Human domination, could we be more ignorant?

[Sevena]

In humans, we as a whole tend to believe we are superior to other species.As if we are entitled to the word superior.I came across an article today conserning wolf hunting.A commenter on the article made the following statement."It is mans place to have dominion over the beasts, not the other way around".Let me say that I do not agree with this statement but lets first look at the reasons someone may say this.

We, humans, have a brain that allows us to make tools, solve math equations,build, read, cook, drive, type, and all those other things we humans do.We are capable of leveling mass amounts of forest land, digging quaries to extract precious recourses to make our lives more comfortable in our suv's and leather sofas.We are so many and consume everything we come across that we have given ourselves the most dominant spot in the food chain.We inslave other species to suit our needs and kill off species so we may have unique decor in living room.

Is it mans capabilities that make it mans place to do such things?

My view , I am sure will not be a shared view but thats ok.Let me first say I am NOT anti hunting.Many people hunt to supplement for a lack of income and feed their families and even to help feed neighboring families struggeling to put food on the table but trophy hunting is wrong in my opinion.But, hunting isnt the real issue here.

The real issue is wether it is our right to exert our control over another species.Which is a tough one.On one hand now that we have destroyed so much of other species natural habitat we do have a responsablity to clean up our mess and try and provide yet live in some kind of harmony with those species.So in this respect we must actually act as a controller of sorts.Yet we do not control our own species.Why is it inhumane to set poplulation control within humans? Yet not inhumane to set population controls in place for other species.Do we have more of a right to live then them? Do we have more of a right to procreate a species that is already over populated? Not in my opinion.

BUT, let leave all of this behind.I feel I may be taking my own topic off topic

Compare only our physical beings.leave your tools behind and keep only your wits.Without our tools are we really the dominant species.I would say no.Without our tools would we even be carnivores? You may say , oh well some animals do actually use tools and you would be right.So ,ok, lets give ourselves the tools that we see other animals using but only those.With those tools you may say, well we can now make fire since we have our wits.Ok, so now we have fire.Whats that leave us with? You may say well with those tools and our wits we can create more.You would be right but for this you will do without.

Rocks, wood and fire.Those are the tools we use to calculate our dominancy.So it looks like we're back to being cavemen.Are we still superior? Can we still claim dominancy over other species. Physically no, mentally yes. After all 'we make fire'.

Is it that ability to make fire that makes it mans place to dominate,destroy and consume what ever we may choose? No, it is THAT ability that makes it our responsablity to ensure we create balance with nature.

The hunting of certain species and even the reintroduction of species within a habitat are only viewed as needed because we (humans) have taken more than we could ever give back.To me this does not calculate to our having an entitled dominion over other species.In fact it places us within the prey and not the predators.

Why prey and not predator? Prey tend to lack the physical attributes to protect themselves from the predator.Prey tend to run because they can not stand and fight.We are prey because without our tools we can not protect ourselves, we can not stand and fight.We are prey because we are to ignorant to see the predator coming.

Things like this get me fired up.Just because we have the ability to dominate does not make it our place to do so.The attitide that because we are able gives us a right to consume and enslave will not only be our downfall, unfortunately we will take the world and many of its species with us.

Yes now we are finding ways to live "cleaner" lives and planting forests that we had previously demolished,breeding animals that we have hunted to close to extinction.Some of the damage can not be undone and we will spend the rest of our existance looking back at the devistation and shaking our heads.To me the human race needs a moral makeover.Thats my opinion and a bit a rant you could say.

I'm not looking for anyone to agree with me, its just that people who think they have a natural right of dominance need to be slapped around and thrown into the forest with just a rock and some wood.See how dominant they are then, in their birthday suit with a rock in one hand and a stick in the other.

