what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)
 

i had a discussion with someone regarding religion on a social network that ended in them deleting me off their list— i'm not sure if i was harsh or mean or something, but i decided to post it here to see what y'all think. tell me if you think i was disrespectful or if you agree. here we go.

OP posted this picture:

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf...h75lo1_500.jpg

my reply:
jeez. more inaccurate and inflammatory atheist evangelism.

another person:
Christianity is mostly inaccuracy and inflammatory evangelism anyways. I'm sure a little joking back wouldn't be an injustice.

me:
i agree on your first note. but to me the whole 'religion is like a penis, it's great that you have one but don't shove it down my throat' applies to atheists, too.

original poster:

Atheists are different from Christians in that they're not looking to improve some imaginary, invented afterlife, but see that religion is aiding in the destruction of our world. And I firmly defend that posting a picture on [social network] is in no way attempting to change someone's mind. You think I think I could "save" a Christian? I'd sooner believe I could strike a fire under water. I'm appealing to the humorous side of people who already believe this.

In all reality, the belief is incredibly laughable.


me:

the scientific facts in the image aren't correct— there weren't hairy cavemen 6000 years ago, the human species was probably very similar to what we are now. it seems to me that whoever made the image has more of a problem with the actual belief system itself rather than how that belief system relates to scientific fact considering they couldn't even get their own dogma correct.

i think it's incredibly laughable that any one person thinks that they have a monopoly on the truth, whether they are a christian, atheist, muslim, jew, etc.


OP:

Just going based on amount of evidence. Some, if little, versus absolutley none. There isn`t a g-d. How we got here is debatable, but we weren`t created. Yes, the image is off by a tiny, tiny bit of time in cosmic terms, but the sentiment it expresses is deniable, but in fact true. G-d exists only in the minds of man.

Unlike some, I come to the internet looking to agree with people rather than argue. I enjoy knowing other people think the way I do. I don`t give a flying fuck if you`re mormon, muslim, or pastafarian. I converse with atheists, because I like to expand and alter my views. I don`t want to convert or feel superior or attack. And if you try to find fault with that, you will fall short, and will also get no reply, so please don`t try.

I think perhaps you`re a bit bored and just attempting to stir up trouble. Only those who question themselves would really respond to that negatively.


me:

i don't have a problem with what you believe. just as i'm sick of fundamentalist christians trying to convert me, and posters like "you KNOW there's a g-d" and whatnot, i'm sick of atheists doing the same thing. it's uncanny how alike many atheists (not all, but many) evangelize in nearly the same way as christians— i think it derives from the US being a mostly christian society. the way that westerners have a religion isn't the same as others around the world. if you're an atheist in the united states i don't think it has the same impact as if you were an atheist in say, turkey.

because in the united states there's a little slot in everyone's lives that they call their religion, and they pack all their stuff there and it mostly doesn't affect other parts of their lives, but they're convinced that they have to tell everyone about it and proudly proclaim "I AM A CHRISTIAN" even though in many cases their actions don't reflect their religiosity. many american atheists are much the same, they have a dogma and feel the need to share it and spread it around like the christians they once were (or are influenced by in US society).

my point is, american atheism is mostly a rejection of christian beliefs and customs rather than a rejection of G-d himself. a lot of atheists (and christians also) don't really understand that religions across the world don't work the same as religion in the united states, this is why many religions in the US have adapted to more reflect the place that christianity takes in society (see reform judiasm and many muslims in the US). religion in other parts of the world and even in some places here in the US, plays a different role. it's an interweaving mesh that connects to every section of your life and goes to the core of who you are— not limiting your actions but changing the way you look at the world. christianity doesn't really have that.

i guess my point overall is that just because you have rejected christianity, don't think that you have a hold on the truth better than anyone else or that you've found the answer. thinking you have all the answers is basically an admittance of naïvety— i don't condemn your non-belief in G-d. but i think stating it like "THERE IS NO G-D AND THERE NEVER WILL BE" is a bit quick on the draw. none of us have all the answers and i think it's foolish to pretend that any of us do.


OP:

Well you're completely wrong. It's a rejection of all beliefs. It's just mostly centered around Christianity because that's the society a) you are in and b) we are in.

