Atheism/Agnosticism Primer.

[drhilarius]

I thought it might be a good idea to keep a kind of abridged intro to atheism and agnosticism kicked in this forum, since it might be a good way of giving those who are entering the light of reason a handy guide to arguments for atheism that complicate the idea of god. Also, it might also be a good place to post de-conversion stories, which I have always found inspirational. So let me get thins started.

Types of Non-belief:
1. Strong Atheism- Belief that there are, absolutely, no gods.
2. Weak Atheism- Lack of belief in any gods.
3. Agnosticism- Ambivalent position, does not believe there is enough evidence to make a judgment for/ against the existence of gods.

Some things that troubled me about religion, briefly.

1. The problem of prayer.
Why pray? There is a tremendous psychological benefit to prayer in that it allows people to feel that they have control over situations that are otherwise out of their hands. This, perhaps, was the reason why gods were created in the first place. But why should one pray? God, being all knowing, has plotted the course the universe since its inception. What will happen will happen regardless of whether or not we intercede through prayer. If our prayers did work, then either God is improvising the universe in a manner similar to how we improvise our lives,which would contradict omniscient God, or he has favorites, which would contradict the notion of a benevolent god.

2. The problem of evil.
The problem of evil has always been my favorite argument against the existence of god, primarily because it has an elegant simplicity.

a. A being named god is, among other things, omnipotent and omni benevolent (wants everyone to be well).
b. Evil exists in the world.
c. A being who is omni benevolent would not want evil in the world, and a being who is omnipotent could do away with evil.
d. Since evil exist, god either does not care, thus he would not be omni benevolent, or he is incapable of doing anything about it, in which case he would not be omnipotent. If either of those condition were true, then god could not exist, because he would not be perfect, something which is required ontologically of god.

So those are my favorite arguments, post your own and let's keep this kicked so we can point people here to find the TRUE light.

[ulysses]

1. I would add a strong agnosticism.

"- is not ambivalent and has little to do with evidence; belief that existence of a deity is unknowable."

[0rganism]

2. critique...

Your arguments rely on the dual premises of omniscience and overall benevolence. Yet many religions do not make either of these assumptions, merely positing that god or gods are powerful beyond the comprehension of mortal humans.

In some cases, the gods are said to strive against one-another. Perhaps, as some religions posit, there would be many gods vying for supremacy among one another, with the prayers of their faithful followers as their currency of power?

Or perhaps there is one god who is potentially omniscient, but chooses not to know future events the same way you might choose not to read a story before watching it on film.

What if one or more gods is/are evil? Does that solve the "problem of evil"? Or, taking the cue from the book of Job, perhaps a god would use misfortunes caused by a supernatural servant to demonstrate a mortal follower's loyalty? What if the almighty god chooses to allow evil to exist to provide an opportunity for benevolence to triumph among mortals?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a case for some kind of wild pagan idolatry (although it might be fun for a while...), but I think presumption to knowledge of the supernatural is itself the trap that leads people to religious attitudes. IMHO, we should allow ourselves to be skeptical of our own skepticism.

[drhilarius]

3. I absolutely agree with you...

My point with this post was to lay down the foundation, to help people who are curious ask some of the first critical questions to leading a skeptical life. Just like one has to start with 2+2=4 before one can go on to studying string theory, one has to begin with problems as simple as the problem of evil before going on to more rigorous ontological and epistemological issues.

Also, the problem of evil is somewhat useful when dealing primarily with a christian god. In Catholic school we were introduced to the omnimax god, and the PoE complicates this figure.

Of course one can never presume to know the nature of A god, because if there is/are a god/gods, then it would be impossible to comprehend what constitutes their being. But this is precisely the problem. The very multiplicity of gods is a fairly good argument for atheism (or, more accurately, agnosticism).

But you do raise one point I would like to discuss, and that is the book of Job, which is simultaneously one of the most beautiful and most disturbing books of the bible. What if God used evil to test the loyalty of his servant? Would this be a god one would want to worship? Would this be a god deserving of worship?

BTW, if you don't mind, are you atheist/ agnostic?

[0rganism]

4. OK, now I think I have a better understanding of what you were getting at

> In Catholic school we were introduced to the omnimax god, and the PoE complicates this figure.

When I was taking Marital Catholicism For Dummies, a sort of "intro to Catechism" for non-Catholics marrying Catholics, the instructor gave an answer pretty much like the one I stated above: that in order for us to have the freewill necessary for salvation, it was also necessary for us to be able to cause and experience evil. I don't find it a particularly satisfying explanation, but on the other hand, I can see how it's pretty close to the best explanation someone in that position can come up with.

> What if God used evil to test the loyalty of his servant?
> Would this be a god one would want to worship?
> Would this be a god deserving of worship?

Having grown up Jewish, I had a lot of time to ponder things like this. I think the Old Testament god is a particularly nasty sort of asshole. On the other hand, he makes a fairly compelling case for belief: He'll wax your ass in a second if you cross His (often ridiculous) Chosen People. He's a bully god, perhaps deserving of fear but not devotion.

That was probably the jumping-off point for me. I remember reading Paradise Lost back in high school, thinking, "Ya know, that Satan sure does have a point."

> if you don't mind, are you atheist/agnostic?

I don't mind, and I'm a bit of both. I'd say I'm atheist insofar as I have no evidence of the existence of a true revealed religion, and agnostic insofar as I'm not sure it is possible for such evidence to exist.

[hyphenate]

5. In re: Evil

The most succinctly put argument for Evil is, I think, the nature of a lot of other religions/philosophies than Christianity. In order to experience joy and happiness, a "dual" nature was created. In order to reach a zenith of bliss, you must also have experienced the nadir of pain and sorrow. In Taoism, the symbolic Yin and Yang shows this dual nature, and in many other eastern philosophies, good and bad reside together in order to achieve a whole.

Christianity only shows the supposed "good" side, but justifies evil doings with their arguments found in the bible and other such writings. The problem for me has always been that the bible is never consistent, and could never BE consistent, since it was written by so many hands, over many centuries. In addition, the bible was compiled of stories written by the "victors" in any conflict situation, so justification for wiping out whole civilizations is inherently found in almost every page.

Most eastern philosophies are much older than Christianity, and have reconciled many of the arguments that still are unanswered within the Christian world. They're not perfect, but there is a helluva lot more sense in attributing evil doings on human beings, rather than placing the so-called "burden of proof" on an unknown entity. It's always amazed me that people will blame their "god" for something that they have done themselves. Eastern philosophies also tend to be more practical. By taking away the blame on an unknown factor (god), they are more apt to look at good and evil as being traits found in all human beings, and that is a good thing. Many is the time when I have found that accepting people based on their good and bad traits is less surprising than trying to imagine most people as being only "good." That human being doesn't exist--when we try to see everyone as only being "good" we are denying them the benefit of seeing them as complete human beings.