Religion: The views of an agnostic

CAKCy

CAKCy

Member
Location
Cyprus, East Mediterranean
I became an atheist in high school when I was expelled because I used to ask too many questions in the class of Religion. It was beyond my understanding and tolerance, the refusal of the teacher to answer any of my questions in a logical way.

I remained an atheist for a number of years during which I had the chance to study many books considered holy by believers. The study on one hand enhanced my atheism but on the other hand helped me become who I ended up being. The philosophy in those books is fascinating and in many cases it is the base of a properly defined set of principles/values. Needless to say that those principles are an amalgam of the philosophies of the books of many religions, not only my "own" (Greek Orthodoxy).

For many years I was a passionate debater of the Religion Vs Science subject, debating that science has or will have the answers to all questions while religion is all manmade fantasies / delusions that have no logic whatsoever.

Around my early thirties, when I "levelled up" from immaturity to maturity with my set of principles/values almost complete and based on logic and logic alone, I had to resolve the Religion Vs Science matter. What occurred to me was that Science was just another form of Religion since we (atheists) believe in whatever Scientists tell us, which is exactly what happens with Religion. Believers believe in whatever their Priests (or their holy books) tell them. Without a proof. Without personal knowledge. Without evidence. So, was I another form of a believer? The solution to this conundrum came when I realized the major difference between Science and Religion: Science is not afraid to admit its mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic and stubbornly defends the indefensible for one simple reason: Admitting any part of a Religion to be false will result in total collapse of it.

That was about the time that I, as a true scientist, changed from an atheist to an agnostic. To be an atheist (assertively) one has to have the proof that the deity does not exist. That simply cannot happen.

That was also about the time that I realized that religious people (believers) can be split into four main categories:

A1. The ones who due to personal experiences or epiphanies are convinced that God is a reality and are not based on what has been given to them by others (verbally or in writing).

A. The ones who have Religion as their support system to cope with the unknown, whatever than might be, and the problems of their lives, small or not so small ones. They keep to themselves and respect other people's beliefs and decisions without interfering with them. I decided that I will not debate with this group of people, ever again for a simple reason: I had nothing to give them in return to fill the vacuum created by taking away their support system. To leave a person without a support system would be inhumane.

B. The ones who have Religion as their support system to cope with the unknown but also try to impose their beliefs on other people. Either by directly threatening, bullying, demonstrating etc. or by indirectly pressing the laws of the country towards their belief system. These people do not respect the individuality of every human being and their rights. They believe that their beliefs are the correct ones and they will try to impose them in any way they can on anyone not following them. These are the fanatics of a religion. I want, here, to make a reference to those who believe that their religion (or their denomination) is the correct one and it should dominate the world. It is absurd to believe that just because one happened to be born in a family following religion A would make that religion the correct one. Without thinking that if they were born in a family following religion B they would say the exact same words but for a different religion!

C. The ones who have Religion to use for their own benefit and gain, usually greed, or to control the behavior of the masses. This is the most dangerous of the three groups because usually they have the power to affect the common opinion or consensus view and have the ability to cause major good or evil (depending on the nature or the person).

Groups B and C will find me in their way for I cannot tolerate the violation of anyone's rights because of a persons beliefs or religion. The actions of each person, provided that they do not violate the rights of another, should not be approved by anybody else.

Would we better off without religion? I don't think so. But I definitely think that we would be better of without groups B and C.
 

Last edited:
I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.
Click to expand...
I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many , around you, believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.
And a pet opinion is that man has an innate "moral" code. You don't have to read it in a book how to feel when someone steals from you, disrespects you, or does harm to you. And conversely, you know instinctively that doing those activities are not welcome. The concept of "mine' and "yours" is a common animal trait.
 

Murrmurr said:
A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.
Click to expand...
I take the view that our morals and laws have evolved to support our civilization, without them no civilization. Religion helps people understand and live by the morals, but I don't believe religion is the source of morals.

Like you I suspect all peoples, including the untouched tribes have morals, but likely different from ours.
CAKCy said:
To be an atheist (assertively) one has to have the proof that the deity does not exist.
Click to expand...
I agree with Mur on this one, I don't see the necessity of proof, just the belief. And as you know proving a negative like this is not possible.
CAKCy said:
Admitting any part of a Religion to be false will result in total collapse of it.
Click to expand...
I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time. The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons. They once supported polygamy and no longer do. They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed. I am sure there are other examples in many religions.
 
Alligatorob said:
I take the view that our morals and laws have evolved to support our civilization, without them no civilization. Religion helps people understand and live by the morals, but I don't believe religion is the source of morals.

Like you I suspect all peoples, including the untouched tribes have morals, but likely different from ours.