You're being ignorant, actually, but I'm not going to argue. Frankly, I hardly know you, and I don't really like the conversations we've had, so I'm just going to take you off my friends list. Not because you're "arguing" with my beliefs, but because I've seen you post things that have really made me wonder about your character. Bye.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I see myself as an agnostic, and, shamefully, believe (ha!) to be superior to religious people as regards the natural sciences - not superior in terms of happiness, or quality of living, or "being human", though.

Quite frankly, I don't see why you two had this argument at all. The OP seems a little sensitive to criticism. Also, his result that you're supposed to be of doubtful character might be premature. Then again, everybody may decide about their company for themselves.

My conclusion: It's teh Interwebs, so forget the episode and move on.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I think the OP was just trying to be funny in the first place. Questioning the picture because of inaccuracies isnt really relevant to the point. I dont think the original intention of the OP was atheist evangelism but rather humour. Unfortunately it got a bit out of control. As an atheist myself, i find its fairly pointless to get into these arguments, as the atheist evidence is out there for all to see. I'd rather point someone to a nice book someone like Dr Steve Jones (genetics/anthropology) and everyone knows about Richard Dawkins. I'd say get over it. Posting a pic like that is not really a big deal and you both got the handbags out pretty quickly.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Posting potentially provocative stuff on platforms that aren't mutually agreed invitations for debate is always going to be asking for trouble.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Forums on the other hand...

http://i56.tinypic.com/29w79sz.png

( ;) )

No you weren't disrespectful. The purpose of posting the pic was probably more humour than evangelizing, but still he could have handled the criticism better. Anyway it's the social web. You didn't really know each other, so don't sweat it. It's why I've so far avoided Facebook. (That, and the fact that I have no friends)

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I think that starting a conversation about religion on the interwebs is unwise, unless you really know your audience, and even then, it should never be used to proselytize. In either direction, let me make that clear. I think we should be able to accept that religion can have a very scary effect on people, but that it largely has to do with whomever is giving orders. For my own part, I don't get into any kind of semantic or personal arguments about my faith, because I understand how counterintuitive a lot of what I accept as truth may seem to others, and that's fine. It's not my job to convert people. It's my job to show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and be an example of what I believe.

I don't think you did anything wrong, but it should have been obvious from the get-go that the OP was trolling.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

well i actually did know the person, albeit not very well. from high school (i'm 20).

the OP wasn't trolling, i knew this person a little in HS and knew they were an atheist and everyone so far had been clicking like to show approval. it was on facebook, but i'm trying to be as non-specific as possible to protect their ID.

we have a couple of friends in common, i just hope they don't see that and somehow side with them

Re: what do y'all think?
 

:) this picture is interesting, now I see the point of the "walking on water" story
but who is the story for? the conventional logic people or the religious?

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Assuming you mean the walking on water story, the 'or' is a bit misleading. The story is obviously for the religious - but clearly there are plenty of believers who take a more conventional logic (ie. less literalist) approach to biblical stories than others, which is probably why I didn't interpret the picture as being about biblical literalism. Personally I took it as an atheist-centric reference to the famous burden of proof argument for God's existence.

Just to be clear, posting it was no more than a little good-humoured mischief making on my part. True, I consider the logic of the religious person deeply muddled when it comes to the issue of belief in God or gods (I'm sure plenty think mine equally muddled) - but it would be a far stretch for me to conclude from it that religious people reject logic in any other area of their life.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

And I would hope that anybody, regardless of what they choose to place their faith in, understands that their faith is not a tool by which they elevate themselves above other people. In fact, the opposite is the truth.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Re: what do y'all think?
 

What's funny is that most religious people (especially Christians in this country) feel like their rights are being trampled on by atheist groups, when there has been a steady increase in religiosity since the early 1800's. You can't be oppressed if you're the majority opinion, and if you're seriously upset about some rocks with words on them being removed from public property, then you're not very secure in your faith to begin with. There is no reason, at least to my way of thinking, that science and faith can't coexist. Science is, after all, just a tool by which we attempt to understand what's around us, not some competing faith.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I wish someone would tell that to the populist commentators in this country, many of whom make a healthy living from regular frothing about how white people are the real victims of racism, how men are more discriminated against than women, how homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals, how Muslims are always getting special treatment and Christians are the most vilified, etc etc.