At FoxKnights request I went looking for article again.I use the word "article" in reference to its length.He has also brought to my attention that he feels I may have misinterpreted the statement.So let me clarify that the words" mans place to have dominion", to me, reference a feeling of right or entitlement to something.Which I feel is not the case as stated above.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 249AAYgx2K

[FoxKnight]

I love threads like this. Gets the mind going =P

Firstly, I must say that I only support hunting for need and not hunting for want. Now when it comes to "dominion over animals" I have my own understanding on it's meaning, not knowing anything about the article. (I would be interested in reading this article. by the way.) The word "dominion," according to dictionary.com, means "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority. " or "rule; control; domination." The best analogy of this would be kingship and kingdoms. Kings were not evil people because they had rule over land and others. Most kings acted in the best interest of their kingdoms and those they ruled because it was their responsibility to protect them so their reign would continue or else the people might rise up and overthrow their ruler. So the statement "dominion over animals" does not inherently mean man can and should kill animals as he pleases. To me, the statement means rather that man is supposed to maintain a healthy balance for all animals in the lands that man owns. Although, the statement sounds like it was just used as an excuse to make hunting wolves morally acceptable, which it does not.

Why should man have this right of governing animals? Man "should not." It's just how things turned out and cannot be reversed now. Animals cannot govern themselves; man just happens to be the only animal with the capability to do such. Some animals do understand of higher concepts like ownership and fairness but cannot organize in a way to make use of it the same way humans can. Humans are able to do so like building stables for horses, or habitats in zoos, or ponds for fish. Animals are far less likely to do so, especially for other species. It has nothing to do with superiority. At least, not that I can see.

Now, I'm not going so far as to appear completely ignorant of realities like whaling, fur hunting, sport hunting, fishing entire species of fish to extinction, and using crocodile hides for purses and boots, to name a select few. They all exist and I do not pardon any of these acts, but let's not just completely forget the opposite end of the spectrum.

Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to the double standard of killing animals and killing people. Killing should only be done for survival/self defense, which is why I have no problem with the Donner party but I do with deer head trophies. The only exception here is the raising of farm animals for food because these expendable animals are being replaced and the population is being maintained. This double standard probably comes from the simple fact humans are a different species, and humans have a sort of specie pride similar to nationalism.

The model of predator and prey is not an end all trait of nature. Yes, some animals eat other animals and the converse is true, but it does not mean all of nature revolves around this principle. Sharks are predators and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees, yet they are not continuous killing machines like some might think. Many fish swim have no fear around sharks and it is only when sharks need to eat do they hunt, which I think is maybe once a week or so. Most of the time they are just swimming around enjoying their aquatic life, but that's not a side most would find interesting so they completely ignore it. Cats and mice are not enemies by nature. Cats have a tendency to play with small animals until they are dead. It's just a coincidence that mice are easily available for them to toy with. I've even heard a true story about a lion that did not kill a gazelle (or something similar to it) and actually cared for it for a few hours or a day or two (it's been a while since I heard this story and saw the accompanying video on Animal Planet). The two species are seen as natural enemies, which made it so interesting to see it not go as expected. But if you must label man as either, predator is most appropriate because few animals would eat a human anyways. Most tend to run away or do its best to scare humans away.

There is no right or wrong in what humans do in the grand scheme of things. It is just the immediate consequences that affect us. So what if man does cause global warming and mass extinctions? Humans would not survive catastrophic events; and if they do, they would then have a much greater understanding of what not to do in the future. Let's say global warming kills all humans and 85% of all life on Earth. Life will continue to go on and with enough time, millions and millions of years until the sun burns out, there may even be another sentient species like mankind. Even if all of the life on Earth dies out, so what? It's not like there aren't trillions of other Earths among the cosmos that we have yet to discover or have yet to be formed. They surely have life as well and it's likely some of them are going through the exact same thing as us.

All in all, humans do have much to learn if the balance on Earth is to be protected. It's just a matter of how long will it take to change our ways.

*Edited the third paragraph.

[WerewolfKeeper3]

In 'The Lost World' by michael crichton, a character points out it's not 'save the planet' its, 'save us'. The planet will survive no matter what we do to it; life may or may not go on, but this world will still remain.

As to human arrogance: most humans don't consider themselves animals. That person was probably talking about the religious connotation; that a supreme being made everything and gave mankind the right to do with it as he pleased...

Human arrogance will destroy mankind and possibly even take the planet with it. who knows?
Honestly, i've stopped trying or caring. This world is going to the pits even as we speak and very few people give enough to actually see it.
Arrogance also usually goes hand in hand with ignorance; otherwise, you wouldn't be arrogant if you were wise.

Don't know what to tell you except: be prepared for the worst, and do what you think may help the wolves; don't waste your breath with the humans. believe me... they're not worth it.

