Excellent post, Midas. I'm just wondering - are you a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist?

For anyone that doesn't quite know the difference, an agnostic atheist believes that it is impossible to show the non-existence of God logically or empirically, but accepts that the argument is much stronger against a God, thus coming down on the side of non-belief, while accepting the possibility of a God, if not the contradictory one found in most religious manuscripts. Meanwhile, a gnostic atheist believes either that there is evidence for God's non-existence, or that such evidence could exist and we simply haven't discovered it yet.

I come down on the side of agnostic atheism. God almost certainly doesn't exist, but I can't prove that he doesn't. I accord religion the same chance of truth as any random claim made without a scrap of evidence.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Excellent post, Midas. I'm just wondering - are you a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist?

For anyone that doesn't quite know the difference, an agnostic atheist believes that it is impossible to show the non-existence of God logically or empirically, but accepts that the argument is much stronger against a God, thus coming down on the side of non-belief, while accepting the possibility of a God, if not the contradictory one found in most religious manuscripts. Meanwhile, a gnostic atheist believes either that there is evidence for God's non-existence, or that such evidence could exist and we simply haven't discovered it yet.

I come down on the side of agnostic atheism. God almost certainly doesn't exist, but I can't prove that he doesn't. I accord religion the same chance of truth as any random claim made without a scrap of evidence.

Thank you The same here Dougie, I'm an agnostic atheist. Whilst I believe that the probability of there being a god is as close to zero as it's possible to get, I'm also realistic enough to know that we'll never be able to prove it.

I dont believe in it

Great post Midas, very well articulated.

Originally Posted by DougieG

I accord religion the same chance of truth as any random claim made without a scrap of evidence.

Couldn't agree more, its just as probable that the universe was actually created by a giant goldfish with 6 arms and the body of a sheep, I can't prove it of course, but why should I?

First off, thank you Midas for posting this, I have a few comments on your article, non of which are aimed for starting a Religion-Atheism debate because A) As I already said, I don't personally question anyone's faith and unless someone asks about mine or holds any interest in it I do not volunteer to try to convert everyone. B) I still don't know enough about Atheism, you stated what Atheists don't believe in and other general consensus, but I still don't get what it is exactly that Atheists believe in, or is it just that there might be no God?
Back to my comments, a tiny correction if I may, prophet Mohammed's miracle wasn't that he could talk a couple of minutes after he was born, it was and still is the Quran ( A non-historical miracle that I won't discuss further because I said I wouldn't :p ). Speaking while still an infant was mentioned in the Quran and was about Jesus (Issa), not prophet Mohammed.
Anyway, this was beneficial in many ways, I now know a bit about Atheism, I can also spell it correctlty now! Used to spell it : Athiesm, never knew that was Napoleon's take on religion, I still think he was a wise man though, reading his quotes is always a pleasure since they're thought-provoking. So thanks again for posting this.

What all the philosophy and everything leads to is...

real question is this....


WHO WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT, GOD OR SATAN???

Surely they must be of equal power otherwise one of them would have won already and Satan has the bigger army!!!!

Originally Posted by Hestia

B) I still don't know enough about Atheism, you stated what Atheists don't believe in and other general consensus, but I still don't get what it is exactly that Atheists believe in, or is it just that there might be no God?

Ah well this is the beauty of Atheism. Technically, we don't 'believe' anything. Rather, we know something to be true through use of evidence. We don't make claims that we can't support with facts and knowledge. Of course, when an atheist says 'I believe' it really means 'I think that this is the most likely option given the evidence that I have seen.' Therefore, I 'believe' that there is no God because I have never seen any evidence to say that there is, much as I have never seen any evidence that the sky is pink, or the earth flat, and therefore don't hold those opinions.

If anything, atheists 'believe' in the scientific process and the importance of logical, rational thinking.

Hope that answers your question!

Originally Posted by Hestia

First off, thank you Midas for posting this, I have a few comments on your article...

My pleasure. Feel free to ask away.

...but I still don't get what it is exactly that Atheists believe in, or is it just that there might be no God?