Of course there are Christians being persecuted around the world in different ways - and certainly there are a greater number of more vocal/vociferous non-believers around these days. Christians living in countries where their religion in the dominant one (such as the US and UK) will of course feel the brunt of that. But still - perspective frequently seems to go out the window.

-

OK... would I be pushing it too far by posting another pic?

http://i55.tinypic.com/2jg3tkp.jpg

(that's the last one from me before you have permission to call me Mongoose :D )

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I'm sure they won't, but if they do (based solely on what you wrote) then I'd suggest they were never great friends to begin with.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

What do we mean by "God´s existence"?
You see, I grew up in Hungary during the Communism where religion was strictly forbidden so I´m still trying to sort things out. (I got the Bible For Dummies for a couple of years ago and that was my first book ever about religion.)
I may be wrong but as I understand "God" is something bigger than everything and anybody and that "God"/divinity is what some people experience as a kind of magical revelation (e.g. the ability to walking on water, making vine of the water, hear God´s voice etc). I´m not surprised people, religious or not, need some kind of proof, unless they have experienced the "magic" themselves. I´m still not clear about it but it might be some difference between what we call "believers" and "religious" people. For me, the "believer" sounds like a person who believes without any proof or own experience. But it´s maybe just a translation/language thing so I may be wrong.

However, I think that "God"/divinity exists in everything and everybody even though some of us has experienced it in some way and some of us not.
Personally, I don´t belong to any particular religion just because I haven´t find the genre that fits my experience. The "making vine of water" variant sounds quite interesting though :)

Re: what do y'all think?
 

The question: Does God exist?

And in my opinion the correct response (which you rightly identify) should always be to answer with the following question:

How are we defining God for the sake of the present argument?

After all, there are several ways, each of which might elicit a quite different response or provoke a quite different discussion...

- God as described in the Old/New Testament, the Qu'ran, or other holy books?
- God merely as a Being who (note the pronouns here) concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings?
- God merely as some unifying spiritual force that connects every living thing?
- God merely as a synonym for 'whatever created everything that exists'?
- God merely as a synonym for 'everything that exists'?
- etc.

Only then can we can go on to explore:

- the question of God's existence.
- the question of whether it's even possible for humans to know the answer to such a question!

Re: what do y'all think?
 

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there. i would probably go with #2 in your list because i don't think G-d limits himself to a certain race or religion... that is asinine. but i do believe that he's active in our lives. as for all the pain and suffering in the world, i'm not going to even pretend to try to understand all that. i don't know why it happens. does that trouble me sometimes? yes, it does. but i think that G-d has a hold on it, and there must be some sort of reason why things happen the way they do. i just don't think it's in the grasps of any human to try to understand.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Do you think he'd be for legalization of marijuana though?

Re: what do y'all think?
 

LOL nice one.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Good point. I hate churches as institutions, and usually despise their pompous decision makers, but I respect and support the empathic, humanitarian, "good" views and actions that religion and belief often bring with them.

Why do you always write "G-d" instead of "God"? Does this have anything to do with the no-image rule? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm just curious.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

The nature of man is agnostic. Which means, simply, "without knowledge."

How is it that man truly "knows" things? Through the application of empirical methods. Unfortunately, God - if there is a God - by definition, is not temporeal/corporeal, therefore, empirical methods always yield the same incomplete results. The human senses lack the ability to discern the spiritual.

At this point, many venture the fool's folly and proclaim that due to the lack of empirical data and the inability of science to quantify God, God, therefore, does not exist. . . nevermind the fact that many of these people have never tackled a serious course in physics, let alone analytics. For if they had, they would be embarassed by their own fatuous reasoning.

. . I will end now as I have to go home. . . but I will chime in more

Re: what do y'all think?
 

True. But agnosticism involves an altogether separate question from that of atheism/theism.

Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god.
Agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge concerning a god (or some other supernatural being).

Agnosticism is not the midway point between theism and atheism. It's something entirely different.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I'm going to elaborate on that, because discussions between people calling themselves agnostic and people calling themselves atheist almost always degenerate due to mere semantic and etymological differences rather than epistemological and theological ones. What's clear is that there are no definitions of agnosticism and atheism on which everyone would agree, so let me at least expand on where I'm coming from on this.

