Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism

[rug]

Posted: 05/28/2013 12:00 pm
Omar Baddar
Political Scientist, Human Rights Activist

I had my falling out with religion in my early 20s, and a few years ago I published a piece making the case against religious certitude and blind faith. I also read some of the works of "the new atheists" with great interest, and watched them devastate religious opponents in entertaining public debates. However, a convincing argument against religion is not necessarily an equally compelling one for atheism. Between religious certitude and atheism lies a more suitable ground for truly open and skeptical minds: agnosticism.

For clarity's sake, it is important to note that no credible atheist claims they can prove that God does not exist. Atheists merely claim that there is no evidence at all for God's existence, making "him" as probable as a pink unicorn or a celestial tea pot. In the section on agnosticism in his famous book "The God Delusion," renowned scientist Richard Dawkins mentions the "tooth fairy" analogy to argue that while we should be technically agnostic on the existence of fairies because we lack evidence in either direction, in practice we are all (or at least the reasonable among us) "a-fairyists." But is God really only as probable as a tooth fairy?

In order for the tooth fairy analogy to be accurate, we would have to modify reality in one way: teeth would have to magically go missing from under pillows in a manner that science cannot even begin to explain. If that were the reality, no one could assert with any merited confidence that tooth fairies are definitely behind the inexplicable disappearance of teeth, but the idea would not be so patently absurd either. If that were the reality, then God would indeed be as probable as a tooth fairy.

What is analogous in the real world to the magic disappearance of teeth is the very existence of existence. Yes, science can (and if we survive long enough, probably will) explain almost everything about our evolution and the development of the universe, but it can't explain why there is something in the first place rather than nothing. Dawkins argued that it is easier to comprehend simple beginnings to the universe than complex ones, but I would argue that, when it comes to the universe, beginnings are fundamentally unfathomable, be they simple or complex. What "beginning" could possibly stop us from asking, what was there before that? The alternative, of course, would be that the universe has always been here, which is equally unfathomable, as we have evolved in Middle World to think in terms of beginnings and ends because everything we know is temporary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html

[elleng]

1. Because no one CAN know!

Been agnostic essentially forever.

[skepticscott]

2. Another asinine and bankrupt "defense"

of intellectual cowardice.

This guy doesn't believe in any gods. He's an atheist. Whether he has the courage to call himself one or not, he is. And for "clarity's sake", not to mention the sake of intellectual honesty, he should also, but glaringly fails to, point out that one need not be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that no gods exist or have ever existed, or that no convincing evidence of one will ever be found as long as the universe lasts, in order to be an atheist or to consider yourself one.

He also harps on the discredited "can't make something from nothing" meme, too...it's not evidence for the likelihood of a god who is also something from nothing. Bankrupt.

[rug]

3. Are you sure?

[hrmjustin]

9. Maybe it's an honest opinion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. Honesty doesn't validate an opinion

Atheist: One who does not believe in gods.
Agnostic: One who does not know whether or not gods exist.

The terms answer very different questions, and by no means are they mutually exclusive. Contrary to popular belief, agnosticism is not some middle-ground between belief and non-belief, it merely describes the state of not knowing whether or not gods exist. One who does not believe in gods, but is not certain whether or not they exist is still an atheist... an agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.

[skepticscott]

49. Your definition of agnostic isn't very useful

Unless you're specific about what "know" means.

[Act_of_Reparation]

67. I'm not trying to establish a definition of agnostic...

... just trying to illustrate that agnosticism is a knowledge proposition while atheism is a belief proposition, and that the terms shouldn't be treated as gradients on a scale of belief/non-belief, which the OP essentially does.

[okasha]

81. Maybe the response to it is just the usual

"Burn the Heretic!" kneejerk answer to an atheist or agnostic critique of atheism.

[hrmjustin]

82. You noticed that as well.

[okasha]

84. Hard not to.

nt

[skepticscott]

86. As noted, this is not about the supression

of opinions simply because they don't conform with some predetermined orthodoxy. It is about calling into question intellectual positions which don't stand up to scrutiny.

But you just charge ahead with those blinders on...it becomes you.

[enki23]

231. Well, that one is ridiculous.

There's a reason for a degree of prickliness when it comes to the whole agnostic/atheist thing. It's because every would-be apologist, at some time or other, imagines it's just the most awesome "gotcha" line they've ever heard. It's stupid, it's ignorant, and it gets really old after a while.

[longship]

24. Why is there anything rather than nothing?

Richard Feynman answered that one brilliantly:

Because nothing is unstable.

[Jim__]

43. Can you cite the source for that Feynman quote and provide some context?

Lawrence Krauss who wrote a book in 2012 called A Universe from Nothing and based that claim on the fact that nothing is unstable has since admitted that this nothing means no particles and not really nothing. He also admits that physics has not shown how something can come from nothing. From Krauss' interview in April of 2012 (my bolding):

Krauss: I'm making a deeper claim, but at the same time I think you're overstating what I argued. I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. I try to be intellectually honest in everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you. They see I'm a physicist and so if I say that protons are little pink elephants, people might believe me. And so I try to be very careful and responsible. We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore.

I'd be surprised if Feynman knew how something could come from nothing, that Krauss wouldn't know this too.

[goldent]

45. How is "nothing" unstable?

Seems like you couldn't get more stable than to have nothing.

Sounds like religious gobbledygook

[longship]

58. Well, I am not up on my quantum field theory.

But it may have to do with the fact that Heisenberg said there cannot be zero energy in empty space.


That's what the second inequality here says.

As far as I know, that's what Feynman meant, but he could have meant something else. Forgive me, it's been a while since I dealt with this stuff.

[Megalo_Man]

133. There are always virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

In empty space. Its one of the reasons for the casimir force.

[Brainstormy]

128. Absolutely, positively

the same-oh, lame-oh. I completely agree with you about the intellectual cowardice.

[longship]

4. Silly rhetorical argument.

I call myself an atheist because the preponderance of evidence indicates to a high degree that there are no gods -- at least as described in the various holy texts. The very fact that there are many, mutually contradictory religions throughout the world -- and no, let's not forget the Cargo Cults -- attests to the nearly undeniable conclusion that religion is a cultural construction by humans, not anything to do with reality. It may even be a genetic evolutionary thing. Our brains seem to be constructed to observe precisely the patterns which are extant in all religion.

But if somebody asked me if I thought there were gods, I could not say absolutely not. But that does not make me less an atheist, let alone more an agnostic. To argue otherwise is to be making a silly rhetorical argument, which is all this is, and all it ever was.

I call myself an atheist because I believe very strongly that the case for the existence of gods has not been made. If somebody disagrees with me, I welcome them to provide testable evidence to the contrary. And yes, there is evidence that I would accept. However, I have not seen nor heard of any worth paying attention to.

I call myself an atheist because I consider the prior plausibility of gods' existence to be extremely low, so low in fact that it would take extraordinary evidence for me to change my mind about this. Theists always claim to have such evidence, but it always manages to be quoting from a two thousand year old text, or the report of some more contemporary event which could be more easily explained as a known natural event or possibly a case of pious fraud.

I call myself an atheist because I want people to know what it means to be an atheist. Part of the reasons why we have all these silly rhetorical arguments about atheist/agnostic in the first place is because "atheist" has become culturally laden with so much negative baggage. You so often hear the word preceded by negative modifiers like "strident", "militant", etc. as if to make the word less than what it really means, the lack of belief in deities.

The latter is something I share with almost all of my professed agnostic brethren. So I would prefer that they stop playing rhetorical games, especially those games which have been utilized by believers for centuries. Atheists are just people. We're no more or less strident than any others. When compared to many believers, we're actually quite gentle.

If we seem to be aggressive maybe it's because people have been demonizing those with our lack of beliefs for centuries. Which maybe, quite possibly, explains why there might be a segment of non-believers who don't want to use the word, "atheist". We can trace the word "agnostic" to the first of these people, T. X. Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog", who invented the word in this context. I am sure that he didn't want to be called an atheist either, in Victorian England.

Well, I do. I am not afraid of it. You call yourself what you want, but don't ever tell me I cannot be an atheist because there's no proof that gods don't exist. I never said there was proof of non-existence. That doesn't make me any less an atheist. One cannot prove a negative.

Thanks for your time, and your replies, if you choose.

[rug]

5. Well stated.

Especially this

I call myself an atheist because I want people to know what it means to be an atheist.

and what follows it.

[longship]

23. Thanks, rug. Much appreciated. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

42. Great Post!

Says so many things I wanted to say so much better than I could ever have hoped to say them.

[DeadEyeDyck]

60. if you are seeking absolute certainty,

then the only thing you can know is the "self". That is the plight of all existentialist.
You are a prisoner of "mind".

[longship]

89. Speak for yourself.

I am being held prisoner here in DU!!!

Help!!! Lemme out!

[Brainstormy]

129. Well said

I will happily borrow some of your language, probably without attribution, for my own arguments in this endless, tedious debate. Thank you.

[longship]

141. With my blessings, so to speak. ;) nt

[Big Blue Marble]

6. Although few atheists have the intellectual honesty to admit it,

most emotionally crave the same certainty of their opinion as do believers.

Agnostics enjoy living with the uncertainty and humility of not knowing.

I have found that space an exciting space to reside. It leaves open many possibilities of wonderment and exploration that I might miss with a closed mind.

[longship]

7. Many atheists would consider your characterization as insulting.

I just consider it possibly naive and somewhat stereotyped.

Please read my response, #4.

Thanks.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. I understand that many atheists do have a chip on their shoulder.

I sense it may come from feeling on the defensive.

Many atheists feeling that they hold a superior position often seem to
have no problem demeaning or insulting believers or even agnostics
as you have not so subtly done with my post.

[longship]

10. That, too, might be considered insulting.

Putting atheists into such a tiny box is not a very productive thing to do in these forums.

I know better than to take it as an insult, because thankfully my atheism, like most others, does not exist in that small box that you have elected to put us in.

Peace, friend.

[pokerfan]

14. obligatory xkcd

[longship]

17. Thanks. That says it all. nt

[skepticscott]

12. You'll find it just as common on this site, if not more so

to find believers feeling (unjustifiably) that they hold a superior position to other believers, and insulting and demanding those whom they regard as not "true Christians", and disparaging other believers' interpretation of holy texts as misguided and just plain wrong, when their own interpretations have no more support.