Fundamentally, yes, or rather that "God" is simply a manifestation of a primitive superstition in man's mind, derived from his psychological need to fill a lack of understanding of the natural world and its forces (ontology).

The general atheist stance on religion is that it's up to those who believe to produce evidence that what they believe in is true, rather than for atheists to have to show that it's untrue. If a religion makes a claim that there is a God because of X, Y and Z, the onus is on them to prove what they say.

Back to my comments, a tiny correction if I may, prophet Mohammed's miracle wasn't that he could talk a couple of minutes after he was born, it was and still is the Quran ( A non-historical miracle that I won't discuss further because I said I wouldn't :p ). Speaking while still an infant was mentioned in the Quran and was about Jesus (Issa), not prophet Mohammed.
Anyway, this was beneficial in many ways, I now know a bit about Atheism, I can also spell it correctlty now! Used to spell it : Athiesm, never knew that was Napoleon's take on religion, I still think he was a wise man though, reading his quotes is always a pleasure since they're thought-provoking. So thanks again for posting this.

Thanks for that correction, however I suspect most of us, religious or not, would consider recently born infants talking as rather stretching the truth somewhat! However a serious aspect of that is that if the Bible (or other religious books) are read more in allegorical terms rather than being the literal truth, in other words rather than interpreting (for example) Jesus as literally rising from the dead, interpret it as meaning life and beliefs go on after someone has died, many of the passages start to make more sense, at least they would have to the audience for whom they were first written.

And Hestia, if you liked that quote of Napoleon's, you might like this one from the 1st century Roman philosopher Seneca; “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Originally Posted by DougieG

Ah well this is the beauty of Atheism. Technically, we don't 'believe' anything. Rather, we know something to be true through use of evidence. We don't make claims that we can't support with facts and knowledge. Of course, when an atheist says 'I believe' it really means 'I think that this is the most likely option given the evidence that I have seen.' Therefore, I 'believe' that there is no God because I have never seen any evidence to say that there is, much as I have never seen any evidence that the sky is pink, or the earth flat, and therefore don't hold those opinions.

If anything, atheists 'believe' in the scientific process and the importance of logical, rational thinking.

Hope that answers your question!

Yes my question was answered, thank you very much.
I was always under the impression that Atheists believe that there is no God, was under the impression that it was a faith but according to everything I've been told here I understand that it is more a way of dealing with issues and more of an approach, which -aside from the existence of God or lack thereof debates- I find very reasonable, the approach suggested by Atheism doesn't differ much from my approach to matters, except for God's existence as I said previously.

Originally Posted by Midas

The general atheist stance on religion is that it's up to those who believe to produce evidence that what they believe in is true, rather than for atheists to have to show that it's untrue. If a religion makes a claim that there is a God because of X, Y and Z, the onus is on them to prove what they say.

Fair enough.

Thanks for that correction, however I suspect most of us, religious or not, would consider recently born infants talking as rather stretching the truth somewhat!

That's what a miracle is all about, something that defies reason and the natural course of things.

However a serious aspect of that is that if the Bible (or other religious books) are read more in allegorical terms rather than being the literal truth, in other words rather than interpreting (for example) Jesus as literally rising from the dead, interpret it as meaning life and beliefs go on after someone has died, many of the passages start to make more sense, at least they would have to the audience for whom they were first written.

That is a very valid point, I strongly believe in it. Regarding the rising from the dead, we Muslims disagree with Christians on many aspects of that incident and so I will not get into that, but what you spoke of is exactly my stance towards Satan, Heaven and Hell, and I'm positive that the majority if not all religious people would disagree with me on that, meaning, the vast majority of the followers of the Abrahamic religions believe that Satan is an actual creature, there's a Heaven and there's a Hell, rather than Satan being a symbol of our tendency to perhaps sin.

And Hestia, if you liked that quote of Napoleon's, you might like this one from the 1st century Roman philosopher Seneca; “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

That's because Napoleon died before he got the chance to hear what I had to say. The man is wise, but even wise people make flawed arguments and express flawed generalizations. :p Nevertheless, it has some truth to it.