1) Theism and atheism

On the question of belief in a god, I subscribe to the school of thought that says theism and atheism exhaust all possibilities. You either posit that "god exists" - or you do not. You either hold a belief in god - or you lack that belief. Notice that the binary choice I'm describing here is not "god exists -vs- god doesn't exist". Rather, it's: "I have a particular belief... -vs- I do not have that particular belief...". It's important not to get these two comparisons muddled up.

Theism, in its fundamental sense, is no more than a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism in its fundamental sense, is no more than the absence of those beliefs. A lack of theism. (Just as the 'a' prefix signals 'without' in a-gnosticism, so it does in a-theism). In this sense, and as has been said many times before, the answer to the charge of "Ah, but atheism is a faith too" is that atheism is a faith only in the same way that 'not fishing' is a hobby.

But of course there's a glaring omission from my description here, so let's deal with it. It's the point that, I think, makes many so-called agnostics think they have to choose (mistakenly, in my view) agnosticism rather than atheism...

There are some atheists who go further and choose to declare a positive belief of their own. They don't settle for a mere lack of others' beliefs; they insist that, according to them, "god does not exist". Well the first thing to state about this is that it's a subset of atheism, it's not atheism itself. And the second thing is that, often, what they're really saying it "I live my life as if there's no god, but no obviously I can't really prove it". Notwithstanding all that, then yes, this particular subset (which goes by several confusing names including strong atheism) is essentially a belief in itself, and, taken literally, you would be right in rejecting this as being as presumptious as the theistic belief that god exists.

The problem is that many non-atheists insist on portraying this subset of atheism as the very definition, the only definition, of atheism.

It's interesting, because in my experience, most atheists, when pressed, don't subscribe to this view. Most seem to define their own atheism in the much less presumptious sense - simply as an absence of belief in god. A rejection (implicit or explicit) of what others are positing. Which to my way of thinking is really the only sensible way forward if you hold to the logical view that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (not least because of the impossibility of proving a negative).

So that's confusion number one - the definition of atheism as being more certain than it necessarily is - this largely, I suspect, a legacy of it having been defined historically from the religious point of view (ie. atheism = the universe with a god-shaped hole in it). Still, one interesting outcome here is that most people calling themselves agnostic could probably quite easily redefine themselves as atheist without changing their beliefs one iota (which is precisely what many of us did). It just takes a change of definition. I suppose it depends how attached a person has become to the identity cultivated around the label 'agnostic'. Anyway, this brings me on to confusion number two...

2) Agnosticism

One of the outcomes of acknowledging only this narrower and more arrogant form of atheism is that it appears to open up a space in the middle for a nice, sensible, humble "don't know" position, midway between theism and atheism - and conveniently, in plonks agnosticism. The problem here is that agnosticism and theism-atheism are fundamentally separate questions. Agnosticism can very easily co-exist with either atheism or theism, for the simple reason that it's classified according to different criteria. A theist, for example, may also be an agnostic by maintaining that an aspect of the supernatural such as God is inherently beyond the scope of human knowledge. Cultural reasons may prevent that theist from using the term 'agnostic' to describe themselves, but to take an example in this thread, if you read bryant's posts, it would be hard to deny that in between the religious content, he is actually demonstrating a certain degree of healthy agnosticism.

To confuse the debate further, we also have the question of believing in religious aspects that go beyond the mere question of god's existence - miracles, walking on water, etc. I think these sometimes motivate some atheists to over-reach in their statements about capital-G God.

Huxley held the position that because the supernatural is by definition outside nature and therefore outside the scope of human knowledge, the only logical thing to do was to suspend judgment. Well that's fine as far as it goes; it's hard to disagree with it - but we need to be clear what precisely we're merely 'suspending judgment' about, because belief in a supernatural god is more specific than belief in 'religion'. Who could possibly disagree with the statement (the tautology) that it's not possible to have knowledge about something that lies beyond the scope of human knowledge?

My point here is that we need to be clear when using the term agnostic that we're really just making a statement about the (un-)knowability of a supernatural god; we're saying nothing of the various other elements of religion, upon which we should feel more confident relinquishing our agnostic suspension of judgment.

It's surely much more reasonable to step off the fence and pass judgment about the plethora of religious stories and phenomena than it is about the existence of an entity that lies beyond human comprehension.