As for learning: you might have noticed how difficult it is to make changes in this world, with how many people are fighting against it. I'd expect they never will learn... not unless a giant timer appears and says 'you must change by the time this runs out or you will all die' and even then... it'd either be never, or during the last ten seconds.

Humans, for all their technological advances and such... really are idiotic creatures.
Also, yes i'm human, but seriously wish i weren't... at times. at others... eh, i'm okay with it...

[JoshuaMadoc]

I don't want to hear a thing coming out of that guy's assflaps when he starts getting that "Man's place" bullshit enforced on *HIM* when he gets hunted by other humans. You want superiority? Better earn it or other humans'll earn it out of his dead body.

[Morkulv]

I always tell my friends about how thrilled I am about the upcoming Mars expedition. Not because I think the human race deserves to colonize another planet, but because hopefully it allows all the idiots in this world to live there so I can truly enjoy this planet for once.

[Terastas]

It's precisely because we would not be the dominant species without our tools that we created them.

Take it away Mordin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI

Ultimately, those are my sentiments as well. Just because we have the capacity to wipe something from the face of the Earth doesn't mean we are obligated to do so. Especially not when it is also within our capacity to preserve and protect.

I'll even take it a step further and inject the most basic, most selfish (yet still acceptable) code of ethics that's ever been presented in media: Jack Sparrow's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxi-IUnCN_8

Sure. We can go all Ted Nugent on the planet and wipe out all wolves from existence. But we can't clone them, reanimate them, or otherwise bring them back from extinction and reintroduce them to the wild, so. . .

Even if you buy into all that "dominion" crap, you have to accept that dominion also entails the other side of the aisle to their opinions and to their activities.

Most would-be hunters like Ted Nugent who rely so heavily on the dominion argument don't do that; they only use it as a cover for their completely unrestrained narcissism. And what I'm finding is that more and more of them don't even have that as their motivation; more and more it seems like their real motivation is hatred for the conservationists and a desire to destroy something they know they would otherwise try to protect and preserve (I'm looking at you Michele Bachmann).

I, for one, am with you in that I don't buy into that dominion garbage. I only argue from its perspective to point out that even that doesn't justify what they're doing.

[WerewolfKeeper3]

I always tell my friends about how thrilled I am about the upcoming Mars expedition. Not because I think the human race deserves to colonize another planet, but because hopefully it allows all the idiots in this world to live there so I can truly enjoy this planet for once.

What's left of it...

It's precisely because we would not be the dominant species without our tools that we created them.

Take it away Mordin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI

Ultimately, those are my sentiments as well. Just because we have the capacity to wipe something from the face of the Earth doesn't mean we are obligated to do so. Especially not when it is also within our capacity to preserve and protect.

I'll even take it a step further and inject the most basic, most selfish (yet still acceptable) code of ethics that's ever been presented in media: Jack Sparrow's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxi-IUnCN_8

Sure. We can go all Ted Nugent on the planet and wipe out all wolves from existence. But we can't clone them, reanimate them, or otherwise bring them back from extinction and reintroduce them to the wild, so. . .

Even if you buy into all that "dominion" crap, you have to accept that dominion also entails the other side of the aisle to their opinions and to their activities.

Most would-be hunters like Ted Nugent who rely so heavily on the dominion argument don't do that; they only use it as a cover for their completely unrestrained narcissism. And what I'm finding is that more and more of them don't even have that as their motivation; more and more it seems like their real motivation is hatred for the conservationists and a desire to destroy something they know they would otherwise try to protect and preserve (I'm looking at you Michele Bachmann).

I, for one, am with you in that I don't buy into that dominion garbage. I only argue from its perspective to point out that even that doesn't justify what they're doing.

quoted for really good points.

[Scott Gardener]

You've covered the essentials already. My feelings on this are what broke me out of religious dogma when I was still a child. I grew up in East Texas, surrounded by Fundamentalist Christians. I was perfectly OK with believing everything until they got to the part about only humans having souls. Then, the whole system crashed, and I eventually ended up going agnostic and finally converting to Wicca. Nothing about the observable real world could justify the idea of humans having souls and other animals not. I always considered humans a species of animal, and attempts to make me see us as something else went against some core underlying instinctual principle of mine.