[Big Blue Marble]

15. I agree with you completely.

I am most uncomfortable with certainty from any perspective. Righteous certainty has probably caused
more death, violence, and suffering than any other human foible. And much to it has come from
religious certainty.

That is why I chose to live in the space of uncertainty or as Alan Watts wrote: "The Wisdom Of Insecurity"

[longship]

19. Atheism does not, and cannot, imply certainty.

You cannot prove a negative. It is epistemologically impossible. I cannot prove that my house has no cockroaches. I cannot prove gods do not exist. I still call myself an atheist because all that entails is saying that I do not think that there are gods.

Other than it precisely describes my thoughts on the issue, I have other reasons for using that word as well. Again, read my response #4.

I would appreciate your response to that post.

Thank you.

[ZombieHorde]

35. Negitives can be proven if the situation is very limited and specific.

For example, if you want to know if your favorite DVD is in its case, then you can just look. If it's not in there, then you have proven a negative.

[defacto7]

176. zero is not negative.

you have proven that it IS not there. You have proven that it IS zero, not one.

But then maybe you were joking.... if so.... never mind.

[ZombieHorde]

178. That is just silly to this context.

When people say you cannot prove a negative when referring to god, they are not talking about -1 or fewer gods, they are talking about zero gods.

[defacto7]

180. When I say you cannot prove a negative to someone

I am actually saying I can't divide by 0.

[ZombieHorde]

184. That has nothing to do with this subject. nt

[defacto7]

185. I can explain it to you... but I'm pretty sure you don't want an explanation.

You just want a reaction or to stop the reasoning process.

bye.

[ZombieHorde]

192. Your psychic powers are so strong.

Perhaps you should go to Psicop and get your million dollars.

[hrmjustin]

26. I don't think I hold superior views to no one!

[skepticscott]

47. So you think that the views

of Fred Phelps, that god hates gays, are every bit as legitimate and "Christian" as yours? Whatever works for him and his followers is just fine, is that it?

[hrmjustin]

54. That is not what I said. You have an amazing way of twisting my words.

[skepticscott]

124. You said that you don't think your views are superior to anyone else's

Which means you don't think that your views about gays are superior to his rabid bigotry. Sorry if you don't like the simple implications of your stance, but you can't have it both ways. Either your views are superior to his, or they aren't....no twisting is required.

I know you'd like to take the moral high ground AND pretend to be totally non-judgemental, but you can't, if you're being at all honest.

[hrmjustin]

125. I am sorry Skeptiscott for what I said and I guess you are right in the end.

[skepticscott]

127. And I know you also favor

running away from reality by saying something you don't really mean. If that soothes you, I'm fine with that, but an unwarranted apology doesn't change facts.

[hrmjustin]

134. Yes I do think that my inclusive view of things is superior to bigotry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Your post #6 was not subtle in its insults

"Although few atheists have the intellectual honesty to admit it,

most emotionally crave the same certainty of their opinion as do believers.

Agnostics enjoy living with the uncertainty and humility of not knowing.

I have found that space an exciting space to reside. It leaves open many possibilities of wonderment and exploration that I might miss with a closed mind. "

Insult #1: "few atheists have the intellectual honesty to admit it"
Unwarranted Assumption #1: "most emotionally crave the same certainty of their opinion as do believers"
Proclamation of your own superiority, and insult #2: "many possibilities of wonderment and exploration that I might miss with a closed mind. "

Now you've followed that up with insult #3: "many atheists do have a chip on their shoulder"
Unwarranted Assumption #2: "I sense it may come from feeling on the defensive. "
Complete lack of self-awareness #1: "Many atheists feeling that they hold a superior position"
Complete lack of self-awareness #2: "have no problem demeaning or insulting believers or even agnostics"

Compared to what you say, "naive and somewhat stereotyped" is mild.

[cascadiance]

229. I hold no ill will or judgment to those who believe in god or believe there is no god either...

To say that those of us that want to distinguish ourselves as being agnostic and questioning whether we know anything of what the afterlife (if there is one or not) holds for us from those who believe there is no such thing, or those who believe that is structured a certain way, is putting us in to a box that I don't think fits our beliefs.

I'm quite comfortable acknowledging that the person next to me is an atheist and feels confident of their own personal feelings beliefs of not having a god and consider them a valuable part of society and having valuable perspectives to look at.

I feel the same towards those who are solidly Christian in their beliefs, and use its structure of beliefs to help guide them spiritually in making a good life better for themselves and others around them too. Or for that matter, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc.

But I don't want them projecting their beliefs of atheism (the need to say there is no god), or another religion (the need to say to me I need to accept Christ) on to me. That I have a problem with. I like to consider myself an open book, until I have a personal revelation one way or the other if that comes at some point. I think it is a highly personal thing, that is shaped by our lives we live in. I hear others, and at some point might accept someone else's beliefs if it at some point I see the reality of those beliefs. But I haven't to this point, and value that I'm open to all different points of view. It allows me to look at all of the common belief systems and atheist beliefs and those values people have when having such beliefs, and seeing what I see as common good personal moral values of all of them, and that structures my beliefs that there MIGHT Be something out there that is god like that influences all of those different religious beliefs in the same way to help society be good to each other.

I don't believe myself "superior" as an agnostic to others, and am not trying to dismiss everyone else, that some here say that agnostics are trying to do. I just want to have my own space for my own beliefs or my own questioning of my own beliefs and not to be judged or lumped in to some other belief category that I don't really belong to. It's just a personal thing. Nothing more! I think, though don't know, that I probably share the same viewpoint with a lot of agnostics out there.

[cbayer]

232. Well said. Not wanting to be judged or lumped is clearly your right.

But that won't stop others from doing it.

You are far from alone in this perspective.

[cascadiance]

236. And those that don't try to lump me in a category are far more apt to shape my beliefs than others..

If they either appreciate my perspective on how I personally see the world, or want to help shape it that accepts my own personal choice in how I shape my value and belief system, they are more apt to seem to me directly connected to a God-like entity out there if there is one, since I believe that ultimately those influenced by a God-like entity will have that perspective of sharing their global perspective in an abstract way and not trying to claim they *know* how I should feel or how I do feel about such things. I've found very few people in my life that are that way. I think most people that just treat me primarily as a friend and value me as a friend are more apt to fit in that category, but again, I don't want to categorize others either. At some point anyone could give me that revelation, and I'm open to it.

[cbayer]

242. Agree. It is much easier to listen to the viewpoint of those that don't

approach you with hostility or pre-conceptions.

I am fortunate that most of the people I know and even just run into to are the tolerant, open types that you describe.

[LostOne4Ever]

240. Definitions

To say that those of us that want to distinguish ourselves as being agnostic and questioning whether we know anything of what the afterlife (if there is one or not) holds for us from those who believe there is no such thing, or those who believe that is structured a certain way, is putting us in to a box that I don't think fits our beliefs.

Can you define for me what you mean by the word belief? Further would you mind defining for me what you mean when you say atheist or agnostic?

According to wikipedia belief is holding a position to be true. By that, belief is rather binary. If you think a statement is mostly true, part true, mostly false, or false you would not be able to define your position as belief.

Similarly according to Merriam-Webster I see no middle ground. By the first definition do you put trust in the existence of god? If you are unsure then you obviously do not. By definition 2, do you hold it to be true that god exists? Again if you are uncertain that means you accept it could be false...so again, you do not hold it to be true. Definition 3 goes even further and adds the word conviction to the mix which only further makes it binary.

The free dictionary and dictionary.reference.com all make similar definitions.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods. It includes the middle position in the question of whether you belief or actively disbelieve. The definition of someone who actively believes there are no god or gods is strong atheist, explicit atheist or positive atheist. I get the impression that is what you mean when you say atheist.

I sometimes wish the word intheist existed as a way of describing the position that no gods exist so as to avoid confusion. I find a lot of people solely mean explicit atheist when they use the word atheist, and that implicit atheism gets incorrectly labeled as agnosticism.

So by its definition, agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. You can be an agnostic and an atheist or a theist at the same time. So maybe the problem is that im not understanding what you mean by belief. Dictionaries only contain popular usages for words and the meaning of words can change in a language if enough people use it that way.

That said, the basic ideas remain the same. No matter how much an isosceles triangle might dislike or disagree with being called a triangle...it is still a triangle. The word used to define a triangle might become farfitnoogin, but anything with only three sides would still be a farfitnoogin.

So, what is your definition of the words belief, agnostic, and atheist? What is the thought you are trying to get across? Because I can not understand that position based on my understanding of the meaning of those words.

If labeling is your issue and you simply don't want to be labeled or put into a box, you are free to decline to answer on whether or not you have any belief in any deities. But it does not change the meaning of the words.

I'm quite comfortable acknowledging that the person next to me is an atheist and feels confident of their own personal feelings beliefs of not having a god and consider them a valuable part of society and having valuable perspectives to look at.

Again, not understanding what you are trying to say here based on my understanding and usage of the word atheist. Implicit atheists such as myself have no beliefs one way or the other. Are you talking about explicit atheists?

But I don't want them projecting their beliefs of atheism (the need to say there is no god), or another religion (the need to say to me I need to accept Christ) on to me. That I have a problem with. I like to consider myself an open book, until I have a personal revelation one way or the other if that comes at some point. I think it is a highly personal thing, that is shaped by our lives we live in. I hear others, and at some point might accept someone else's beliefs if it at some point I see the reality of those beliefs. But I haven't to this point, and value that I'm open to all different points of view. It allows me to look at all of the common belief systems and atheist beliefs and those values people have when having such beliefs, and seeing what I see as common good personal moral values of all of them, and that structures my beliefs that there MIGHT Be something out there that is god like that influences all of those different religious beliefs in the same way to help society be good to each other.

That is not the definition of the word atheism. Atheism, itself, expresses no beliefs. It is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. The prefix a means without so all that atheism means is without theism or belief in any god or gods. Believing there is no god (explicit atheism) is a subset of atheism but not its full definition. Its similar to how the words moral, amoral, and immoral all have subtle shades of meaning.

"I don't believe myself "superior" as an agnostic to others, and am not trying to dismiss everyone else, that some here say that agnostics are trying to do. I just want to have my own space for my own beliefs or my own questioning of my own beliefs and not to be judged or lumped in to some other belief category that I don't really belong to. It's just a personal thing. Nothing more! I think, though don't know, that I probably share the same viewpoint with a lot of agnostics out there."

