introductions
  3. » Hi from an agnostic atheist that doesn't believe in any objective ultimate meaning.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 08:02 am
Hi, I'm a passionate agnostic atheist and I believe in my own personal meanings and that others (of course) have theirs...

But I do not believe in any ULTIMATE meaning because I know of no evidence of it. Any 'ultimate purpose' for life. As far as I know we are just here and other than on a more personal subjective level pretty much any 'Why?' question can be replaced with a 'How?' question.

Why are we here? I know of no evidence that there is any 'reason' for us to be? HOW are we here? Well I believe there was some sort of first cause such as the big bang or the universe is eternal and everything just expanded from that.

Once we got to life forms I believe that's all down to evolution. IOW I'm not a creationist lol!

For me personally meaning is that the pleasure of life is life. And that's not even the ability to choose how life goes - just life. With or without 'free will.' I don't even know if we really CAN make 'choices'...I don't think I believe we do any more than the fact we think we do.

But it doesn't matter to me because what matters to me is that we enjoy the ride either way. I love life, with or without 'choices'. We choose things in the sense that we BELIEVE we do and we CALL that 'choosing', but I don't know how that's something to celebrate. We make these 'choices' and they can be good but they can also be bad. That's obvious. But I don't think we have any choice in the matter ultimately WHICH choices we make so in THAT sense at least I don't believe in choices.

Life itself is what matters to me ultimately. Nothing more because everything else truly real is included in that be it family, friends, curiosity, the truth, overall well-being or whatever.

What's true and real is extremely important to me, probably the most important thing at all - I mean honest hatred can arguably be better than fake love that stabs you in the back later can't it? So I might even put Truth above love. Because love is no good if it's fake - if it's not really love but an illusion or placebo only to screw you over afterwards - that's not love!

Probably the most important things for me in no particular order are ultimately curiosity the truth and empathy and compassion. Because those things pretty much cover everything for me (including family and friends of course - I have compassion and empathy for them, love, etc, I am honest with them as in truth, etc, and I am curious in the sense I am interested by them/in them, etc - I listen (and hopefully they'll listen to me too Razz).


I hope to have some good discussions here.

Nice to meet you all,

Al the best,

EvF
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 09:02 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Hi Evf,

Welcome to the forum...

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, so there's no need to push you out although there are a few things here that I'm not in agreement with but I'm sure we'll get a chance to discuss those.

What is your background as far as education goes?
 
EvidenceVsFaith
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 09:28 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
I was home educated.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 10:34 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
welcome..your handle, does it tell me your not open to persuasion.xris
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:53 pm
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Welcome to the forum! We are glad to have you aboard.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 07:25 pm
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Now, really, EVF (if I may, please). . . you're not trying to convince us that a good, ice cold beer by the BBQ pit on a hot summer afternoon with 'good timing buddies--both guys and gals, and then some more gals is not WHY we are here? Come on now...hee, hee, hee.....

Welcome to the forum !! I'm sure we'll meet up and enjoy some good conversation. One question for now, though; how would you defend your concept of agnostic atheist (a seemingly contradiction of terms?)? Thanks. KJ
 
validity
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 06:06 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Sorry to interupt, but did someone say beer?

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

KaseiJin wrote:
One question for now, though; how would you defend your concept of agnostic atheist (a seemingly contradiction of terms?)? Thanks. KJ
Interesting point...
 
EvidenceVsFaith
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 07:35 am
@validity,
xris wrote:
welcome..your handle, does it tell me your not open to persuasion.xris


To be persuaded of the truth of something...I need a good reason to believe which IOW is evidence. I'm open to evidence.
validity wrote:
Sorry to interupt, but did someone say beer?

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------
Interesting point...


Because they don't conflict they are actually about two different things unlike what some think.

Agnosticism is the opposite to Gnosticism and this whole 'Gnostic' thing comes from the Latin word 'Gnosis' meaning knowledge.