I do not feel it is in any way demeaning to identify us as an animal species. It's basic biological fact. If you're uncomfortable with that fact, then you should be more a transhumanist singularitarian than I am. And yet, pretending that humans are already somehow transcendent of our biological origins is one of the biggest barriers towards our actually working on it. I'm a little upset with this state of things, because, in all probability, the thinking that humans are superior is both threatening the livelihood of my homeworld and culturally obstructing research and development of technologies that will keep my consciousness from getting killed off in a few decades by old age.

If humans are so superior, made in God's image even, then how come so many of us have chronic back pain? Biology explains it easily--we're an evolutionary work in progress, and an upright posture on two limbs instead of four is making the lumbar region bear more weight than it originally evolved to do. Throw out evolution and insist that God created humans spontaneously as a favor to Himself and the Universe, and you're stuck with having to justify how millions of people suffer from back pain either by making it their own fault for making God angry somehow, (let's see... a guy ate an apple, because his wife got a tip from a talking snake that was actually Satan... someone stopped taking their meds?) or by wigging out and saying, well, God just does that, because you can't figure Him out.

People repeatedly justify the "us or them" premise of animal abuses, ranging from animal research to intolerable meat industry practices, because of this artificial separation of humans from other animals. We have quite literally de-humanized other animals. In so doing, we culturally routinely fail to acknowledge that other animals are even conscious, or that even though they are, that such consciousness really matters. Routinely, consciousness and cognitive abilities get confused, and my efforts to point out animal consciousness, essentially confirmed in mammals and highly probable to some extent in anything with a brain, get instantly referred to how much better humans are at problem-solving. If being better and smarter cognitive beings make us superior, then do intellectual nerds like myself have the right to beat up children?

Don't get me started on population, either. Hunting animals for "sport" is often justified by saying how we need to control their populations. Coming from humans... By that argument, their logic would justify random mass murder, since we humans are, on a global scale, the most hazardously overpopulated species on the planet. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying I would justify random mass murder. I'm just saying that by their logic, THEY are. I believe that human overpopulation problems can be controlled without killing or hurting anyone, by education, birth control, and sustainable living practices.)

Yes, PETA members can sometimes go off the deep end. But, I'm sick and tired of people ragging on PETA more than any other extremist group. People need to get off the backs of militant vegetarians and start going after the other people who drive us into vegetarianism in the first place. (Disclaimer number two: I am not vegetarian, though for simplicity's sake I have to tell people I am. I eat meat from sources I know were not tortured needlessly beforehand. I will not eat meat served in most restaurants, particularly fast food places; the headlines on any given week will tell you why. I think last week it's horse meat showing up in beef. I'm not sure what this week's thing will be, but I'm guessing another Salmonella outbreak.) It's a version of the Prius false smugness issue. People love to complain how smug people who drive hybrids are. But, once you get past the rhetoric, it's not the people driving hybrids who are smug at all; it's the bullying oaf secretly feeling insecure about driving a big dual-rear tire F-350 for a daily commute to work, who is making fun of the Prius drivers, who is the smug and obnoxious one. It's the adult version of high school, basically.

[WerewolfKeeper3]

Actually, Scott, i realized just recently that if another, more powerful species were to start hunting for meat, the easiest and most prevalent would be human beings. Most of us, myself included sadly, don't know how to defend ourselves. {I'm also overweight which doesn't help matters.}

As for animals: We've had a mouse problem; we've caught and released two adults and a baby. The adults, as far as we know, are okay in the garage... the baby... didn't survive. {had fur and what not but... wasn't big enough i guess}

... We've caught another baby, but this one is now living in a critter carrier, with food water and bedding because it's too damn cold out to release the little one, and i'm NOT having another Life on my hands. I already feel horrible enough not getting the carrier the first time around, and believe me, my heart about stopped when i released the first baby was dead.
{other then spiders and a certain pantry moth} i've never liked hurting living creatures. Never. I hate doing it to the moths and spiders too, but I'm an Arachnaphobic and have a panic attack each time i see them. {if i knew which ones weren't poisonous i might not be as afraid but... yeah.} And the moths are everywhere... EVERYWHERE.

And yeah i'm a vegetarian too. Oh well.