That is fine, but the statement that Blue Marble made originally was very insulting to atheists and does come off as feeling superior for the reasons that were outlined. And, again, I think there is some issue here in how people are defining the word atheist and agnostic. Thus why I am asking you to define what you mean by those words.

I do not mean to try and label you (though tbh the word agnostic is also a label). But I get the distinct impression that you are using the terms to mean something different from my understanding of the words.

[cascadiance]

241. I really don't believe that religious belief is *binary*...

It's rather simplistic to say that either you "believe in god" or you "don't believe in god".

Some people believe that Christ is the son of god. Some believe in multiple gods. Some people believe that there IS NO god...

And I would contend that many of those agnostics believe that there is no premise based on their life experiences to have a foundation to believe that there is no god, or that there is one and it is well defined for us. Many feel in their guts that their MIGHT be a God, but don't KNOW that there is one, nor do we KNOW that there isn't one either. I guess it is the scientific way of looking at religion for lack of another way of looking at it. There are many unexplained events in the universe for science to still look at and study to build more of a foundation of what IS or ISN'T reality based on what we perceive in the world around us. Some things we are very confident about in defining that order. Some things aren't. Religion in my book is one thing we can't really define. There's really no scientific basis for it to prove a spiritual entity. But there's a question on what made us and what made our complexity work in the way it does to build what we call "life"? Is there a spiritual answer or something else? Science doesn't really explain that well either. I personally don't think it's defined for me yet, and don't want to define it yet before I feel I have more information. Information that I may never get. And that may be OK. As the life experience we go through is a fantastic and wonderful trip for many of us.

In reading your response more carefully here, I feel that some have their way of grouping together those that believe there is no god, with those that DON'T KNOW that there is no god in the same group of people as "atheists". That's just a matter of definition. I just don't feel like I should be lumped in with those that feel they have the basis to believe that there is no god, when I don't share that perspective. My understanding of what so many other people feel as the separation of definitions of atheism and agnosticism is this very difference. Now if you want to include people like me as atheists, then I suppose you have the right to have that belief yourself. But I'm entitled also to believe that I'm not what I consider a defined "atheist" either for the reasons I just gave. Don't judge me and I don't judge you for our different perspective of these definitions. I'm not trying to insult you, and unless you push your definition on to me like I should accept your definition, I won't take your perspective as an insult either.

[LostOne4Ever]

245. No insult taken, and I hope that you did not take my previous post as an insult either.

I merely am trying to understand what you are saying. If you do not wish to be labeled in a certain way then I shall honor your request.

That said, my intent was to clarify what you meant by the terms I inquired about. I'm a engineering student and I have had it impressed upon me that definitions and common standards are very important. If two people are working on a project and have different definitions or standards for the parts they are using it can cause major problems. Using a nail in place of a screw might allow gas to escape a vessel leading to an explosion for example. That said, I also realize that the subject of our conversation is not quite so dire, and that definitions in casual discussion can be somewhat "fluid." Thus my questions.

I really don't believe that religious belief is *binary*...It's rather simplistic to say that either you "believe in god" or you "don't believe in god".

My calling it binary is based upon my interpretation of the sources I provided. Again, I merely want to understand what you meant by your terminology as it does not sync with my understanding of the meanings of the words.

So, am I correct in thinking that you see belief more like a confidence interval? With, lets say, 0-33% being disbelief to doubt; 34-66% being various degrees of uncertainty; and 67-100% being thinking its probably true to being confident its true?

In reading your response more carefully here, I feel that some have their way of grouping together those that believe there is no god, with those that DON'T KNOW that there is no god in the same group of people as "atheists". That's just a matter of definition. I just don't feel like I should be lumped in with those that feel they have the basis to believe that there is no god, when I don't share that perspective. My understanding of what so many other people feel as the separation of definitions of atheism and agnosticism is this very difference. Now if you want to include people like me as atheists, then I suppose you have the right to have that belief yourself. But I'm entitled also to believe that I'm not what I consider a defined "atheist" either for the reasons I just gave. Don't judge me and I don't judge you for our different perspective of these definitions. I'm not trying to insult you, and unless you push your definition on to me like I should accept your definition, I won't take your perspective as an insult either.

I am merely going by the information provided by the sources I have on hand. I do not wish to label you in any way that you do not wish to be labeled. I agree it is your right to believe that and shall honor it, and I am not trying to judge you or push my definition onto you.

I came into this conversation with the belief that standards of definition are important. If everyone provided their own meaning to words with no regards to others or the definitions set by that language or culture then communication would be impossible. Therefore, I tend to go these resources when I use the word agnostic, atheist, belief, knowledge, etc. According to these sources I identify myself as both an agnostic and an implicit atheist...and I have come to deeply identify with those terms.

However, I also realized that language is living and constantly changing. So I am merely trying to understand your position in context of my understanding of the words. Without both parties understanding what one means by the words they use it is easily possible to give insult where no is intended.

For example, you feel that some here are trying to box you under a label you do not feel suits you. Correct? However, to some of us it could sound like you are mis-represent our own position by providing your own definition...something that happens frequently to us atheists when we debate Theists. In particular, theists who try and call Atheism a religion or claim it requires just as much faith as theism does.

Neither side means offense, but without understanding what we mean by the words we choose, it can easily be taken that way. Thus, why I asked for your definitions of words rather than saying something along the lines of "You are wrong, this is what the word mean!"

This debate about definition, as can be seen above, is apparently very contentious; and, I am trying to choose my words very very carefully (thus my redundant long rambling replies) so as not to accidentally give offense to you or to others. If you feel like im trying to label you in a way that you object, I apologize. That is not my intention. But, I have seen many conversations where the views of atheists like myself were intentionally misrepresented in a way to further someone's agenda and I feel that its important that these definition be clearly defined for that reason.

I do not mean to judge you. I just want clarification so that both of our views are understood clearly.

[Trajan]

77. oh screw you ...

How's that for a chip on my shoulder ?

Your definitions of atheism and agnosticism seem designed to support 'YOUR' feelings of superiority, for whatever weak-assed position you happen to hold ....

I reject your smarmy, self serving narratives.

[Big Blue Marble]

110. Equally, I reject your assine and vacuous comments.

Hate and outrage or not good for your health. Breathing and centering might helpp. Good luck.

[cynatnite]

152. Wow! You sure do know a lot about atheists...

How did you come to these conclusions? Did you study them? Do a survey?

Please. I'm very curious.

[Big Blue Marble]

163. Wow! Your sarcasm is so transparent.

I have observed human nature for nearly seventy years. And the last time I checked atheists are as human
as the rest of us. They share the same insecurities of life as the rest of us. They are motivated by the same
emotions as is everyone, the same desire for acceptance and love, the same need for at least some certainty.
And they are equally sensitive to criticism.

Ironically, we can only be insulted when we chose to internalize another's observation of us. We are vulnerable
to this trap because of our own doubts about our self worth, our value. When we we are confident in our intrinsic
worth as humans, the comments of others remain exactly what they are: their opinions which are none of our
business.

Self acceptance is the first path to true peace and understanding; humility is the second. Never, never take
yourself too seriously. Drama queens really are not all that attractive. Life is an ephemeral dance that ends
all too soon. Relax and enjoy it!

[cynatnite]

166. Yes, I was sarcastic, but I was serious in my questions...

You said:

I understand that many atheists do have a chip on their shoulder. I sense it may come from feeling on the defensive. Many atheists feeling that they hold a superior position often seem to have no problem demeaning or insulting believers or even agnostics as you have not so subtly done with my post.

You seem to enjoy spreading around advice since you believe you have some sort of expertise in human nature based on your observations. Perhaps it helps you feel that you are in a morally superior position over the rest of us.

I'm just guessing. I'm not going to pretend I'm any sort of expert in anything.

You see, I am an atheist and I can give you an expert opinion on what being an atheist is about.

There is only one thing that atheists have in common. In your expertise in human nature, you completely missed this which is not uncommon for a lot of folks who are not atheists, but who think they know what an atheist is.

It is....

We do not believe in a god or gods. There is no evidence to support the existence of any god or gods at this time.

That is as far as I will ever go when it comes to speaking for other atheists. For myself, and no one else, I am perfectly willing to adjust my thinking should evidence come to light proving the existence of a god or gods. Now, I can do a good job of presenting my position and how I came to be an atheist. It may or may not be the same as any other atheist. I don't care to go around tossing out "well meaning advice" in order to prove how "enlightened" or "morally superior" I think I am.

I just don't believe in any gods whatsoever.

[Big Blue Marble]

168. You can only give me an expert opinion on what being an atheist means to you.

Otherwise it is you who are generalizing.

Actually, many would consider me to be an atheist. I do not consider myself to be one.
It for each of us to define ourselves. You are fully in your right to define yourself as you choose.
I would strongly disagree with you about the evidence for "god", but that is for another time.

I thought we were discussing the nature of atheists not their beliefs. Let us be clear; I do
not claim any expertise only a lifetime of observation. Nor do I feel superior to anyone.
Despite your projections, I value humility and appreciate differences of opinions. Otherwise
why would I spend valuable time in a forum such as this?

Do not take yourself so seriously. You really will enjoy life more if you tread a little lighter
on this earth.

[cynatnite]

169. There you go again...making assumptions...

It was your words I used and no one else's. You made a lot of presumptions about atheists.

You cannot disagree with me about evidence anyway since I was never specific.

I'm actually finding your posts quite humorous. I usually always find those who make wild assumptions about atheists funny anyway and taking myself seriously is probably the funniest part of your post.

You really should hang out a shingle if you're going to keep handing out advice. That was a joke, BTW.

[Big Blue Marble]

170. I am relieved that you have a sense of humor after all.

I hope that you can laugh at your own foibles as easily as you do at other's.

I can disagree with you about anything I chose and I will regardless of how much evidence you offer.
And as a side note you have made quite a few assumptions and presumptions about me.

I have made no assumptions wild or otherwise about atheists other than that they
are as human as the rest of us or would that in itself be an insult to you?

Do you want a discussion or just a change to throw insults at other who chose
to believe differently than you do? Do you think those who hold differing opinions
have anything to teach you?

[cynatnite]

171. I copy and pasted your assumptions about atheists...or did you forget?

You made those assumptions and I challenged them. I also explained the one thing that all atheists have in common...something that pretty much everyone who is not an atheist, but thinks they know what one is...does.

You assumed I took myself too seriously and felt it was your duty to dole out advice as if you're the local psychologist. You felt that based on two responses, you somehow "knew" me. I have no idea why you felt the need to do that rather than stick to the subject at hand. I'm always curious why some folks change the course of the discussion in such a way.

