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

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

[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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism.

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

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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.

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

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!

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

I can only imagine the impression I had made on many in the past . . . .

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

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

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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.)

[bas_I_am]

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."

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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

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

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

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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

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.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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.

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

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

You're quite right, I forgot about that.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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'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.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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?

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.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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?

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.