Honestly... i'm not sure about anything anymore. I used to believe God existed... part of me still does, BUT, the simple fact that he never seems to stop his followers... what Lewis?
("If he always does it for us, how will we ever learn to do it ourselves?")
That's not what his followers say; they say he's not helping our every tiny problem because we're not bowing low enough or something...
(Oi... how many times have i told you: DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY!)
How can i NOT? They're speaking for him, remember?
(No they're not. They're regurgitating what they've been fed for so many years. They're speaking for MAN, not God.)
Not much of a difference really... considering without Man how many Gods would actually exist?
(Oi... Well, what happens when that story you're writing comes out? It has Creation being married, having four sons, three of which end up kings of Hell because they were the hosts for three pieces of an ancient evil that threatened their father.)
Why do you think i'm releasing that under a different name, hmm? I'd rather keep my body parts where they are thank you.
(You still believe he's there, just not that anyone can actually fathom him. And you also don't agree with him ever intending for people to be perfect.)
Because otherwise the only reason why man was created was to worship him and nothing else? Oh believe me... i used to.
(you STILL do. You believe God, Yahweh, Allah, Brahma & Vishnu & Shiva, etc. exist. You just don't think people can hear Him anymore, because they're too deep in dogmatic ideas of him.)
Doesn't really matter one way or the other: when God fearing people showed up here, they took land from people whose beliefs were different from theirs, reducing their numbers greatly, and in the process, nearly destroying another people. All because they were more CIVILIZED {spits on ground}. Christians in the Crusades attacked Muslims because they wanted a CITY, killing how many in the process? Whenever i hear something about God it's usually people using him as an EXCUSE. Why do you think i don't have faith in him anymore?
(Because you got sick and tired of some of his followers, and the teachings that are supposed to be His basically damning you for being you. For making mistakes, for not succeeding in the first go; hell, you didn't have any faith in yourself until you STOPPED believing.)
That's one of the reasons: I couldn't get something done perfectly the first time, so i was never good enough for him.
(Perfection is a Human creation; no matter what other people say, it is. God would never have made it because what is perfection? Is it on par with God? But no one is ever on par with God, otherwise they would also be Gods. And there can only be one Creator. You story even goes into Creation making The First Race, people who were perfect but had free will. Most, turned on him because they didn't want to follow someone who was just as perfect as they were. He won out because there were other beings stronger then the First Race who sided with Creation, but... still points out flaws.)
They're my opinions. Nothing more.
(And Nothing less. You really think God would ever want you to feel like your weren't good enough, JUST because of what other people say you have to be in his good graces? King David wasn't perfect; not by a long shot--)
And God Punished a CHILD of his for mistakes HE made.
(...As Gods in old times did. The Children pay for the Parent's mistakes.)
Then how is that fair? How is that Just?
(Whoever said God actually did that?)
The Bible says it.
(Bible also says a virgin woman who is raped is to be married off to her rapist, and the father given fifty pieces of silver {i believe} for Lost Property.)
God said Woman was to be lower then Man.
(No... MAN said that. The old ways were filled with Females who had power, and Men didn't like being told what to do by a "weaker" person.)
Doesn't help you know... it really doesn't.
(One of these days God is probably going to have a say in things... or maybe not. He might have made this world and hundreds of others, to see which were ready to learn from him. And you also agree the Old Gods exist too, though in a different form.)
Spirits; "God" in the story comes from a word meaning "Who that makes Life from Nothing".
(Which means there can only be one God, The Spirit of Creation. The Other Spirits have all their powers and are just as revered.)
Why are we talking about this here? This is talking about human arrogance, not religious thinking, or my idiotic story.
(Because it sparked the reason why you wanted to write this story: to make people THINK about what they're doing.)
They won't... i've lost faith in Humans. Why try to help those, who honestly will stab you in the back when you're not looking?
I still stand by my recent proclamation: I'm Human only because there wasn't another species available at the time.
(There probably was, you just knew they wouldn't be able to do anything.)
... You know, i actually missed talking with you.
(*grins* Ditto. Here was a bit more accepting then other places. There, you had to pretend to be normal.)
Here... i could just be me.
(Mmm... Sorry Sevena. We kinda went off topic.)
Yeah... sorry.
(Although... we did just point out some examples of human arrogance against their own species...)
...Still didn't count man.
(Wolf, but i digress; you do believe this too, don't you? You believe Creation exists, and that other Spirits that were called Gods in the pasts exist too.)
... I'm starting to again yes. Otherwise, why do i feel safer when the Moon is out? When she isn't watching, i don't like going out at night. When she is, it's okay.
(Again... sorry... we might be haunting this place again though.)
Considering this is the only place he's actually comfortable speaking, and most of that convo was between the two of us.
(Mmm-Hmm... heh heh... it's good to be home.)