If you want to stick to the subject at hand, I'm happy to oblige. If you would rather keep doing the "armchair" psychology work on discussion board, I'll step out of the conversation and continue on my merry way. You can keep on with your "human nature observation" to your heart's content. Your choice.

[Big Blue Marble]

172. At risk of being really insulting, I am beginning to question your reading comprehension.

I state once again that assumptions that I made about some and only some atheists (if
you read all my posts), is that they share the same insecurities as the rest of us.
As said upthread, I have several very dear family members who are atheists.
I am very close to both of them, respect their perspectives as I do others who
are willing to have honest discussions and are open to listening to those who disagree
with them. I am not sure you fit in that category.

You have not gotten the joke. I am playing with you and you keep wanting it to be serious.
I can only intimidate you with my "superiority" if you feel inferior. Lighten up and have
some fun. Being an atheist does not mean you have to be so serious and belligerent all
the time. In life, we all get to play the fool, even you now and then.

[cynatnite]

173. Gotcha...you were playing. Have a nice night. n/t

[Big Blue Marble]

174. Night, night to you as well.

Just because we have we see reality differently does not mean we can't be friends.
That has been what's wrong with the world for far too long. Different world views
has given justification for hatred far to often.

I respect your humanity and I would wish the same.

[Gore1FL]

218. What does this mean?

"Actually, many would consider me to be an atheist. I do not consider myself to be one. "

Many would consider me to be an ELCA Lutheran in a "Reconciling in Christ" congregation. Others might think I am Jewish. A Few more consider me to be a Deist with a circular saw. I do not consider myself to be any of these things, and I don't even own a circular saw.

If you are not an atheist, and based on other posts on this thread, understand little about atheists or atheism, then you really should be more on the listening end when it comes to discussing either "the nature of atheists" or "their beliefs." For the record, It really has nothing to do with belief. It has to do observation and experiment. Thus far, everything supports the "There is no God" theory. There is plenty of evidence the Bible is wrong.

Provide a better theory and documentation that supports it, and theism will be worth discussing.

[enki23]

238. Insulting is optional. It is *definitely* self-aggrandizing and ignorant.

.

[skepticscott]

11. And you know this...how?

About either atheists or agnostics? Are you saying that atheists ARE certain of what they think, or simply that they would like to be MORE certain? And if the latter, what sane and sensible person wouldn't? Are you saying that agnostics relish wallowing in eternal ignorance and uncertainty and would be much less happy if their knowledge and understanding were to actually increase? If so, then I'll have to forgo the pleasure of ever residing in that "exciting place", thank you very much.

[Big Blue Marble]

13. And you might never know what you missed.

Using words like wallowing makes my point above of how quickly atheists will insult those
who hold differing opinions from their own.

And from what I have read many atheists do come from absolute certainty in their closely held opinions.
That is of no matter to me or anyone else unless they demean or attack those who chose a differing path.
I am somewhat dumbfounded as to level of vitriol that comes from some.

Despite their belief in reason, they react from emotion. It is as if they seem threatened by those who think or believe differently, although I seriously doubt that many would admit it. Nor would they acknowledge that it borders on bigotry. Please note that I am
not speaking of you personally. Yet it concerns me as I thought that freedom of thought is to be encouraged not belittled.

[longship]

20. Wow! Just wow!

Atheists are insulting?

[Big Blue Marble]

25. Have you really missed all the insulting comments that atheists have made in this forum alone? N/T

[longship]

32. Not by this atheist.

And I am the one who came right out and said he was an atheist.

If you are not comfortable calling yourself an atheist, I can understand that. You do what you are comfortable with. With my blessings (so to speak) and my support. I have no problems with any such things.

I do take issue, as I indicated above, with your characterizations of atheists, which were not only unfounded, but exhibited a bit of hubris on your part since you seemed to be doing precisely what you characterized as actions of typical atheists.

Well, that's okay as long as you realize, as I also pointed out, that such opinions will not be very well received here.

I have friends here who are theists, agnostics, and atheists. I see no inherent ill in any of them even when I don't agree with them. That's my way. It hasn't always been so, but I've learned that life is too damned short to be otherwise than pleasant, even when in disagreement.

I respect your opinion. Please respect mine, and others here.

Thank you kindly.

[LostOne4Ever]

41. Have I ever insulted you?

Have I ever insulted you?

You are making several generalizations about us that are simply not true. There are jerks in practically every group, it is neither fair nor accurate to make such generalizations.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Big Blue Marble[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]

Despite their belief in reason, they react from emotion. It is as if they seem threatened by those who think or believe differently, although I seriously doubt that many would admit it. Nor would they acknowledge that it borders on bigotry. Please note that I am
not speaking of you personally. Yet it concerns me as I thought that freedom of thought is to be encouraged not belittled.

Even though you say you are not speaking of any of us personally, again you are generalizing the group. It makes it sound like the vast majority of atheists are insulting and those who are not are just the exceptions. Unless there is some study I don't know of, I don't think this generalization is either fair or justified.

Atheists are people just like anyone else. Some of us are emotional, some of us are rational, and some of us are both. I consider myself a bit from both camps.

If you think an atheist is being bigoted call them out on it as you would anyone else. It might seem like they make up a majority of us but realize that the most vocal subsection is not necessarily the largest section of any group, and that honest criticism of religion can and is easily mis-construed as attacks upon the believers themselves.

To some people, the very position that god might not exist or that we don't believe their religion is offensive. I once was talking about the morality of our society today compared with how it was in the past and the person thought I was accusing him of being racist. He then began to cuss me and all atheists out. That was not what I was saying but that is how he chose to interpret it.

So if you feel that something someone says is truly offensive call them out on it. That said, switch the words atheist and believer in post 6 and tell me if you think a believer would find that insulting.


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Although few believers have the intellectual honesty to admit it,[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]most emotionally crave the same certainty of their opinion as do atheists.

Agnostics enjoy living with the uncertainty and humility of not knowing.

I have found that space an exciting space to reside. It leaves open many possibilities of wonderment and exploration that I might miss with a closed mind.

I don't think that is your intention but that is the way it comes across.

[Big Blue Marble]

85. No, you have never insulted me.

I rarely post in this forum. I do read here occasionally or note the responses of
atheists in GD and other forums. I am surprised at easily some of them will attack
and belittle others who hold different opinions.

In the short span of this thread, I have been insulted several times including
being called an intellectual coward. Yet I only raised the issue because I was
accused of insulting atheists. If I minded being insulted, I would never post
on anonymous forums!

I never intended to generalize as to all atheists. My own son-in-law, as well
as my step son are atheists. They are both wonderful people whom I love and
respect. I find many atheists to be caring, thoughtful, and intelligent people
with whom I enjoy having sincere discussion with either online or in person. I apologize
if my observations seemed directed at all atheists.

In reference to your comments about post #6. Science has confirmed that no
matter how rational we want to think we are, believer and atheist alike, we
are unconsciously emotions-driven beings, who crave control and certainty in
lives. It is not insulting to state this, it based on human psychology. With
mindfulness training, it is possible to observe and temper these tendencies.

I will add that because I live with uncertainty in my ontological quest,
does not mean that I am comfortable with it in every aspect of my life.
I do enjoy certainty as much as the next person. It is just that I have
cultivated it in my explorations of the meaning of life.

[skepticscott]

21. "Wallowing" is the best word I can come up with

for someone who claims to actually enjoy uncertainty and ignorance. Please tell me you don't think that you'd run out of "possibilities of wonderment and exploration" if you allowed yourself to actually accept some things as true, rather than just enjoying not knowing forever.

And how quick you "opened-minded" agnostics are to mischaracterize the positions or statements of others. No one here has insulted you simply because you hold opinions that are "different". It is not "different" opinions that get raked over the coals here, it is opinions and intellectual positions that are not supportable by fact, reason or argument.

In case you hadn't noticed, your own insults of atheists were not only enthusiastic, but wrong.

[Big Blue Marble]

27. Uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom not ignorance.

As a human with the limited perception of reality that we all share, I would never claim that anything to be absolutely true or not.

It appear that the universe is vast and full of possibilities of wonderment, so I will keep my options open as there is
still much to be explained.

[longship]

33. I like the word, provisional in this context.

It's kind of common in scientific parlance. Scientific theory is provisional.

My belief that the gravitational theory is a great description of how the planets go around their home star(s) will likely never be falsified. Likewise, I believe it is very unlikely that any day in the future some supernatural god will be found. Both are provisional, but I am very comfortable that both beliefs will stand the test of time in spite that they are provisional.

And as far as awe of the cosmos, the numinous feelings we all have when looking at, for instance, a Hubble photograph, well that numinous feeling is the same whether one believes in gods or not. How could it be otherwise, since we all have the same brains which developed long ago on those African savannahs.

It would be utter conceit to claim that such feelings are unique to only people who think a certain way, as some theists claim, and as the author of the article in the OP claims as an agnostic.

Thank you for your respectful reply.

[skepticscott]

44. The operative word being "beginning"

But there is no wisdom in standing forever at the start of the journey and even less in reveling in it. Again, intellectual cowardice.

And I really hope you're not implying that because we can't be certain of anything to an absolute, 100% mathematical certainty, all things are equally possible and equally likely, and that no judgement whatsoever can be made that some things are far, far more likely to be true than others.

[Big Blue Marble]

79. How many theories, beliefs, and ideas that were advanced a century ago

are now still held to be true? How many that we hold now even in science will be
held to be be true one hundred years from now? We do not know, but we know many
will be overturned. That is how the advancement of scientific knowledge operates.
It is a fluid ever changing dynamic.

Judgment is a ego-based trap, whether you are judging me as being an intellectual
coward (based on scant evidence and more likely an emotional response) or judgment
about current scientific findings. Our knowledge base is changing at an accelerating
rate. I have found over a lifetime that the more open minded and less opinionated
I remain, the more I am able experience and appreciate.

It is most likely that many a zen master would advise that we do remain at the beginning
of the journey to wisdom as reduce the human tendency toward arrogance and egoism

[skepticscott]

87. If he had any true wisdom

a zen master would advise you to read up on the Relativity of Wrong before you say such uninformed things. See if you can get yourself to grasp that understanding doesn't just jump around at random, never getting any closer to the truth, and never being any more certain that a new explanation is better and more likely than the one it's replacing.

