How many atheists are actually agnostics or deists concerning the nature of the universe...?

Question

and atheists only to the definitions of "god" as established by various organized religions?

My personal problem with the concept "god" as defined by Christianity and other faiths is the way they anthropomorphize an entity whose existence and nature our minds are simply not equipped to comprehend. This would make me an agnostic by nature. However, I am an atheist when it comes to the definition of "god" held by most religions. Why must we constantly attribute human emotions such as jealous and vengefulness, human intelligence, even human gender to something so truly undefinable, if there is indeed anything there at all? It's like ants trying to define the giant ant-mound destroyers and food providers (we humans) using ant emotions and ant terminology.

I realize humans find it easier to contemplate something if they put a more familiar face on it, so I'm not opposed to anthropomorphosis of deities as a rule. It only bothers me when it is taken literally.

What's your take on this?

Actually, now that I look back at it, my ant example might have been a bad one. It's more like ants trying to define the thunder storm that washes their mound away or the wind that carries food into their paths using ant instincts and ant terminology.

To Zero Point: You have a point (in spite of your name). Perhaps I spoke too glibly. I am an agnostic in that I do not understand the origins of the universe, and doubt that it can be understood by man in any case. Scientific explanations as to the method (rather than the inherent nature) by which life has been established and evolved are as close to knowing the truth as we will ever get. If there is something other than material presence out there, then I am ignorant of its nature. I simply used the word "god" to name this undefinable non-material possibility because it is convenient. To me, "god" means no more than "undefined origin of the universe that is greatly misunderstood by men" anyway.

To E=mc2: I'm flattered. And actually I'm single again, as of Saturday evening.

To Saint Nearly: Yes, I agree that it is our desire to make the universe human that results in this "god" concept. And again, I would agree that there is no harm in that so long as it is not taken literally. The problem is that once it is taken literally, peoples with opposing definitions of "god" suddenly find all these reasons to go into battle against one another. Or more accurately, once they have a uniquely defined "god," their reasons for going into battle all of a sudden take on a moral character, which makes them that much more likely to attack others. The other respondants here have provided other reasons for why a literal interpretation of "godness" can be destructive; read them for further examples.

To salient2: That's a great example, thanks. Saying that "god" created the universe only backs up the equation a further step; it doesn't solve it. The next question is of course, "Then who or what created god." Which is why I more or less claim ignorance when it comes to discussions about the origin of the universe. I don't know how it started (if it even did), all I know is it is here, and this is what it is.

To Chris: I love your sense of humor...and your avatar!

P.S. Anyone have any idea why someone would give me a thumbs down? What did I say that was so offensive?

To Reverand Red Mage: I see your point. The only reason why I would want to draw this distinction is because so many Christians tend to attack atheists on the grounds that "we can't possibly know everything" and therefore should at worst classify ourselves as agnostics, not atheists. Thus, I sometimes describe myself "agnostic" because of my admitted ignornace about the origin of the universe. This seems to appease those who don't understand that when I say "atheist" it means "I don't believe in this thing you define as 'god'" rather than "I don't believe there can possibly be anything other than what I see."

To Don J: Hoyle's autonomous junkyard assembly of a workable Boeing 747 metaphor has been debunked time and time again. When you look at nature and say that it must have been made by an intelligent being because all objects are made by an intelligent being, you are attributing human intelligence to a force you don't understand. If you're going to attribute the universe with human intelligence, you may as well attribute it with human birth and death, too. And then where does that leave you? Analogy is the weakest form of argument, although it certainly sounds convincing to those who fail to follow it through to its logical conclusion. I am not one of those.

To Saitia: According to your reasoning, anything I have faith in is true. What nonsense. Just because I believe it or "feel" it doesn't make it so. No one who follow science claims to understand the inherent nature of material objects; this doesn't mean we don't understand how they function in the spatio-temporal reality we experience. I may not know what my body is inherently, but I have a pretty that it works in certain ways that are both describable and verifiable. Not so for your "god."

Answer 1

The thing about your question is that 'atheism' only refers to what is defined in the first sentence of your question... it only refers to the gods established by religions over the ages. I can't be 'atheist' to the nature of the universe... there's no gods implied. I can't be 'atheist' to paranormal activity... there's no gods invovled there either.

Answer 2

I see your dilemma, but really there isn't one. Modern science (over 70%) of "hard" scientists now believe in the "divine intelligence" Theory of Creation, that "something" had to provide the impulse for the springing into being of the Universe. Science is brutal in this respect. there is no way something can "spontaneously" pop into existence without some act of "creation."