I'll probably end up editing this at some point. Mostly to clear out things that are off topic...

[Sevena]

.

[JoshuaMadoc]

Sorry, Scott, but when I'm hungry for idiot blood, I go after everyone. Self-righteous animal-hating poachers and delusional militant hypocritical mass-murdering vegans are both terrible things, but to leave one group of morons to further fester and mutate in order to go after another isn't good hunting at all.

[WerewolfKeeper3]

I also have to agree with Kitetsu simply because PETA makes me want to stab them repeatedly in the eye with a large butcher knife... or chop sticks, whichever is handy at the time.

[Morkulv]

The religion I would LIKE to believe in would be buddhism. I mean, just about every cool concept was derived from buddhism; reincarnation, karma, etc. But the fact remains that there's no more evidence for this then there is for an all powerful, jealous god that sacrificed himself to himself to make us all into sinners who have to pay to him. Still, buddhism has my vote for being the only real positive religion I would follow if there was more evidence for it. Modern Satanism is kinda selfish, even though ironically enough its FAR less violent then anything I read in the christian bible.

Agnostisism is just a another word for atheism. The only difference is that an atheist basically has more guts to say: "I looked at the evidence, and within the confines of our perception of reality, I'm reasonably sure there is no god". Being open to a god is nothing less rediculous then claiming you are open minded for the possibility of unicorns, fairies, or even werewolves. I don't mean to disrespect agnostics here, but I feel that many of these people are tricked into thinking that being open minded to the possibility of a divine being is a GOOD thing, and that atheism is close minded and therefore the bad option to take. No its not. Don't feel 'bad' about reaching the conclusion of there not being a god. Its perfectly fine, and its the best position to take until evidence is provided otherwise.

[Sevena]

.

[FoxKnight]

Redacted.

[Sevena]

Content deleted due to a fair request.

[Terastas]

Actually, Scott, i realized just recently that if another, more powerful species were to start hunting for meat, the easiest and most prevalent would be human beings. Most of us, myself included sadly, don't know how to defend ourselves. {I'm also overweight which doesn't help matters.}

The more likely factor would be their abundance. With six billion people on Earth, they could kill of 90% of the Earth's population and we'd still be the dominant species. Thee fact that much of that population is already fattened up in advance while another hefty chunk of it would openly advocate for the slaughtering of millions of other human beings would certainly play into it too.

On Scott's points on intelligent design and evolution, I think I've got three videos he'd appreciate.

How to shut up pesky creationists

Lewis Black on creationism

Bill Maher on creationism

I recommend the last video if only for the line "Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought in medical school."

[Scott Gardener]

Thanks for the links.

You have to keep in mind that human cultures propagate viral memes, and you'll get exposed to whatever is propagating in your own culture. Here on the Internet, it's cat videos and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. But, when talking to people, it's religious models. I'd advise anyone to be skeptical of any religious model that assumes the whole world or whole universe is akin to one's locality and subject to the same issues. I'm a bit dubious of the notion that the same God who would be responsible for gamma ray bursts and the architecture of galaxies around super-massive black holes would somehow be fixated on how one trims one's beard or what kind of bread one eats. If God hated levened or unlevened bread so much, why bother making it in the first place? "I'm going to spend so much time and energy generating something that at least appears to have evolved and developed over 13.7 billion years, give or take, with matter formed over successive generations of stellar supernovae, bringing about the eventual rise of conscious beings, only to have you guys in particular have to avoid eating one particular kind of bread." Right...

[Terastas]

I don't mean to disrespect agnostics here, but I feel that many of these people are tricked into thinking that being open minded to the possibility of a divine being is a GOOD thing, and that atheism is close minded and therefore the bad option to take.

Don't want to derail the thread too much, but you're absolutely right.