I agree with Mur on this one, I don't see the necessity of proof, just the belief. And as you know proving a negative like this is not possible.

I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time. The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons. They once supported polygamy and no longer do. They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed. I am sure there are other examples in many religions.
Click to expand...
I never knew there were Black Mormons...never saw or heard of any examples of such..until my son's ex (my Honorary Daughter) and their children started attending a Mormon church in town and became baptized as Mormons. My HD often hosted their Bible studies at her house. What was funny to me is that the "elders" were young men in their 20's! Not like the churches I attended back in the day. My son and I are Muslim. There has never been a problem with his children accepting a different faith.

Re the OP: This is an interesting thread which I will have to take time to digest, then maybe I'll comment further.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many around you believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the word Atheist implies justification for...um...for itself. Or, I mean, I don't see how the word Atheist implies justification for atheism. And I don't think you have to have a reason not to believe in a deity while everyone else does believe. What reason could there be other than a person simply rejecting the idea of a deity or deities? Is there some compelling reason other than a person just saying it's hogwash, I don't believe it?
 
I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us.

My relatives were more traditional Jews. My cousins all had bar mitzvah rituals (I didn't have any female cousins). I visited them a few times and it was somewhat alluring in that it seemed like a stabilizing practice that brought the family together. They were a close knit family, and still are. The three brothers are successful and with families of their own. One's a doctor, one's a lawyer, and one's in finance.

I never went had a bar mitzvah ceremony, for which I've always kind of resented my parents, but they didn't have the resources I guess. I don't remember there even being a synagogue in the little town where I grew up, but I'm sure there were some in the bigger cities nearby. It was New York, after all.

My first real exposure to religion was watching the demonic possession horror movies during the '70s, which scared the hell out of me. Until my late 30s, I couldn't go into a church without getting freaked out. I'd get this weird feeling that people were going to get possessed and start doing weird stuff. :ROFLMAO:

I occasionally look at various theories about how Jesus became the messiah. One theory is that the Romans created the story of a passive, peace-loving Jesus to subdue and control the Jews, who were the Roman's toughest opponent. Many books have been written promoting that theory including Caesar's Messiah, by Joseph Atwill. It's interesting and plausible. I watched the documentary. Reading the book is too much of a commitment for me since it doesn't matter that much to me.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.
Click to expand...

Even non-human animals have a moral code. Working together for the common good has evolutionary benefits that helped us survive as species.
 
hillsong.jpg
HILLSONG Church rakes in $100 million a year from its tax-exempt Australian operations as its weekly flock of 34,000 supporters hands over their hard-earned cash. The church that started in suburban Sydney in the 1980s has expanded to 15 countries and now boasts an A-list of celebrity followers and “rock star” pastors.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input!

When a statement is assertive, the one making the statement has to present the evidence of one's assertion. On the other hand when there is a questioning of an assertive statement one does not have such a role to play.

The statement "There is no god" is an assertive statement.
The statement "There is no proof that there is a god" is a questioning of the assertive statement "There is a god".
As a scientist and having no evidence to prove my hypotheses that "There is no god" I have to fall back to agnosticism questioning those who (without evidence) assert that there is one.

With all due respect, the idea that morals are based on religion is wrong. There have been times when religion was not a part of the game (for instance when Sun was considered to be a deity) yet morals existed as a common understanding and agreement of what a society needed. (That's why morals are so volatile. Because times change, society changes and along with it, its morals)
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
I agree with Mur on this one, I don't see the necessity of proof, just the belief. And as you know proving a negative like this is not possible.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments!

We are moving into the semantics of a debate. "There is no god" is slightly different from "There is no proof that god exists"

Alligatorob said:
I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time. The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons. They once supported polygamy and no longer do. They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed. I am sure there are other examples in many religions.
Click to expand...

That happens when people take all the burden of the change. Religion is dogmatic and as such it doesn't change. People blame themselves for "interpreting wrongly" what was given to them and effect the change without admitting that their religion was, until yesterday, wrong.
 
Irwin said:
I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us.
Click to expand...

That's the best thing (re religion) that can happen to a child. The brainwashing of children by their parents about their (the parents') religion is appalling. Let the child grow up, develop a brain and critical thinking and then they will decide (based on their knowledge and personal experiences) if there is a reason to believe and what to believe in.
 
mellowyellow said:
View attachment 181869
HILLSONG Church rakes in $100 million a year from its tax-exempt Australian operations as its weekly flock of 34,000 supporters hands over their hard-earned cash. The church that started in suburban Sydney in the 1980s has expanded to 15 countries and now boasts an A-list of celebrity followers and “rock star” pastors.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input.

They are Group C much? :)
 

Back
Top