Former atheist and Nobel prize winner, Fred Hoyle, world renown astronomer and mathematician, finally concluded that the chance that the atheist-materialist theory of creation could be correct at 100,000,000,000 to one AGAINST! He went on to say:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (random accident, as believed by the atheists) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a workable Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

And in another commentary, Hoyle says: "Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."

Just because you reject the Judeo-Islamic-Christian concept of a God, or the Hindu, Sikh or Zoroaster one does not make you an atheist at all. There are those who consider that there has to have been an "intent" at the beginning and therefore some "purpose" to it all and this group now includes the majority of physysists, astronomers, biologists, mamaticians and other "hard" scientists.

And on the other side, stand the militant atheist-materialists, who deny modern science, especially the most recent discoveries in quantum mechanics and continue the crude 19th century arguement that all is pure random purposeless accident.

You shouldn't get too upset about the weaknesses of humans in their quest for religious answers. You need to look for what is true for YOU! I wish you well on your search........

Answer 3

I prefer the term skeptic myself. I view everything with some skepticism. Give me evidence, replicatable proof, solid facts and I'll say that it appears that the most likely answer is... whatever it is. With the case of the supernatural, the evidence is lacking, there is none. Evidence exists to show that those old books of stories and myths that many people rely on as their "proof", developed over time, were copies of older works that were re-written, and were an ancient cultures best attempt to explain certain events when they did not have the benefit of the scientific process or evidence. Therefore I am not an agnostic, a don't know. I know what is real and what is not. The Universe is real, the supernatural is not. Of course I will always maintain an open mind, it is just not so open my brains fall out.

Answer 4

Not all faiths anthropomorphize God, but those that do are not totally without foundation for doing so; after all, Jesus, the son of God, incarnated on our world as a man of the realm.

However, you make fine insights concerning the childish way God is depicted by the dogma and doctrines of many religions. You seem to intelligently realize that a truer concept of God must embrace a much higher understanding of reality than we currently have; but you seem to ignore the empirical evidence right in front of you.

I suspect much of your difficulty stems from a paltry understanding of "faith." Even so, whatever philosophy of life you have personally settled on at this point in life, most likely utilizes faith to even make sense of reality as you think you know it. For instance, whether you recognize it or not, you have assumed-- on faith-- the validity of at least two important aspects of your reality: the material body; the human mind.

Before you say there is empirical evidence to prove they're real, you'll have to explain how you know what consciousness is and why it's real; if you can prove it, you'd be the first. It's a faith assumption.

Faith then, is a way of knowing. It is not the blind, unquestioning acceptance of some religious dogma or belief system, but an awareness that grows along with knowledge and spiritual insight. But the growth of faith can hardly occur in a mind that insists on material evidence for a spiritual reality. The "scientific method" is merely an intellectual yardstick we use to measure material and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

Answer 5

True... I am an "Atheist" primarily in that I don't accept YHVH (Yahveh/Jehovah) as God. There might be some other kind of God, but I don't believe in a God that intervenes in human history, for the simple reason that if God DID, it would be obvious and not look like something that could be explained by natural means... If there was a God that cared about us in a human way, that deity would have prevented the Holocaust, 9/11, and a hundred other horrors I could name...

Answer 6

I don't believe anything is created. What I believe is that ultimately nature is based on mathematics. I have two reasons, why I hold that belief. One is it seems to me to be the only logical way to explain observed complexity. The other is the amazing usefulness of mathematics in physics.

It doesn't make sense to me to try to explain complexity by hypothesizing a greater complexity. This creates a bigger problem, not a solution. The answer must be that reality when taken as a whole is simple.

Answer 7

If this "god" is one big mystery then why call it god? Why should I believe a "god" exists at all if you can't tell me even the littlest bit about what it is? That's like saying "you're really just agnostic towards a smizmar because it is so mysterious and we cannot put human conceived attributes to it". No... I'll just go on without belief in this vague, nonsensical term. I'm not going to sit on the fence about it because what is there to sit on the fence about?

Answer 8

I am agnostic in general to the concept of god - while strongly suspecting there is no god. Although I am 99.9% sure the qualities of the god of the bible (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) cannot co-exist and so I would say I am atheist in regard to that particular conception of god.

Answer 9

I'm an atheist who disagrees with religion. I don't believe in a god, but I don't have a problem with the people who do, just moreso their religion.

Answer 10

I don't know the number, but I am a complete and total atheist. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the creation of the universe.