Agnosticism is about NOT claiming absolute knowledge for something. Gnosticism is when you DO claim absolute knowledge.

You can actually be agnostic or it's opposite - gnostic - in respect to MANY things. It's just it is most commonly used (and known) for God.

If you're an atheist it means you don't believe in God. If you're a theist then that means you DO believe in God (and a theistic one in this case as opposed to a deistic one - but that's another matter).

You can be agnostic/gnostic on the matter either way.

A GNOSTIC Atheist claims to absolutely 'KNOW' that there is no God - like he is completely disproved or something to that effect.

A GNOSTIC Theist claims to absolutely 'KNOW' that there IS a God. Like he is absolutely proved or something to that effect.

An AGnostic Atheist doesn't believe in God...but however certain or uncertain he is that God doesn't exist - he still doesn't claim to absolutely 'KNOW' that (or not seriously anyway) and he doesn't believe that God is absolutely DISproved.

Yet he himself doesn't believe in God so is still by definition an atheist.

An AGnostic theist DOES believe in God...but however certain or uncertain he is that God does exist - he still doesn't claim to absolutely 'KNOW' that (or not seriously anyway) and he doesn't believe that God is absolutely PROVED.

Yet he himself does believe in God so he is still a theist.

EvF
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 22 May, 2009 09:10 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
What about the agnostic like me who believes its not possible to know god.The point is we should all be anti dogmatic, because handles get hot or they can fall off.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 12:43 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Thanks for that explanation, EvF. It evidences thought and care; a thing always deserving of applause. Now, I'd like to offer a little positive reinforcement, in the form of critique.

First of all, it would always be good to verify sources in things; gnosis is a Greek word, a feminine noun, meaning (depending on contextual settings) knowledge, a knowing, acquaintance with, recognition of, or a being known (of). It is general in nature, so if we were to suffix an 'epi,' it would become more specific in nature (the quality of the knowing, that is).

In classic usage, the term agnostic would simply be the state of not knowing, or being known of, etc., as you have spelled out for us. However, it will be found that it is not always the case that application of, or idiomatic usage of terms or cliches will always fit their brute meanings/usages.

Gnosticism is a branch of early Christian theology, and while the term had been derived from that noun (and verb) gnosis (gignosko), that term referred to their practice of claiming to know certain secrects and such, in opposition to what had been becoming mainstream Christianity at that time. The descriptive terms 'agnostic' and 'agnosticism,' used today came from the coined phrase by T.H. Huxley in 1869. With a little bit of refinement by some, it can be said to have changed just ever so slightly from his words of that time.

'Atheos' is also a Greek term which primarily referred to one who was without the gods, one who denied the gods, or the ungodly. I am not aware of any Greek word which would match as an opposite of atheos, but perhaps 'theosebes' is as close as we can come; it means, basically, fearing god, or in service to god, or religiousness.

Again, we will see that the term atheist today, carries a more modern spin on it. Checking any detailed dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary (in 12 volumes) is very good; Webster's International 3rd is a good one, among others) we will find that atheist is held today to describe a person who believes there is no god. Richard Dawkins shaded this a bit (as it should be, of course) in his book The God Delusion. The strong atheist (of which we'd probably find very few) would say that they 'knew there was no god.' A weaker version would say that they 'believed there was no god;' and that would usually be said to be because evidence pointed in that direction much more so than not.

Checking the term angostic, doing a check on the possible shadings, we'd arrive at the conclusion that the agnostic will usually say they 'don't know of the evidence to prove one way or the other, at the moment (a TAP agnostic, as Dawkins has suggested). To use the term as a modifier, as you have suggested, is of course possible, yet due to present English (not Classical Greek) usuage at large, it automatically carries a contradiction. For that reason, we'd be much better off simply using a more typically English adjective or modifier.