I'm as confident in my outright rejection of the existence of Jesus as the son of God as I am in any other mythical or religious figure (though I acknowledge that Jesus the man may have existed). I'm as confident in the falseness of the efficacy of prayer (not counting placebo) as I am in the falseness of crystal healing or astrology - and I'm certainly not agnostic about any of those (though neither am I so dogmatic that I'd refuse to ever be proved wrong).

I reject the notion of a "loving" god or a "jealous" god as readily as I reject the notion of a "hating" god or a "crippled" god. Similarly I'm as confident rejecting the Christian version of Creation as I am the Hindu version of Creation, or, for that matter, the version of some long lost primitive Peruvian tribe.

There are many core elements of religion like this that are not necessarily a matter for agnosticism in the religious sense of the word - elements of the natural world, elements of everyday experience that science has demonstrably proven to be well within its remit (regardless of the ontological conclusions we might subsequently attach to everyday experience itself). It's quite possible to reject all these religious elements in a confident way and maintain the the agnostic view of the impossibility of knowledge concerning a god in the supernatural realm, while labelling oneself an atheist by virtue of not holding theistic beliefs. We all choose our own labels and their definitions. I'm confident that atheism represents mine. The additional (not alternative) option of agnosticism is so bleedin' obviously correct, I feel it doesn't even need to be an identifying label! :D

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Absolutely!

I am human, therefor agnostic. . .

I accept my human limitations,yet personal experience has convinced me there is a God. . .
Still, I will be agnostic until the day I die.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this. I've long been slightly confused as to the specifics of agnosticism versus atheism, although I've felt in my gut for quite a while that I'm most accurately described as an atheist who, due to understanding and respect for the scientific process, acknowledges the highly unlikely, yet also unknowable possibility that capital-G God could exist. So reading your thoughts on it have certainly helped me at least form some deeper opinions about it. Well done, sir!

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
___
I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.

BTW, fairies dont exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
___
I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.

BTW, fairies dont exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I just wanted to speak to this one point, because I've been on the receiving end of accusations along these lines before, and I disagree - or at least I do in my case.

As much as I personally don't believe in God, and as much as I think religion causes more problems than it does offer solutions in the modern world, I have no interest in evangelizing in the classical sense, with the goal of trying to convert anyone from their religion to non-belief. All I, and most atheists I tend to come across, tend to speak to is the willful denial of basic scientific knowledge and such in the name of religion. And that's a pretty common occurrence in the U.S. For example, out of all western nations the United States ranks second only to Turkey in the population's rejection of the theory of evolution. In fact, just shy of 40% of all Americans outright dismiss the theory, which is much higher than most European nations. So when I encounter someone who insists evolution is false in the context of a religious debate, I will take them on over it. Typically, the arguments against it are that "it's just s 'theory'" and such, which really serves only to illustrate their ignorance on the subject, not to mention on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Or they try to argue that irreducible complexity - a failed hypothesis - somehow disproves it. Or, they claim there are no transitional fossils to prove evolution's accuracy.

So I and other atheists will jump in and explain evolution a bit more. Of course some are nicer than others in their explanations, but it's not done in hopes of conversion to our non-belief, it's just a defense of fundamental scientific knowledge.

That's pretty much all I wanted to mention.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

awesome.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

God. . . the bailout value of the ultimate recursive function -> why(x)

Re: what do y'all think?
 

well, once again you're examining semantics. it's really hard to not discuss semantics when we're talking about what a term really means. i know that you have *your* definition of what atheist/theist means, based on the etymology of the words, but i don't really believe that most people in the united states apply those terms in the way that you do, although your definition may be technically correct. i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism. most people who describe themselves as atheists would probably fall under the subset that you describe as making a positive claim— despite what the terms actually mean, society has generally moved towards the idea that an atheist is a person who is making a positive claim that there is no G-d.