The difference between agnosticism and atheism is this: Agnostics don't believe in anything, while atheists believe in nothing. Or in webspeak, Agnosticism = "Who knows?" while Atheism = "I'm right and you all suck!"

And while a lot of atheists like to pretend that they're somehow above all other religions because they've got great thinkers in their corner like Stalin, Che Guevara and Ayn Rand, the reality is that their mode of thought is still dependent upon absolute certainty in the lack of proof. Saying "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he does exist!" is ultimately no more ignorant than saying "You can't prove God does exist, therefore he doesn't exist!"

[Morkulv]

Thats the thing though: NOBODY knows EVERYTHING 100% sure, so in that sense the term agnosticism as a branch of atheism is totally useless because nobody knows everything for sure and not even the most die-hard atheist I've met has ever claimed that he did.

Within the confines of reality however, I am reasonably sure that there is no such thing as a all powerfull skydaddy that watches over us. This is just a logical evaluation of the things we can observe. If this god is supposed to take place OUTSIDE of our reality, then why even speculate about it in the first place? We don't live outside of reality. We are here and now, and in our observable reality there is no speck of proof whatsoever that a god exists. So don't make 'excuses' for it, just to make the religious people feel better about themselves. Have the guts to step down and tell people what you do or don't believe in, without making excuses for it.

[Terastas]

Just so you know, I have absolutely no intention of trying to make religious people feel good about themselves.

For me, it's all about getting atheists to stop acting so effing full of themselves. My point isn't that religion is somehow valid. It's that atheism is no better.

[Morkulv]

I have no interest in individual people's motives. I've come to known great christian minds, as well as atheists. The fundemental difference lies in the fact that one group of people believes in something irrational, and in something that fails to meet any scientific standard ever since it started 2000 something years ago.

However. This doesn't make the atheist a 'better' person than the religious one. The atheist can just as well be a complete buffoon on many other levels. Just remember that atheism is the neutral position to take; people aren't BORN religious, they are born an atheist. Religion has to be taught.

When I say that some agnostics are trying to please religious people, I'm saying that alot of them feel that NOT being open for the possibility of an all-knowing all powerfull being that lives outside of time and space, and sacrificed himself to himself is being unreasonable (and I've talked with plenty of people who label themselves agnostic because of that). It is not, and its never a shame to put your foot down and say 'no, I don't believe any of these claims have met the burden of proof'.

[Terastas]

-the possibility of an all-knowing all powerfull being that lives outside of time and space, and sacrificed himself to himself-

That doesn't strictly define all religions. Nor is Atheism strictly described as the rejection of that one single notion while being open to everything else.

No offense, but all you've done is proven my point. This is said in offense of Christianity as opposed to in defense of Atheism.

Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of all abstract ideas. Not just the idea of God, but also of spiritualism, karma and the soul. That's where most atheists and agnostics begin to disagree.

Me personally, I also don't accept the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent being at the center of the universe who gives a damn about every little thing that happens on this one planet billions of light-years away. I am, however, willing to accept the possibility of things beyond my comprehension, be they higher powers or higher states of existence. I believe in a continuous cycle -- that the combined amount of matter and energy in the universe is unchangeable, and by extension of such, I accept the concept of reincarnation as, at the very least, having merit (our life energy had to come from somewhere, and it also has to go somewhere). And while I don't believe in the all-powerful thingamabob who will reward our virtues and punish our sins, I do believe in karma in the sense that good deeds = good vibes = spiritual wellness, and bad deeds = bad vibes = spiritual decay.

Atheism, by definition, would reject all of that. It isn't just about denying God -- it's about denying everything.

[Morkulv]

I'm sorry, but your definition of atheism is very different from what the term actually stands for. Most dictionaries, and even Wikipedia just say that atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of a deity. Not a rejection of everything. The term atheism in a broad sense even translates to 'without gods', and not 'without everything' (which I'll happily admit would be ludicrous).

When it comes to abstract ideas: I know plenty of people who describe themselves as atheists and belief in something supernatural. Remember, atheism doesn't say anything about somebody other then that that person doesn't believe in any deity. Everything else is seperate. Its true that most atheists are sceptics, and that often their atheism is a result of that, but as I've demonstrated it doesn't need to be. The only thing atheism tells us about a person is that he or she doesn't believe in any god(s).