Calling all Agnostic/Atheist Mommas

[Lindsey123]

Fascinating thread!

My life is so distanced from religion that I find it surreal just thinking about it. Hard to explain really, I feel when passing a church that it is a museum piece but then remind myself that it is still current, people still in this highly scientific and technological world STILL have faith and I am amazed! I pass no negative judgement on those that have faith, I just feel surprised its still around. I wonder how long faith will last?

I think human beings have a limit on what they can understand.

Would you elaborate on this, please, Noelle? In what sense do you mean?

 

[Mrs Mc]

Im going to come clean....I am a Christian and my OH and I are bringing our children up in our faith. However, they will also be taught about different faiths and how everyone has the right to think differently.

My father is a scientist and an extremely religious man. He understands and agrees with "The Big Bang" theory and yet believes, without doubt, that God created the world.

I was interested in this thread as I have an interest in atheism, just has much as Im interested in Buddhism, Sikhism, etc..

I thoroughly respect everybodies beliefs (even if that is that they dont have any) and I thought it was wonderful that nearly all mummies involved showed a clear respect of religion.

 

[staralfur]

Noelle, I often say that when I have this discussion with people. That maybe we just don't have the capacity to understand everything.

 

[Lindsey123]

I think that anyone who claims to know for certain, without a doubt, whether there is or isn't a god, is just being arrogant.

Slightly off topic here, given the context of the above, but I wanted to add to the above quote and say that, in the argument of the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, the burden of proof is not on the atheist but rather the believer or the God himself.

It is not arrogant, I think, to state that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of any God. If someone were to present evidence to me, I would sit down, consider it, and change my views accordingly, but in the absence of evidence? I think this is being open minded. Show me evidence, and I will believe. Until then, I have to concur with Dawkins' closing lines in his letter to his daughter:

"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

As an aside, I like how this thread has become more than its original intention. Nice to have a good debate

Like I said, I understand the logic in not following a religion if there's no proof. That makes complete sense to me as an agnostic. But I don't understand people who claim to know without a doubt that they're right. Science explains the how's of the universe, but not the why's, so nobody really knows, or can know. I know some people will disagree with this but I think atheists who claim certainty that there is no god are taking it on faith the same way theists do. Why isn't any burden of proof on the atheist, since they claim to know for sure?

Very good question, and a very popular one I'll copy a short quotation about Bertrand Russell. whose 'celestial teapot' is often used to answer the question you've raised:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

 

[Dragonfly]

I think that anyone who claims to know for certain, without a doubt, whether there is or isn't a god, is just being arrogant. I understand the logic of not believing in something unless there's evidence, but to disrespect other people's beliefs and call it a fairy tale con business is taking it too far. Some people have no respect. And if you think some people don't deserve respect because they disagree with you, that's awful.

Must you insult all who believe in different than you? I am not arrogant for my belief I would never call someone elses belief a name. Perhaps try respect too

 

[SaraEmily]

I think that anyone who claims to know for certain, without a doubt, whether there is or isn't a god, is just being arrogant.

Slightly off topic here, given the context of the above, but I wanted to add to the above quote and say that, in the argument of the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, the burden of proof is not on the atheist but rather the believer or the God himself.

It is not arrogant, I think, to state that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of any God. If someone were to present evidence to me, I would sit down, consider it, and change my views accordingly, but in the absence of evidence? I think this is being open minded. Show me evidence, and I will believe. Until then, I have to concur with Dawkins' closing lines in his letter to his daughter:

"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

As an aside, I like how this thread has become more than its original intention. Nice to have a good debate

Like I said, I understand the logic in not following a religion if there's no proof. That makes complete sense to me as an agnostic. But I don't understand people who claim to know without a doubt that they're right. Science explains the how's of the universe, but not the why's, so nobody really knows, or can know. I know some people will disagree with this but I think atheists who claim certainty that there is no god are taking it on faith the same way theists do. Why isn't any burden of proof on the atheist, since they claim to know for sure?

Very good question, and a very popular one I'll copy a short quotation about Bertrand Russell. whose 'celestial teapot' is often used to answer the question you've raised:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

I never said that we should believe the religious argument because it can't be proven wrong, just that it makes more sense to admit we can't know either way. I thought I made that clear.

 

[MommyJogger]

I never said that we should believe the religious argument because it can't be proven wrong, just that it makes more sense to admit we can't know either way. I thought I made that clear.

