Are most atheists true atheists or closet agnostics
Would you still consider yourself an atheist if we were to redefine what it means to be God?
For example:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. God is perceived to have magical like powers.
Atheism is solidly based on logic. Logic states that there's no such things as magic and that, statistically, there are other civilizations (very different from us) living on other planets (some of which may be more technologically advanced than us).
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us? Especially if they could wipe us off the face of the planet in a blink of an eye? Would you call them God just so that they wouldn't kill us?
Most living things strive for self survival and species survival (maybe not all species in that order, but close enough). Maybe it's not logical for an individual or a species to strive for survival (i.e., the human race ;) but for arguments sake, I'll say it is logical to pursue survival. Therefore, if an advanced civilization told us to worship it or risk extinction, it would make sense for us to comply.
So..., faced with a dilema where an advanced species told us it created us (regardless of whether it was true or not) and that we should thus worship it or perish, which would you chose? Would you still say, "I am an atheist, hear me roar! There is no God. Therefore you are not God and thus not worthy of my worship. Besides..., I have better things to do..., like posting something on CD ;)" or would you bend your knee, bow and say, "Yes my lord and master. Glory be onto you. Praise thee for thou are a true, just, and merciful ruler (even if you would use your power to destroy us for disagreeing with you ;)."
I would probably do the later but that's because I'm agnostic. So are most atheists true atheists or closet agnostics? Just asking ;)
Atheist to the core. Bring it
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Agnostic. Don't hurt me
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
if you could redefign god, then you can turn all "atheists" into thiests by simply redifigning god. if you say god is an alien species, then its likely to exist, but why would you call that god? even if it did happen to create us thats not type of god that is releveant here. logic can be broken down into reasoning, rational reasoning is a ingredient of logic, what REASON do you have to believe an almighty being exists? how do you rationalize that? untill you can prove something to it, its just not rational, its as good as an answer to any question as anyhting I could come up in my head. ex: fairys created the worlds, flying spaghetti monster created the world, or everythings a result of magic, etc. if any alien species did hypothetically create us, and then forced us to worship them that wouldn't make them gods, gods created the universe not just humanity. if it claimed to create us without proof I would probably be skeptical, it wouldn't be worthy of my worship because of reason against, sure it would have created us but then pretty much dominated us I would not respect that let alone worship it. also atheists usually ARE agnostics, agnosticism/gnosticism are an answer to "do you know if god exists?" and atheism/theism is an answer to "do you believe god exists?" the former does not replace the latter and vice versa. let me breakdown what it means to be agnostic/gnostic and theist/atheist. A- (means not or without) thiest (belief in a god) atheist (not or without a belief in god) therefore the only thing necessary to be an atheist is to lack a belief in god or to not assert a belief in god. athiest and theist are mutually exsclusive and share a relationship like non-blue/blue or fiction/non-fiction where an atheist is simply someone who isn't a theist. A- (not or without) gnostic (knowledge) agnostic (not or without knowledge) usually refering to god. agnostic/gnostic have a relationship just like athiest/theist and symmetrical/asymmetrical and etc. therefore you cannot be "just an agnostic" or "just an athiest" you can be of four things: agnostic athiest (does not buy into or is not convinced of gods existence and does not believe because of lacking evidence, however does acknowledge that god does not factually exist or factually doesn't exist. these are the majority of atheists, even if it may not seem like it sometimes.) gnostic athiest (thinks he knows that god DOESN'T exist, and since he positively and assertively believes god does not exist, he also technically doesn't believe in gods existence to making him/her an atheist.) believe it or not, but these atheist are rare, most atheists will say they are simply unconvinced. agnostic theist (believes in god on faith, does not know wether or god exists or not, but will assert a belief in god regardless.) gnostic thiest (believes god factually exists) these two terms work like a binary system where the definitions cover the entire spectrum and you are either of those four. if you are an agnostic not asserting belief into a god because you don't know he exists then you are also technically an atheist. Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