*oh, by the way, to whomever asked about using G-d instead of the full word, basically it's a sign of respect— someone may very well print out this thread and take it to work, and then throw it in the trash later on not thinking about it. it's basically an acknowledgment that his name is important enough not to throw around willy-nilly— in many cases G-d's name can be written such as in a siddur (prayer book) or on a religious website as long as a disclaimer is posted to please refrain from taking the posting lightly. it's basically an interpretation of the 3rd commandment to not take his name in vein.


this reminds me of a discussion i had with an atheist a while back, it was very extensive but i might be able to copy it and paste it here later— y'all might find it interesting.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

[QUOTE=bryantm3;149151 . . . i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism. . . .[/QUOTE]

Maybe if everyone was always reading from the same book. What I mean to say relates to my first reading of the term agnostic and my first exposure to it's "definition". From that point I always told others I spoke with regarding my views on fatih that I considered myself to be agnostic. I can only imagine the impression I had made on many in the past . . . . not that I care of others impression of me or anything.

Anyways, my first reading of agnosticism went along the lines of: a lack of faith towards organized religious institutions.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Yes, and that was entirely the point of that particular post - to elaborate on (my own particular use of) terms, given that those differences often lie at the heart of much of the disagreement.

Yes, though possibly in addition to agnosticism. See above. ;)

Actually I'm finding quite the opposite - that there seems to be a steady trend towards people declaring their atheism as a statement about what they don't believe, not a statement about what they do. I know a lot of the debate sadly consists of atheists shouting "Hey suckerz your sky fairy don't exist, deal with it, lolz!!" I'll readily admit that I'm not counting that as valid opinion. But of those who put their argument in more measured terms, there seems to be a steady increase in self-described atheists exercising the burden of proof argument and taking the broader 'without theism' defintion of atheism.

All this is obviously anecdotal and subject to my own biases.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Happy as I am that it's given you something to think about, I would just want to re-emphasize that this is only my particular take on those terms. Ok, so I didn't just decide on them arbitrarily, but hopefully it goes without saying that neither am I trying to suggest they're in any way definitive. I happen to think they make the most sense, but others will have definitions just as valid (as a glance at most dictionaries makes clear). Some may even find the attempt to file people's views under pre-existing labels as highly offensive (indeed someone once PM'd me on here to tell me as much). But I've long reached the conclusion that agnostics and atheists are, very often, in no disagreement on the philosophy; they merely differ in their terminology. Not always mind you - as Stimpee's post seems to demonstrate. But too many religious discussions get hobbled from the outset by an inability to agree on a single definition of the most fundamental terms (usually the words 'god', 'atheist' and 'agnostic'). One option is to remove every usage of those contentious terms and attempt to carry out the discussion in their absence. Another is simply to reach an agreement on our definitions upfront - even if only for the purpose of the present argument - so that it can progress hopefully more productively.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

jOHN, I'm sure the impression given off by your use of the word agnosticism will have been the least of anyone's concerns :D

Seriously though, they'd have got the gist of what you meant.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

It is indeed. It's fine to have one and be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around, and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.

(How I wish I could claim authorship of that.)

Re: what do y'all think?
 

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.

Theist=one who believes there is a God
Atheist=one who believes there is no God
Gnostic=one who believes it is possible to know God
Agnostic=one who believes it is impossible to know God

I am in agreement with Huxley, gnostics are delusional.

On another note. . . why do talks about God always digress into arguments (for lack of a better word) about the human failings of religion? Can't spirituality be seperated from religion?

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence. To quote D. Adams, "I see no evidence. . . therfore I am a radical athiest." Has he had access to all the evidence to make a solid decision?

He is like the fool stuck in a box professing there is no light because he lacks the facilities to open the box. And when some one suggest he try to open the box, he ridicules the idea "Why attempt to open the box? There is no evidence of light!"

""There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-

that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Re: what do y'all think?
 

You REALLY don't get "God Fearing(sooo rolling my fing eyes here) America" even more so, THE SOUTH.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

And the concrete definition is what exactly? Your definition? That's just your definition. The original definition? Not always as discoverable nor as discernible as you might think. The dictionary definition? Choose your dictionary, then choose your definition, then tell me why you rejected the other definitions, because in the case of atheism, guess what... they don't all accord.

Alternatively, we can just accept that the definitions of some words, particularly those describing philosophical positions, are mere starting points, and that multiple definitions of contentious words like atheist may well differ, sometimes in ways that are imperceptible to the average person but fundamental to someone who has thought deeply about it.

For instance, you claim that an atheist is "one who believes there is no God", but you make no mention of the alternative definitions involving no such positive claim. If that's because you don't understand or accept the difference between, say, a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god, then I'm afraid it may be you who needs the primer in analytic philosophy, not anyone else.