[Big Blue Marble]

88. What exactly is this "truth" that you are so confident exists?

And what exactly mades you so wise and so quickly able
to judge others?

[skepticscott]

109. The "truth" that is understood well enough

To allow you to read these messages and send your responses, among other things. Making sense now?

And what makes you think I'm judging others "quickly"? Do you really think that neither I nor anyone else has ever thought about these issues before this thread came up?

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Ask an agnostic if they believe in a god, there answer determines if they are a theist or atheist...

As an agnostic atheist, I"m so sick and tired of people pretending agnosticism is some middle ground.

[Big Blue Marble]

18. If I believed in god, how could I be an agnostic?

That is the point. How in the hell do I know? Read my post above on certainty.

[skepticscott]

22. If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist.

Sorry if you don't like that, but you are. If you don't believe in any gods now, but are open to the possibility that evidence of such may one day come to light, you're still an atheist, and no different than most other atheists in that respect.

How you choose to label yourself is your business, but it doesn't change the fact. Someone can call themselves a vegan all the live-long day, but if they eat Big Macs three times a week, they aren't one, no matter how often they say they are.

[gcomeau]

31. By understanding what " agnostic" means.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Because belief is separate from knowledge...

far too many people confuse the two, but no matter how hard you believe, or disbelieve something, it is not a substitute for knowledge or lack of knowledge.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. Knowledge is not the same as belief

Knowledge is defined as "Justified" true belief. You can have a true belief and it is possible for it not to be justified.

An agnostic theist is one who believes that the existence of god(s) is unknowable but chooses to believes anyway.

[pokerfan]

90. Agnostic theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[cbayer]

53. How do you label those that answer that they don't know or that they don't care?

Why the need to put them in one box or the other?

[Humanist_Activist]

78. As people who are avoiding the question.

If you have a problem with that, its a problem with the English language.

[cbayer]

92. I disagree with you. They are just giving answers that you don't agree with.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. If I ask you how the weather is like in your area...

and your respond with "Giraffe" and I say its avoiding the question? Am I right or not?

You have a problem with how words are defined, that's your problem, I prefer accuracy over people's ideological needs.

[cbayer]

96. What if I say I am sitting inside a windowless room and

have no idea what the weather is like? Am I avoiding the question?

If you have a problem with how I define my words, that's your problem, not mine and perhaps a reflection of your own ideological needs.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. Can you cordon yourself off from your own beliefs...

can you not know your own beliefs?

Because that is the analogy you are going for, and it is ridiculous.

[cbayer]

98. Must I have a belief or lack thereof on every matter?

While some have very definite beliefs about, say, the Israel/Palestine conflicts, I am agnostic. I recognize both positions, acknowledge them both as possibly valid and choose not to believe either is right. I can think of a dozen or more situations in which I would also not be able to establish whether I have a belief or not.

My argument is not ridiculous, it is merely my POV. It just happens to differ from your own.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. No, you aren't an agnostic on Israel/Palestine, you take no position.

You just claimed that knowing about the Israel/Palestine conflict is impossible, that its a big black hole in everyone's consciousness, that is why words have definite meanings. You instead take no position in favor of one or the other, but that is a different type of question than one questioning the existence of something.

ON EDIT: To make things clearer, Agnosticism does NOT equal Neutrality.

[cbayer]

100. What if I also take no position on god?

I think agnosticism can equal neutrality and it is often used in areas outside of religion to mean just that. When someone takes no position and thinks that both positions may be tenable but the probably of determining this is most likely not possible, they can said to be agnostic on the issue.

You may hold a narrower definition, but other reputable sources do not agree with you.

[Humanist_Activist]

101. What reputable sources? And in what way does neutrality equal unknowable? n/t

[cbayer]

102. Because if a question can not be answered, then taking a neutral position

on the question is a very wise thing to do, imo.

Agnostic is not just a modifier. It is a noun in it's own right. Telling people that they can't be that is an untenable position.

[cbayer]

103. Dictionaries. I would not say that neutrality necessarily equals

unknowable, but that when something is unknowable, taking a neutral position may be very wise.

[Humanist_Activist]

104. OK, I looked at Dictionary.com

Their first few definitions seem ok, but the ones regarding non-commitment to "two opposing sides" just doesn't make sense. Can you parse this sentence, it was copied, verbatim, from Dictionary.com as an example of agnosticism being used in a sentence.

If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

No, no it doesn't become clear, nothing is clear in this sentence, indeed, rather than being clear, the use of the word "agnostic" actually obfuscates the meaning of the sentence.

[cbayer]

105. I am not sure what that means either, but I see it used more and more frequently.

If you do a google news search for agnostic, you will see the term used frequently to describe things that are not at all about religion. Many of them are about business positions and decisions.

They seem to be saying that they proceed without knowing or pretending to know what the outcome might be, but see a need and propose a way to fulfill it.

I think this can be applied to religious agnosticism as well. It is not about believing or not believing, but about being the best you can be.

The term "apatheism" appeals to me and is consistent with this concept.

[Humanist_Activist]

108. Even that meaning you listed makes no sense, words and terms such as...

ignorant, neutral, non-committal, etc. make much better substitutes than agnostic, considering they are what is actually meant, rather than using a less exact term. Now you are adding yet another, unrelated definition, onto agnostic too make it utterly meaningless, it wasn't about belief anyways, but KNOWLEDGE, and what the hell does "best you can be" mean in this context?

[gcomeau]

30. You do realize..

...that "atheism" and "agnosticism" are not distinct categories and you can't be one as an alternative to being the other?

I only ask because everything you wrote seems to indicate you have no understanding of what the terms mean.

[cbayer]

55. That is a very narrow view. There are many, myself included, who do consider

them distinct categories and do believe you can be one as an alternative to being the other.

The position you espouse is only held by some in the atheist community who are trying to keep score of how many are on their team, imo.

What about those that call themselves apatheists?

[gcomeau]

56. No, it's the rational view

There is no logical space between atheism and theism for a third category to occupy. So claiming that agnosticism occupies a space that does not exist is irrational. That has nothing to do with "narrow views" or open mindedness.


Atheism and theism are about whether you do or do not possess a belief in the existence of a deity. That is a BINARY solution set. You do... or you don't. You are one... or the other. That's it. Period. "I dunno" is not an answer to that question, it's a delaying tactic to avoid answering it. You're not being asked if a god exists, you're being asked if the belief that one does currently resides in your skull. And yeah, you DO know that... (or if you don't you require psychiatric help.)

Agnosticism is a completely different issue, dealing with the nature of your beliefs about the concept of a deity that is totally and utterly independent of whether you believe it exists or not.

Saying "I'm not an atheist (or theist), I'm an agnostic" makes exactly as much sense as saying "I'm not an atheist (or theist) I'm a ballerina!"

You can be a ballerina... you can be an agnostic,.. but you're still either a theist or an atheist. You still either do or you do not possess a belief in the existence of a deity. And that's all there is to it.

[cbayer]

59. I disagree with you.

I have heard and read your argument many times and I simply disagree. To say "I don't know" is an entirely different thing than saying I believe or I don't believe.

You may call it irrational or anything else you choose, but it is a space and a label that many, many people choose to take. Those people are often called cowards, primarily by anti-theists who believe that one needs to take a side. They are not cowards, they just don't know and don't care to take a position.

Would you also insist that one must label themselves as hetero or homosexual? Do you not know those that are both or neither?

Your position has been stated many times before and is dismissed by many people, including myself. It's not the definitive answer by any means, it is only the one you have chosen to adopt.

And that's all there is to it.

[gcomeau]

62. But provide no basis for doing so.

Do you believe a deity exists?

Please answer that single question. Recognizing that answering "I don't know" means you are claiming that you are unable to ascertain the content of *your own thoughts* and should seek immediate counseling if that condition persists for any extended period of time... not try to declare that your state of utter and abject befuddlement is some kind of philosophical position you have staked out.

"Would you also insist that one must label themselves as hetero or homosexual? Do you not know those that are both or neither? "

No, because that is not a binary solution set, any more than I would insist someone must be either white or black.

On the other hand I would say you have to be either heterosexual or NOT heterosexual. Either homosexual or NOT homosexual. Those are basic requirements of logic. You are either A or not A, you cannot be both or neither. See the difference?

Now refer back to what atheist means (Hint...focus on the 'a'... it means NOT theist)

[cbayer]

65. And if I answer "i don't know and I don't really care", which box would you put me in?

Thanks for the referral to therapy, but I think I will skip it. If the question is unanswerable, which I believe it it, then I think I am pretty sane. I would, however, question those that claim to know the answer either way.

Why should this be any more binary than sexuality or any of many things one might question about themselves?

You have clearly taken a position as one or the other, as have many. Like sexuality, there are those who know themselves to be one or the other and there are many in the grey areas. And those at either end often belittle those that choose not to take a position, thinking it somehow strengthens their own.

Now, you focus on the prefix "a" and define what abyss and achromatic mean. (hint - it means WITHOUT). Many agnostic people would deny that they are without a god or that there is no god. They just don't know and are keeping their minds open to all possibilities.

[gcomeau]

69. One of two boxes...

Either the "dishonest" box or the "not listening" box.

Based on this:

If the question is unanswerable, which I believe it it,

...it's the "not listening" box.

Tell me, WHAT QUESTION do you think you're talking about? (Hint, it is NOT "Does God exist?&quot

[cbayer]

72. Lol. If you think you have the answer, good for you.

I'm staying in the camp of not knowing. You can call me dishonest, ignorant or deaf. It makes no difference to me.

Thanks for all the hints!

[gcomeau]

74. Stop dodging.

WHAT QUESTION do you think you don't have the answer to?

You don't know.... WHAT?

[cbayer]

75. An agnostic does not know whether a god or god exists.

They leave the door(s) open. They do not say "There is a god" or "There is not a god". They most often remain open to either possibility. They may believe in things spiritual but not be able to identify the source. They are neither theists or atheists.

I am presuming that you disagree with the author of the article. That's ok.

No need to yell. I can hear you just fine. You seem quite intent on being right about this, while it is merely your perspective.

[gcomeau]

76. Yep, thought so. You're *still* not listening.

I. Didn't. Ask. You. If. God. Exists.

You are responding to a question that was not asked one single time in our entire exchange.

Now... what DID I ask you?

[cbayer]

91. Wow. Could you be more insulting?

Good luck. Hope you and your team win!