I feel that both agnostics and religious people are trying to prove us (Atheists) wrong every chance they get. That's why a Particle Physicist theorized that there is this "Magical" particle called "The God Particle". This particle would be the key to answer all the questions scientists have, everything from "The Big Bang" to "creation of Humanity" Yet they have not been able to find any remnants to anything that could be a "God Particle" Even the "Large Hadron Collider" cannot find it. By the way, Stephen Hawking even said "In the Universe, there is no place for God". This is coming from one of the masters of Quantum Physics. Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
1
point
1
point
a carrot?... a carrot? nothing is nothing untill you defign it, what "carrot" really is, is a string of symbols and sounds used in a code we humans invented as a language. nothing was a carrot untill we defigned it as a carrot. so if carrot didn't mean carrot anymore and we humans all over the world that speak english completely stopped associating carrots with the word carrot, then the "former carrot" is literally not a carrot anymore. in reality nothing is nothing, a pie is not a pie, pie is really just three symbols and a string of sounds that we associate with "pie". Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
1
point
Agnosticism is more of a philosophy than a belief system, in my experience. If I really got into the nitty gritty, it's logical to be Agnostic because Agnostics comply with Quantum Mechanics (nothing can be certain). But do I believe in God, spirits or the afterlife? No. So I am an Atheist. Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
1
point
True, I feel, however, that just because one pretends to believe in something for the sake of survival doesn't mean our actual beliefs have changed. In the USSR, it was prohibited to worship Christ, but people did it anyway. There were underground churches. Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us? Are you saying you think this actually happened, that extraterrestrials are the basis of all world religions, or is this just a hypothetical question? Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
1
point
|
2
points
Would you still consider yourself an atheist if we were to redefine what it means to be God? Not necessarily. For instance if I thought god and love were synonymous. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Magic requires that the observing audience not understand how something is done. God is perceived to have magical like powers. So are magicians Atheism is solidly based on logic. What philosophical position isn't? Logic states that there's no such things as magic Whose logic? mine doesn't. statistically, there are other civilizations (very different from us) living on other planets (some of which may be more technologically advanced than us). That doesn't make any sense What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us? Depends on how you define "gods" Would you call them God just so that they wouldn't kill us? Sure, I'd call them that, but my "Give me liberty or give me death" philosophy would persist. Maybe it's not logical for an individual or a species to strive for survival (i.e., the human race ;) but for arguments sake, I'll say it is logical to pursue survival. You have doubts that striving for survival is logical? Therefore, if an advanced civilization told us to worship it or risk extinction, it would make sense for us to comply. What do you mean by worship? So..., faced with a dilemma where an advanced species told us it created us (regardless of whether it was true or not) and that we should thus worship it or perish, which would you chose? Would you still say, "I am an atheist, hear me roar! There is no God. Therefore you are not God and thus not worthy of my worship. Besides..., I have better things to do..., like posting something on CD ;)" or would you bend your knee, bow and say, "Yes my lord and master. Glory be onto you. Praise thee for thou are a true, just, and merciful ruler (even if you would use your power to destroy us for disagreeing with you ;)." I'd be willing to pretend to some extent. But I would not fully submit without a fight. I would hope to die before losing my capacity for independent thought. Side: Agnostic. Don't hurt me
1
point
If this doesn't read like a spaceship landing on top of Mt. Sinai, I don't know what does: Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him. - Exodus 19:17-19 Here's the interpretation: I. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke = exhaust fumes from the spaceship II. the LORD descended on it in fire = a spaceship landed there III. the whole mountain trembled violently = the weight of the spaceship caused seismic activity IV. As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him = Blares and sounds from a two-way technologically-advanced loudspeaker/communication system Side: Agnostic. Don't hurt me
1
point
If this doesn't read like a spaceship landing on top of Mt. Sinai, I don't know what does I would say nothing does. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. Sounds more like a volcano eruption. Side: Atheist to the core. Bring it
|