There is no universally agreed 'concrete' meaning for words. The fact that words are not as fluid as water does not mean they are as solid as concrete. Some definitions are less solid than others. Words in general are closer to slurry than concrete.

Why would an atheist deny the possibility of other dimensions being devoid of intelligence? Did you trip up with your double negative there?

Whichever way round you meant it - to be an atheist is no such thing. Either your deductive reasoning is in need of fine-tuning, or you're demonstrating that your concrete definitions are not so concrete after all. Atheism refers merely to the element of belief in a god. God is not, to most people, synonymous with "any intelligence residing in dimensions of reality beyond our human experience". If that was the case, it would be leaving the door open for God to be a theme park dolphin or a 78 year old prostitute or a cockroach, albeit in some higher-dimensional form. And none of us thinks that (apart from that evil Richard Dawkins, the bitter old swine!) Most of us imagine the concept of God as traversing dimensions, as being beyond them, and of possessing certain qualities.

The reality is that there's a pretty big difference between what most atheists are rejecting (the omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient gods of religion) and the possibility of intelligent life residing in areas of reality beyond what is current known to us - regardless of whether that area of reality is beyond the boundary of the observable universe, or in another universe of higher dimensions within a greater multiverse, or in a completely different reality about which we are destined to remain forever ignorant. Being an atheist involves ruling out no such thing. All it involves is not positively believing in god, a being about which, by most definitions, we can have no actual knowledge. (Look up ignosticism.)

There may be a lot more intelligence out there, not only in our own Universe, but in other universes, multiverses, and beyond even that, in a way that we can't begin to imagine. But there's a huge gulf between the idea of that and the idea of an all-encompassing loving judging God who takes an interest in human affairs, listens to prayers, and so on and who presumably straddles what we might call "everything". And that's why it's important to elaborate on word definitions, otherwise it can lead to quite different discussions and incorrect assumptions.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

You're quite right, I forgot about that.

Re: what do y'all think?
 

I'm not sure those are as concrete as you're asserting. For example, I'm an atheist, and I don't feel your definition describes me accurately. Saying that I "believe there is no God" implies an active belief system about it, when in reality, I just don't think God exists. As Deckard pointed out above, it's the difference between "a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god". For me, it's a lack of belief in god - not just the Christian god, but any god at all. And my lack of belief is based on my rudimentary understanding of human history, and our invention of gods and religion concurrent with the evolution of our intellect. It's no coincidence that many religious people fear and decry science, as science has systematically given evidence-based answers to questions that religion and gods have historically been invented to address. Personally, I'll take conclusions based on the scientific process over conclusions based on mythology and faith any day.

From my perspective, this happens for exactly the reasons I mentioned above. Human failings are inseparable from gods because gods are mythological beings that have been invented by humans. I know many Christians would likely argue that I'm putting the cart before the horse by making an assertion that assumes "God" is man-made. But in the same breath, those Christians would also likely agree that Zeus, Ra, Kukulcan, and any other god from any other religion throughout history that isn't their Christian God is man-made. From my atheistic perspective though, why would the Christian God be any different? Especially when we know that Christian mythology is derived and adapted from past polytheistic religions.

What you omit from this assertion is that fact that there's more to evidence-based conclusions than just a black and white "no evidence means I conclude it doesn't exist" mentality. Basically, you have to include likelihood in your considerations of atheist thought here.

For the sake of discussion, I'll assume you've accidentally used a double negative in your comment that "To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence". As an atheist, I fully acknowledge that dimensions beyond our perception, as well as theorized alternate universes and such (if they even exist) could all contain forms of life and intelligence that we've never even dreamed of. In fact, it's quite likely that they do based on what we know - even though there's no direct evidence of it yet. Because what we know is that here on Earth, life is tenacious. It persists through mass extinctions, it thrives in the most extreme of environments, it recovers from seemingly insurmountable setbacks. If anything, the evidence all points to the likelihood that life could be quite common in the universe and beyond, relatively speaking.

But that's a separate issue from not believing in a god. While we know that life in general is tenacious and pervasive based on a variety of evidence, we have no such comparable evidence of any god - only faith. So from a scientific perspective (which a large portion of atheists share), life in unknown places has a fair likelihood of existing, while gods do not.