[gcomeau]

106. Yes. I could ignore everything you say...

...while acting as if I'm having conversation with you. Just for example. That would be more rude but I hardly need to tell the master now do I?

[eomer]

121. Her answer was in there, I think.

She doesn't have any definite belief on this question that she thinks is unknowable.

Is there some rule that we must have a belief on every question, even the ones that we think we have no way of knowing? What is your belief about the color of the shirt I'm currently wearing? Don't avoid the question - I must know what your belief is or else you're dodging.

[gcomeau]

139. If that was true

...then she's an atheist. But no, that answer was never given.

No you don't have to have a belief on it, quite right. LACKING the belief is WHAT ATHEISM IS.

Understanding that should tell you why your shirt color question is pointless I hope? But to answer it anyway, don't have one. Just like every atheist doesn't have a belief in the existence of a deity.

[cbayer]

140. There is only the rule if one is playing teams.

There is a burning need for some people to assign others into one category or another. Despite this, many, many people call themselves agnostic, or spiritual but not religious, apatheist or any number of other things that they feel describe them.

Saying that one must be one or the other only occurs at the extremes. The one-wayers do it as well.

Fortunately, most people who do not wish to define themselves as one or the other are very comfortable with their choice and are not easily bullied into choosing a side.

And that, imo, is what makes us all so interesting.

[eomer]

200. Being confident and honest enough to say "I don't know" is IMO a wonderful and valuable trait.

It's especially valuable to the people around the person who has it. Thanks for sticking up for it here.

[cbayer]

202. Thanks, eomer.

I think it's worth fighting for and see it as decreasing divisiveness instead of dividing further.

I also thank you for your contributions to this group.

[gcomeau]

244. For fuck's sake.

NEITHER THEISTS NOR ATHEIST CLAIM TO KNOW EITHER.

Could you please get that mind-blowingly obvious fact through your skull.

BELIEF =/= KNOWLEDGE ... and atheism and theism describe states of BELIEF or LACK THEREOF. cbayer is not "sticking up" for anything like the concept of "I don't know" with the stand that is being taken.

[cbayer]

246. Sleep well?

[gcomeau]

247. If you have no interest in actual discussion...

...why do you bother continuing to post?

[eomer]

113. Oxford Dictionaries disagrees with you.

Here is a definition from Oxford Dictionaries:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

That last part, "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God", does say something about whether the person believes it exists or not. An agnostic by that definition does not believe in God.

This definition by Merriam-Webster also offers the same second meaning:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

[gcomeau]

114. No it doesn't.

Dictionaries simply reflect popular usage, they are not rulings on whether a usage is correct.

And the popular usage of this particular term (the *second* definition they included there) is irrational and nonsensical. As I explained rather clearly and as you have ignored in your response. If you disagree, address my post.

The dictionary doesn't care if it's irrational or nonsensical it only cares if people use it that way. If they do they include it. It nether agrees nor disagrees with my post. That isn't how dictionaries work.

[eomer]

115. Here's the definition from a 1969 hard-bound American Heritage Dictionary I had handy:

A thinker who disclaims any knowledge of God.

Is there some other source of authority, besides dictionaries, on the meaning of words? As far as I know there isn't, leaving us with a somewhat messier situation than we might like, but that's still the way it is.

I do actually sympathize with your sentiments - my own pet peeve is the term neoliberal. Here are the definitions from online Oxford and Merriam-Webster, respectively:

relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.

a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods

These are two completely different definitions. The former is the one I've always understood. I'm afraid that misuse is causing it to morph into the latter, resulting in confusion at least during the transition.

Anyway, I don't think we actually need to fight about it - it just seems to me something we should point out if we are going to discuss the meaning of agnostic and how it should be applied. Some people will use it that other way and we should just seek clarification (and hopefully avoid chiding) in a case where the intended meaning isn't clear. Don't you think?

[gcomeau]

118. Really missing the point.

The dictionary is, yes, the authority on the meaning of words... the meaning being defined as "what people mean when they speak them"

Which is not the point here. At all. I am perfectly well aware of what a large number of people MEAN when they use the word agnostic. They are simply wrong. Period. And the dictionary does not weigh in on that issue.


For example, let's say for the next several decades for some stupid reason millions of people decide they're going to start using the word "Republican" to mean "an invisible magical elf that farts rainbows"

They can do that. If they do it long enough the dictionary will even add it as a definition next to the word Republican to account for the fact that that's what a lot of people mean when they say "Republican".


HOWEVER, if someone comes along and claims to BE A "Republican", and they insist that what they're talking about is that second meaning and not the original "Person who is a member of, or identifies themselves with, the Republican party" I'm going to call bullshit and tell them they're abusing the language, because no they are not that meaning of the word, because it doesn't freaking EXIST. if you try to tell me you're a magical invisible elf that farts rainbows I'm going to say sorry... but no you're not. And if you think you are you're not understanding what you're saying (Or, you should be in a mental institution)


When people say they are an "Agnostic", and then they insist that when they say "agnostic" they somehow mean they occupy some kind of mythological non existent logic space distinct from atheist or theism, I call bullshit and tell them they're abusing the language because that doesn't freaking EXIST. There is no space that is "neither an atheist nor a theist" any more than there is a "2" in binary. So no person-who-is-making-this-claim, you're not that. If they actually are an agnostic, they're that first definition... not the second ridiculous irrational one used by masses of people who don't know what they're talking about.



Clearer?

[eomer]

123. I don't know in this case that there was previously a more exacting definition.

The 1969 dictionary that I cited doesn't mention the definition that you say is the correct one; it only mentions the one you dispute.

Do you have a source for your claim that the definition you like was at one time the only accepted time? When was that?

The term atheist seems in the dictionaries to have a corresponding ambiguity.

It seems to me that you have definitions that you want to be the correct ones. But I'm doubtful that there is any real foundation.

[gcomeau]

132. ok... not clearer. Obviously.

The point is not who or what the authority on a word definition is. I know perfectly well what the people using the word mean by it and that's the problem.

The point is that "I'm the type of agnostic that is neither an atheist nor a theist" is the equivalent of "I'm the type of number in binary that is neither a 0 nor a 1"



It's irrational nonsensical bullshit. Do. Not Care. what authority anyone wants to cite on a word definition. But if it's really important to you Thomas Huxley originated the term in the 1800s, and his exact definition when he did so was "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known."

Which has not one damn thing to do with whether you *believe* a deity exists or not.

http://m.dictionary.com/etymology/agnostic?linkId=8uxrdf

[eomer]

135. But is it binary?

What if I'm about 75% sure that God exists? Am I an atheist or a theist? And am I an agnostic or not?

(Not meaning that those are my views - I personally don't see any reason to believe that God exists.)

[pokerfan]

136. Spectrum of theistic probability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

[gcomeau]

138. Yes, it is.

What if I'm about 75% sure that God exists? Am I an atheist or a theist? And am I an agnostic or not?

Since you gave me no information relevant to whether you are *any* of those things how am I supposed to know?

Was your 75% level of certainty sufficient to instill in you the BELIEF that there is a deity? If it was you're a theist, if it wasn't you're an atheist. The end. No other options. That belief is either held by you... or it is not. Binary solution set. Your level of certainty or confidence IN that belief has nothing whatsoever to do with those classifications.

As for whether you're an agnostic, do you believe achieving 100% certainty on the question, one way or the other, is *possible*? If you don't you're an agnostic.

[eomer]

147. It's interesting that you think that way.

You are both very binary in your thinking and authoritarian; incapable of perceiving gray.

Gray does exist, even if you can't - or won't - see it.

[gcomeau]

148. What way? Rationally?

I suppose you could think that's interesting....

And yes there are grey areas... on subjects where the classifications you are dealing with are matters of gradation.

This. Isn't. One.

You either have the belief... or you do not. It is just that simple. It's there or it isn't, and what theism and atheism refer to are its presence or absence. No third category exists.

[eomer]

149. Sorry but it is clearly possible to be unsure about it.

Some people are sure; many others are not.

A person may say that it seems possible but improbable that a deity exists. Another may say she thinks it likely but isn't completely convinced. These states that are in between total belief and total disbelief are clearly possible.

[gcomeau]

150. It is OBVIOUSLY possible to be unsure about it.

Most reasonable people would be unsure about it.

That. Is. Irrelevant.

A belief is not a certainty. Do you understand that? Theism and atheism do not have one single damn thing to do with surety.

Theism and atheism are about the presence or absence OF THE FREAKING BELIEF.

"A person may say that it seems possible but improbable that a deity exists."

Why yes they may. And if they say that but believe that that deity does exist they're a theist... and if they say that but don't believe that deity exists they're an atheist. The end.

"Another may say she thinks it likely but isn't completely convinced."

Why yes they may. And if they say that but believe that that deity does exist they're a theist... and if they say that but don't believe that deity exists they're an atheist. The end.

"These states that are in between total belief and total disbelief are clearly possible. "

Of course they're possible. That describes the large majority OF ATHEISTS AND THEISTS!!!!!

Geez... have you read one single word I've written during our exchange or haven't you?

[eomer]

154. Of course I've read all your words; I just find that your approach makes no sense to me.

Having agreed that it is typical to not be sure, how then can you determine which persons believe and which ones don't? Where is the sharp line past which non-believing turns into believing? Obviously there is no such sharp line that can be determined on any objective basis. So there is no clear way to say which person believes and which person doesn't. Except for those who are 100% convinced and those who are 0% convinced, the rest are neither clearly a believer nor clearly a non-believer. They are somewhere in between.

Take a person who says she feels it's about a 75% chance that there is a deity and that therefore she really doesn't know, that there might or might not be a deity - how would you yourself classify that person? Is she a believer or a non-believer? I honestly don't see why we would force one label or the other on her. Her views are the more complex explanation and insisting that she must pick one or the other over-simplification is just throwing away information and ending up with a statement that's not an accurate representation of her views.

[gcomeau]

158. Good grief, this is not complicated.

All your rambling on about 75% sure, or 50% sure, or maybe they do and maybe they don't has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.


"Do you believe God exists"?

Answer that question, answer determines if you're atheist or theist, and that's all there is to it.

(And for cripes sake, do not decide to answer a question I didn't ask instead. Specifically, don't tell me you don't know whether or not God exists. DIDN'T ASK. DON'T CARE.)

[eomer]

182. The answer for some people is neither definitely yes nor definitely no.

Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 07:59 AM - Edit history (2)

No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't.

Edit to add:

A theory (an explanation) should be as simple as it can be but no simpler.