Sincere question: but would you ever respect someone's belief that there's a cosmic teapot floating in space? If your answer is yes, then I completely understand where you're coming from. But if your answer is no, then I don't see what makes the teapot different from any religion.

 

[Noelle610]

Fascinating thread!

My life is so distanced from religion that I find it surreal just thinking about it. Hard to explain really, I feel when passing a church that it is a museum piece but then remind myself that it is still current, people still in this highly scientific and technological world STILL have faith and I am amazed! I pass no negative judgement on those that have faith, I just feel surprised its still around. I wonder how long faith will last?

I think human beings have a limit on what they can understand.

Would you elaborate on this, please, Noelle? In what sense do you mean?

Sure. Basically, I think scientific research has it's limits. If there is a divine being or presence in the universe, it's not unreasonable to think that scientific principles would be limited in their ability to interpret something so vast and intangible. Essentially I don't think science can explain everything.

What about a concept like love? Sure, there are are scientific explanations as to why a mother might feel love for her child or her partner, but surely most of us feel there's something beyond what can be explained? What about compassion? How does that serve us in terms of survival? Where does empathy come from?

 

[SaraEmily]

I never said that we should believe the religious argument because it can't be proven wrong, just that it makes more sense to admit we can't know either way. I thought I made that clear.

Sincere question: but would you ever respect someone's belief that there's a cosmic teapot floating in space? If your answer is yes, then I completely understand where you're coming from. But if your answer is no, then I don't see what makes the teapot different from any religion.

I'd let them go about their business believing it so long as it's not hurting anyone. I think certain religious views are pretty silly, even comparable to the teapot theory in how bad the science is, but I'm not out to crush everyone's spirituality like some militant atheists are. Live and let live.

 

[Button#]

I think that anyone who claims to know for certain, without a doubt, whether there is or isn't a god, is just being arrogant.

Slightly off topic here, given the context of the above, but I wanted to add to the above quote and say that, in the argument of the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, the burden of proof is not on the atheist but rather the believer or the God himself.

It is not arrogant, I think, to state that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of any God. If someone were to present evidence to me, I would sit down, consider it, and change my views accordingly, but in the absence of evidence? I think this is being open minded. Show me evidence, and I will believe. Until then, I have to concur with Dawkins' closing lines in his letter to his daughter:

"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

As an aside, I like how this thread has become more than its original intention. Nice to have a good debate

Like I said, I understand the logic in not following a religion if there's no proof. That makes complete sense to me as an agnostic. But I don't understand people who claim to know without a doubt that they're right. Science explains the how's of the universe, but not the why's, so nobody really knows, or can know. I know some people will disagree with this but I think atheists who claim certainty that there is no god are taking it on faith the same way theists do. Why isn't any burden of proof on the atheist, since they claim to know for sure?

Very good question, and a very popular one I'll copy a short quotation about Bertrand Russell. whose 'celestial teapot' is often used to answer the question you've raised:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

I never said that we should believe the religious argument because it can't be proven wrong, just that it makes more sense to admit we can't know either way. I thought I made that clear.

That's because you're agnostic. Everyone's point of view makes the most sense to them, that's why they've come to the conclusion they have.

I'm an atheist as is OH. We will raise our son to be atheist, which means we will discuss religions a fictional stories that some people believe are true for a variety of reasons.

We will teach him that morality and ethics stem from something other than religious institutions and that 'Christian values' are not always ethical. If Christians can pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow then we can trust to our own moral compass.

We will teach him not to discuss religion with others unless specifically asked for his opinion as it does no good and may alienate him from people he otherwise gets on with.

If he does end up religious I will obviously be supportive but I hope he won't be.

 

[Mrs Mc]

I never said that we should believe the religious argument because it can't be proven wrong, just that it makes more sense to admit we can't know either way. I thought I made that clear.

Sincere question: but would you ever respect someone's belief that there's a cosmic teapot floating in space? If your answer is yes, then I completely understand where you're coming from. But if your answer is no, then I don't see what makes the teapot different from any religion.

I'd let them go about their business believing it so long as it's not hurting anyone. I think certain religious views are pretty silly, even comparable to the teapot theory in how bad the science is, but I'm not out to crush everyone's spirituality like some militant atheists are. Live and let live.

was about to say a similar thing.

As long as they werent hurting anyone and not forcing others to believe in the teapot, then why not...?

Its not my place to say what is right or wrong.

 

[SaraEmily]

I think that anyone who claims to know for certain, without a doubt, whether there is or isn't a god, is just being arrogant. I understand the logic of not believing in something unless there's evidence, but to disrespect other people's beliefs and call it a fairy tale con business is taking it too far. Some people have no respect. And if you think some people don't deserve respect because they disagree with you, that's awful.