The prime reason for this, is due to the more general atheistic position that the evidence goes to show that there is no god, against the more general agnostic position that there isn't evidence to decide either way--for the moment. The raw Greek word gnosis is not a member of the English language today, and for that reason, using the Greek word to modify an adopted and used-in-today's-English loan word, while being a freedom of choice, may well be seeable as a bad choice.

I see my position as being a non-theist agnostic. The main reason for that nuance, is because the god-models humans have come up with have not stood the test of nature.
 
EvidenceVsFaith
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 09:38 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Dawkins has agnostic and gnostic atheism and theism on his scale of TAP atheism/theism.

I am an agnostic atheist because I do not claim to absolutely know he doesn't exist. An agnostic theist believes in God but doesn't claim to absolutely know he does exist.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism is about knowledge and atheism/theism is about belief.

You can believe something without knowing it but you can't know something without believing it.

Hence you can be an atheist/theist without be gnostic about it (you can be agnostic about it) but you can't be gnostic/agnostic about it without having a belief stance on the matter (of course).

Would it be okay to post a helpful article on the matter here, might I ask? It's a URL from a website owned by the head admin of the forums I'm a supermod on.

It's about the scale of Belief, Knowledge and Certainty. Like the Dawkins scale only more specific.

EvF
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 10:13 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Hi, EvF! I'd love to ask thee (before they close this thread:)), who I am in this classification, if I have absolutely no idea whether or not God exist. Both view are just equal to me...
 
EvidenceVsFaith
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 11:06 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
You don't have to know whether he exists or not. Do you believe he does?

But the thing is belief is a yes or no thing. Either you believe something is so or you don't.

If you are unsure then perhaps it is just that you are unsure of what you are accepting or rejecting or how to define "God", etc.

But either you believe something is so or you don't. I can not know which it is for you?

Like, let me try this: There is no reason to believe that Santa Claus does exist, or that he doesn't either, because he isn't disproved, there isn't evidence against him. There isn't evidence either way. But we need a reason to[/b] believe in him...we need evidence of him.

Do you believe Santa Claus exists, or not?

Now This:
To define God as 'The Supernatural Creator of the universe' there is no reason to believe that God does exist, or that he doesn't either, because he isn't disproved, there isn't evidence against him. There isn't evidence either way. But we need a reason to[/b] believe in him...we need evidence of him.

When defined that way, as 'The Supernatural creator of the universe' - Do you believe God exists, or not?

Either you have beliefs about something or you don't. You might fluctuate from time to time, or back and forth more quickly even. But at a given moment either you have a belief that something exists or you do not.

EvF
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 11:29 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Welcome to the forum EvF. Thank you for the explanations... very interesting! Don't want to break up the conversation but this is the introduction forum and this is a good topic, please feel free to open a new thread for discussion.

Again, warm welcome and hope you enjoy the forums!
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:41 pm
@EvidenceVsFaith,
Well. I have some objections... But create, as Justin proposed, a new thread and we'll discuss them all. Interesting topic.
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:11 pm
@EvidenceVsFaith,
It's a great topic and a lot of good info thus far, just not one for the Introductions forum. Thank you!
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 05:00 am
@EvidenceVsFaith,
So you're an "agnostic atheist" like Richard Dawkins?

EvidenceVsFaith is telling

Don't you think all systems of knowledge, including empiricism, rest on axioms whose truth cannot be demonstrated?
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 06:14 am
@odenskrigare,
What one sees as evidence others may question.What i see as facts might be evidence, might be truths, might be illusions.
We can only judge by our own logic and listen to the arguments.It is a very brave man that says I believe with any certainty.
 
EvidenceVsFaith
 
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 04:55 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;66650 wrote:
So you're an "agnostic atheist" like Richard Dawkins?


Yes.

Quote:

Don't you think all systems of knowledge, including empiricism, rest on axioms whose truth cannot be demonstrated?


Cannot be absolutely demonstrated.

EvF
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » New Member Introductions
  3. » Hi from an agnostic atheist that doesn't believe in any objective ultimate meaning.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 01:13:36