Your explanation is too simple, simpler than it can be because there are demonstrable cases that it can't handle. Here is another example:

Take a person who grew up in a Baptist church, learned the Baptist teachings, and stated that he believed in the God that Baptists do. Then one day he stumbled onto information about the history of Christianity and the history of the Bible that shattered his belief system and threw him into confusion. If you asked him at this point whether he believed in God he would say that he really doesn't know, that he needs to rethink and do more research before he can decide what to believe.

Which of your two choices, 0 or 1, do you assign to that person at that time?

Any explanation to be plausible must handle every possible case one can think of. That's the 'no simpler' part. When someone raises a case, any case, you must be able to say how your explanation handles it or else the conclusion will be (whether you want to admit it or not) that your explanation is too simple (or perhaps merely wrong, but yours seems to be a case of too simple).

You really do need to address the cases I raise and explain how it is that they don't break your model. If you can't then your model has been shown to be faulty. To just keep insisting, especially by resorting to ALL-CAPS yelling and Dot. Separated. Emphatic. Phrases, would seem to show you have no explanation for these cases. If I'm wrong and you do, please offer them. How does your explanation explain that person who's in confusion and really doesn't know? How does it explain that previous example of a person who has thought about it a lot and still just isn't sure. How do you assign a 0 or a 1 to either of those people?

Second edit:

The key to this latest example is 'confusion'. In other words, cognitive dissonance. The person still has some feelings of belief but at the same time has thoughts that he is beginning to perceive (but isn't sure) are incompatible with belief. His belief is in a state of uncertainty, flux, and needing resolution.

[gcomeau]

194. See post 62.

You really do need to address the cases I raise and explain how it is that they don't break your model.
...

The key to this latest example is 'confusion'. In other words, cognitive dissonance.

I addressed this 5 days ago. Being confused is being confused, not a philosophical category a person slaps an "ism" like agnosticism on. It is a temporary transitory state. If it is NOT a temporary transitory state and that person finds themself incapable of understanding their own thoughts or telling what they themself are thinking for an extended period of time they should SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP. What they should sure as hell not do is call themself an "agnostic" and get all smug about it like the idiot who wrote the OP that started this. There's something wrong with them. Go do something about it. "Agnostic" does not mean "perpetually confused clueless person who doesn't even know what they're thinking, let alone anything else".


And then once they have gone and done something about it, they'll know which of the TWO categories of things they can be on this topic that they are.

[cbayer]

203. Lol. Are you really saying that anyone who calls themselves agnostic is mentally ill?

That has got to be the funniest thing you have said so far, and you have had some doozies.

Are you a mental health professional? Have you ever spoken to one who would consider someone who considers themselves agnostic mentally ill? What DSM diagnostic code do you think they would use? Would insurance pay for it?

[gcomeau]

204. No. Try actually reading. THEN type an answer. -nt

[cbayer]

205. Wow. Are you like this in real life?

[gcomeau]

206. In real life...

...people do me the basic fucking courtesy of paying a minimal level of attention to what I'm saying when they engage in conversation. So... no. No I'm not. No need.

[cbayer]

207. Why do you think you have a different experience here?

[gcomeau]

208. You nean with you?

Well the variable in the equation would appear to be... you.

[cbayer]

209. It is hardly isolated just to me. You seem to have it with a number of people.

[gcomeau]

210. I seem to have it...

...with a number of people taking the exact same position in this thread without bothering to justify it, yes.

Imagine that.

[cbayer]

211. Well, as a wise and dear colleague once said to me...

if everyone says you have a tail, you might want to turn around and look.

[gcomeau]

226. Hah, "everyone"... rich.

Sorry, but I hardly find it shocking that a specific group of people who share a common lack of understanding of what agnosticism, atheism and theism mean and also share a common interest in perpetuating that misunderstanding also share a common reaction to being confronted on it.

[cbayer]

227. Or one could see it a different way.

That people that hold rigid and dogmatic positions and definitions tend to become hostile towards those that do not share their position.

See, it's all in one's POV!

[gcomeau]

228. No, it isn't.

Because see there's a way to test it. For the first time ever in this entire thread you could try responding to things I actually write after having carefully read them.

You might start with post 194, where I didn't say anything fucking remotely RESEMBLING "people who call themselves agnostics are mentally ill". I said that a persistent condition of being in such a state of mental confusion that you are incapable of understanding even your own thoughts is being mentally ill and THAT ISN'T FUCKING AGNOSTICISM.


Or you could make my point for me and just continue to behave the way you have been because you don't want to deal with the reality that sorry, but you might be an agnostic but you're ALSO either a theist or an atheist.

[cbayer]

230. You can be as definitive as you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right answer.

You do have an answer that is shared by some, but not all. Your saying something is the truth does not make it so.

We could agree to disagree and leave it at that. My disagreeing with you is not due to my not being unable to read or comprehend. It is merely a different perspective.

If it means something to you to categorize people into black and white, then go ahead. That doesn't mean that others have to accept your labels, let alone join your team.

[gcomeau]

233. And there's my answer.

Refusal to deal with what I'm saying, retreat to "I just don't agree" with no justification for your position even attempted.

At least you're being consistent...

[cbayer]

234. I guess you win then.

[gcomeau]

235. The persistence of ignorance is not "winning". -nt

[okasha]

116. If a word is used often enough to mean X

to the everyday speaker of the language, then X becomes the correct meaning and is so reflected in dictionaries. That is how dictionaries work.

Some words and phrases that have changed or acquired new meaning in the last few decades include "nominal," "gay," and "cell," just to mention a familiar few

[gcomeau]

119. Sigh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=81744

[okasha]

120. Chuckle. . . .

83, 93.

[gcomeau]

142. 83... 93...

Have nothing to do with what I'm saying. Please try actually reading what is being written.

[okasha]

143. What you're saying is that

you've decreed that everyone must fit into one of your two little boxes. There seem to be a good many people saying they don't. Why do you not only disbelieve them but assert that you know their minds better than they do? That's a bit. . . overreaching, isn't it?

[gcomeau]

144. No.

That there ARE only two very big boxes defined by a binary condition. Which you seem incapable of comprehending.

And I don't believe claims to the contrary for the same reason I don't just accept it if you say that for you 2+2=36.5

Because that's objectively, demonstratably, wrong.

[okasha]

146. See posts 83 & 93.

Again.

I see no reason whatever to accept your assertion on the grounds that you assert it.

[gcomeau]

151. For what?

The illustration that you're not reading a damn word I'm writing? I just finished telling you those posts are irrelevent. they address nothing I'm actually saying.

[okasha]

83. Every time this comes up

I'm reminded of many gay peoples' insistence some years ago that there's no "B" in LGBT--bisexuals were really just gays or lesbians who were afraid to admit the truth. We've gotten away from that, fortunately.

[cbayer]

93. Me, too. Very familiar argument.

It's a with us or against us position that is used when people feel there are teams.

It was the same with race (and still is in some places). You are white or black - you can't be anything else.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. That's a false dictomy...

there are gradients in sexuality that doesn't exist for belief, simply because of the way our language is structured, sexuality is biological, while beliefs are generally culturally based.

[Gore1FL]

217. Here is the difference.

I admit not knowing all things, and rather enjoy the discover that science employs to find out what is real and what is not real. I crave real certainty, though. Provable, repeatable, calculated, understood, evidence-based certainty. Relying on the revelations bestowed upon us by iron-age peasants doesn't do it for me.

I consider myself an Atheist. That doesn't mean I know there is not God. What it means is that there is no reason to believe there is a God. No evidence exists that there is a Tooth Fairy, a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars. No evidence exists of an all-knowing fish in the South Pacific. They are all so highly unlikely, that it isn't worth the time to contemplate any of them.

Atheism does not equate to a closed mind. I rejected Christianity because I find the Abrahamic religions to be unrealistic, contradictory, and stories that make that God a moral train wreck. Don't mistake my researched conclusions for a closed mind.

Let me conclude by pointing out your post was rather judgemental in tone. Doesn't that conflict with Matthew 7:1-5?

[gordianot]

28. I would come closer to an "animist" than an atheist or an agnostic.

How matter can become organized and self aware is not easily explained. Science is the ultimate religion there are still many things not explained, and as a species I am not sure we have asked all the right questions.

The skeptic in me tends to be wary of anyone who professes to have all the answers or demands that you acquire their beliefs. As part of the human experience I enjoy reading the various explanations and keep an open mind. In my 60 years of life search for meaning I have not found any shortcuts. The Universe is an interesting place.

[gcomeau]

29. Alternative title.

"Article in which I demonstrate I don't know what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' mean"

You can't be an agnostic *instead of* an atheist or theist any more than you can be an accountant instead of an atheist or theist.

[defacto7]

37. I am an atheist because

I see no evidence to support a god. As an rational thinker I have the responsibility to learn from all evidence and to try all evidence. As an atheist I am compelled to change my mind if the evidence for a deity is proved. Until that time I can say without hesitation that there is no god. But I will be glad and willing to change if necessary.

[LostOne4Ever]

38. Does the author know what the words he is using actually mean?

The author of this article gives me the distinct impression that he either does not actually know what the terms agnosticism or atheism actually mean, or that he is relying on popular misconception of the term to make an argument an argument in favor of implicit atheism.

As has been said above, atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). You either believe a god exists (theist) or you don't (atheist). Both groups have subgroups and subdivisions. Theists, for example, can be divided into polytheists, monotheists, and even pan-theists. Atheists can be divided into those who believe there is no god (positive or explicit atheism) and those who lack a belief in any god but don't necessarily believe there is no god (negative or implicit atheism).

Agnosticism is the philosophy that true knowledge is unknowable. It can be expanded far beyond the question of "Do any gods exist?" However, with regards to that question, if one believes that its impossible to ever know for certain if there are or there are not any gods then one is an Agnostic with regards to theism.

Further, its possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist or both an agnostic and a theist. Implicit atheism is pretty much the definition of an agnostic atheist, and if one believes that its impossible to know for certain if there are or are not any god(s) but chooses to believe without justification then one is an agnostic theist.

Assuming the author knows better, I wish he had chosen to explain this difference rather than relying on the popular misconception. The term atheist has a strong stigma and could use more people identifying with it rather than causing more confusion on the meaning of the terms atheist and agnostic.

Its for this reason I personally prefer to be called an Atheist rather than an agnostic.