Must you insult all who believe in different than you? I am not arrogant for my belief I would never call someone elses belief a name. Perhaps try respect too

I apologize for calling anyone arrogant. It was a reactionary post to MommyJogger's rude post. I do think it's a bit overconfident, since our current science can't explain everything, but I was a bit harsh. I do try to respect everyone's beliefs. I just have bad experiences with militant atheists the way some have bad experiences with fundamentalist theists. Very sorry to offend!

 

[Noelle610]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

 

[Lindsey123]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

 

[Noelle610]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

Well if they're going to war and killing each other in the name of the teapot, that doesn't exactly fall into the category of "projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world".

There are jerks on both sides of the fence. I'm currently reading a book about pre-World War II Russia, where religious people had to worship in secret for fear of retaliation from the government.

I'm not religious, I find a lot of it unbelievable, but I think it's unfair to pretend that teapot-believing is the cause of all of the world's problems. I think most religious people are just normal, decent people with beliefs that are different than mine.

 

[Button#]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

When they grow up if they change their religious beliefs they can be decaffinated!

 

[Larkspur]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

You're wading into pretty dangerous waters if you're trying to invalidate a perspective based on whether people have ever misused it to their own ends... "Eugenics" is all I'm going to say there.

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

Well if they're going to war and killing each other in the name of the teapot, that doesn't exactly fall into the category of "projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world".

There are jerks on both sides of the fence. I'm currently reading a book about pre-World War II Russia, where religious people had to worship in secret for fear of retaliation from the government.

I'm not religious, I find a lot of it unbelievable, but I think it's unfair to pretend that teapot-believing is the cause of all of the world's problems. I think most religious people are just normal, decent people with beliefs that are different than mine.

I believe this too; religious fanatics are definitely the minority though many blood has been/is shed because of religion. I'm of middle eastern and east european ethnicities so I'm too familiar with the wrongs religion can cause.

Hubby and I were talking about this the other day. He was saying that for most ppl, religion is a way of having hope for the future, way of feeling "safe"...if that makes some ppl comfortable, so be it

I personally think religions were made to explain how the world was made, at the time science couldn't explain anything. I don't have any use for religion and the concept of heaven/hell is meaningless to me. I was born in a conservative country to very free-spirited parents and I made my decision about religion by the time I was 6.

It certainly doesn't bother me that some folks want to believe in something though. To each their own, as long as they don't try to convert me

 

[Button#]

Love and empathy from a biological point of view is discussed in 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.

I don't believe humans have a limit to what they can know as a species, obviously there's a limit for individuals. A lot of people like some things to remain a mystery or there to be a reason why things happen (hence the popularity of religions) because it's more romantic and interesting and less scary than there being no reason to life and it all just being one big, rather fascinating, accident.

 

[Lindsey123]

Yeah, quite frankly I could not care less about anyone believe in a flying teapot. If it makes them happy and thus they're projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world, why the hell not? I'd take a fun teapot-believer over an ornery agnostic any day... And I am one!

Like my mom says, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

But what if said teapot-worshipper ran congregations for other teapot-worshippers, and unions of men and women required the blessing of the teapot? What if newborns were presented to the shrine of the teapot and dipped in tea to inaugurate them into the worship of the teapot? And what if people went to war and killed each other in the name of the teapot?

This is obviously tongue in cheek but the point remains valid

Well if they're going to war and killing each other in the name of the teapot, that doesn't exactly fall into the category of "projecting happy / empathetic / humorous energy into the world".

There are jerks on both sides of the fence. I'm currently reading a book about pre-World War II Russia, where religious people had to worship in secret for fear of retaliation from the government.

I'm not religious, I find a lot of it unbelievable, but I think it's unfair to pretend that teapot-believing is the cause of all of the world's problems. I think most religious people are just normal, decent people with beliefs that are different than mine.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, except for the idea that teapot-believing is not the cause of all the world's problems, which I'd counter with 'Yes, ok, but it IS probably the cause of most of them.' We can't deny that religion (and I'm being deliberately non-specific here) has been a player in the deaths/ruining/ostracising/polarisation of huge amounts of people, in both recent and ancient history. which is exactly the reason why I am an antitheist. Such people - the normal, decent people you speak of - set against each other vehemently and violently. Maybe I'm naive, but were it not for religion, I think the world might have been a more peaceful place.