[intaglio]

40. Question: does he believe in a god?

Answer: no, because "not knowing" means there is no belief.

Agnosticism is just a subdivision of atheism. It sounds politer and less threatening but there remains no actual belief. Dawkins admits he is not 100% certain there is no deity.

[DirkGently]

46. Still a fallacy though, isn't it?

Of all the possible explanations for "everything," there is no reason to choose a human-like "maker" that I can see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Indeed - if you think there is a cause, outside the universe, for the universe

there's no reason to think it is an entity, or entities, that could have 'god' meaningfully applied to them.

[DirkGently]

68. Kind of the classic presumption for mythology.

1) Start with a predilection for some, typically anthropomorphic explanation for something

2) Conclude it must be the answer if there's no all-ecompassing rational explanation available.

3) Re-enforce the mythological explanation on the basis of any flaws, weaknesses, or skepticism about the rational explanation.

Hesitate to invoke the Ancient Aliens meme, but it fits pretty well for a lot of this stuff.

"I don't know ... therefore Aliens!"

[bowens43]

51. An open mind does not accept any crazy idea just becasue it can't be proved false.

Should atheists also acknowledge the possibility that the universe came flying out of the ass of a giant blue and green space faring zebra just because we can't prove that it didn't?

agnosticism is a cop out and the above argument is just silly.

[cbayer]

52. Good article. I am glad to see the case being made for not having

to take a stance on one side or the other. I think it speaks to many of the "nones" and leads to more unity and less divisiveness. Those that take the position that you have to take a black or white position, or those most invested in the team sport aspect of religion, are those that feel that they have to vanquish and win, imo. Fundamentalists on both ends.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. There is a possibility of the existence of a male bipod God who looks like us?

And concerned with us?

But invisible?

[cbayer]

61. Are there no other concepts of god available?

[Bad Thoughts]

63. You can either believe in or deny the Christian deity

If you believe there could be something else, too bad.

[cbayer]

64. I think there are many other options.

[gcomeau]

70. There is *one* other option actually.

...*not* believe in (of which "deny" is a subset).

Of course all those options make one either a theist or an atheist.

If you think there is another option, name it.

[cbayer]

71. No knowing, not ever going to know and not particularly caring either way.

[gcomeau]

107. Nope, sorry.

You still can't even figure out the relevent question so it's hardly surprising you keep screwing up the answer.

[cbayer]

111. I am honored and silenced by being in the presence of someone so much smarter

than myself.

Fully humbled, I will bid you good bye.

[gcomeau]

112. Doesn't require intelligence to understand this.

Just requires bothering to pay some minimal level of attention instead of ignoring everything anyone tells you.

I pointed out to you more than once, *explicitly*, that you were not being asked if God exists and then after all that when I asked you what question you were answering you came right back with "whether God exists".

If you don't have it in you to even bother reading what people are posting then why engage in the conversation in the first place?

[okasha]

117. I know there are many other options.

Every now and then this group reminds me of Monty Python's Camelot: "'Tis a silly place."

[cbayer]

122. That or Alice in Wonderland.

[Bad Thoughts]

137. Sorry, but it doesn't seem that everyone here allows for a variety of beliefs

Or possible configurations of non-belief or curiosity. Indeed, this thread would suggest that skepticism must mean one thing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. Do you disagree with the Christians and Jews who say that there are not?

[cbayer]

73. I do disagree with them.

[MellowDem]

80. This guy doesn't have his definitions straight...

you're either an atheist or a theist, an agnostic or a gnostic, there is no inbetween. He sounds like an agnostic atheist.

I would say the vast majority of atheists are agnostic, as are the vast majority of theists in the modern world at least, especially since many of their dogmas say that faith is all you need, not knowledge, so they are perfectly fine saying they don't know that God exists, since belief is all that is required. And, considering the insane claims religion makes, it makes it easy to shirk questions about the truth of the claims if you simply don't care about the truth, but instead what you believe to be true.

[rug]

130. That's a rather dogmatic position.

[gcomeau]

153. It's not even close to dogmatic.

It's approximately as dogmatic as saying "2+2=4". It's a simple objective fact. A requirement of basic laws of logic.

Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of a specific characteristic, that characteristic being a belief in the existence of a deity.

They do not refer to degrees of belief. They do not refer to types of belief. they do not refer to strengths of belief. they have nothing to do with any kind of scales or gradations. Just PRESENCE or ABSENCE.

You must have one (the belief is either there or it isn't). You cannot have both (can't be present and absent simultaneously). So it is a binary condition. Atheism and theism describe the full range of possible conditions on this particular topic. So you MUST BE ONE OR THE OTHER.


Agnosticism is a completely different question on a completely different belief (belief about whether certain knowledge of a deities existence or non existence is possible to achieve). Whether you are an agnostic or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether you are a theist or atheist.

[rug]

155. It's the epitome of dogma.

Definitions are not mathematical facts. That is, of course unless you're dogmatic.

A corollary of dogmatic thought is the increasingly shrill insistence on the acceptance of those definitions.

[cbayer]

157. Not just dogma, but strident, rigid dogma. Kind of reminds me of...

well, you know.

[gcomeau]

159. Sigh...

"Do you believe in god?"

Answer to that question makes you either atheist or theist, and that's all there is to it. The answer to that question is as irrelevant to whether you are an agnostic as the answer to the question "Do you have a 401k?"


This isn't terribly complicated. The people trying to make it complicated are doing so because they don't want to be labelled one or the other so they play an unending game of pressing their hands over their ears and pretending they don't understand what is being pointed out to them. Too bad, they are one or the other whether they like it or not.

[rug]

160. "I don't know" doesn't determine either category.

Two of the five words are loaded, "believe" and "god".

Belief implicates both a basis for the belief and knowledge.

God implicates . . . . well, you can take it from there.

A thoughtful answer is required. Sometimes the result of that thought is "yes", other times "no", and often "I don't know".

Here's a question for you: "Are you proud of America?" I won't label you based on your answer or impute motives to you if you do not answer yes or no.

[gcomeau]

161. "I don't know" is an indication they didn't comprehend the question.

Almost every single time I see that answer, when pressed for what it is they don;t know the answer is "whether God exists".

Which wasn't what was asked. Happened again in this very thread. Even after having it spelled out for them three times first. STILL happened.

And yes, they do know whether or not they have the belief.


As for your question, you screwed it up. The analogous question is whether I possess any pride in America. Not "am I proud of" it

And that, too, is a yes/no answer.

[rug]

162. What's your answer?

[gcomeau]

164. Yes.

Although I'm honestly flabbergasted you still thought that getting an answer mattered.

[rug]

165. Now try it without the qualifier you added.

"Are you proud of America?"

[gcomeau]

167. Now try re-reading post 161

...since you apparently didn't bother the first time. Nothing new in this thread of course.

[rug]

175. I did. Restating the question is not providing an answer.

You found it necessary to add a qualifier before providing an answer but declined to simply answer the question. Not that I can blame you.

Now you can go try to re-read post 160.

[gcomeau]

177. No, explaining how you screwed up the question...

...is the answer.

The theism/atheism question is asking about the presence or absence of a belief. So if you want to construct a valid analogous question you need to make it also about presence/absence. So you ask if I "POSSES pride in X", not if I am proud OF X.

"Proud Of" is a state of mind that is subject to a massive variety of gradations that rely on individual interpretation in order to make the determination if what you feel actually constitute being "proud of" a thing. Sure there's probably some amount r degree of pride there but is it enough to call it being "proud of"? Subjective call.

As opposed to simply asking if someone possesses any pride in a thing which is a binary Yes/No condition. You do or you don't.


Similarly, returning to the actual topic at hand, you can ask about types or strength of belief and those are matters of different degrees of gradation... but they are also IRRELEVANT to whether you possess the belief at all.

And POSSESSING the belief is what makes you a theist. NOT POSSESSING the belief makes you an atheist. Binary condition. Two options. No others.

[rug]

183. I see. You are unable or unwilling to answer a straightforward question.

At least not without whirling around it like a dervish.

Hmmm, what shall I make of that?

[gcomeau]

191. For fuck's sake.

The childishly simple answer you are looking for is "yes".

The IMPORTANT answer is that YOU ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION and it does not apply to the topic of this discussion, so that simple answer is pointless.

[defacto7]

179. Your clear understanding of the simple binary condition of these two concepts

is really refreshing. Most of the contrary comments seem to be based on not understanding what binary is. Yes, they think they know but are stuck on why there's no .5 in whole numbers and try to apply it anyway. Quantum aside only to dissuade exponentiation of the argument, you mention that 2 is not part of a binary, and that is where understanding the concept versus knowing the language makes for a lot of misunderstanding. It's either on or off, 0 or 1, is or isn't... there's no "not on or off" switch (and zero is not a negative).

I agree with you completely. A person has to see that there are nuances in language and concepts only after the arithmetic has determined a basic root for the branching of those nuances. There is plenty of room for all the belief or non-belief systems and every gradation that can be imagined, but the basic root, zero and one, or should I say " " and "a" still stands in this binary concept. Without that base determination, concepts are a free-fall of anything and nonsense. All language and philosophy are meaningless without the math. Some see it, some don't. And that's just the way brains bounce. I wish it were easier to convince; sometimes you can't, sometimes you shouldn't even try.

Thanks.

[Dawson Leery]

126. I am anti-theist.

I firmly reject the idea that there is a "God" in the sky, a biological entity who made everything, answers some prayer (and ignores others).

There is energy which builds and destroys. No one has the absolute answer to why we exist. We are honest about it, religious fundamentalists are not.

[rug]

131. Ok.

[brooklynite]

145. If you consider yourself an Agnostic, do you live your live as if God exists or if he/she/it doesnt?

[Fumesucker]

156. Are those of us who consider ourselves both agnostic and atheist wrong in some way?

I fail to see the conflict between agnosticism and atheism, I can hold both ideas in my head simultaneously that is impossible to prove there is or is not a god or gods and that I do not believe in such a god or gods.

If I see what I consider good evidence for a god or gods then I will no longer be either an agnostic or an atheist.

[MrModerate]

181. OK, the existence of God is *less* likely than the existence of the Tooth Fairy, then . . .

In that teeth do indeed disappear from under pillows (at least mine did, until I was about 7 years old), and while that agency is now almost universally accepted to be parents gaming the system, there are legions of 7-year-olds who would disagree.

That we are as of yet unable to comprehensively explain existence is no reason to ascribe a supernatural cause to it; and that supernatural cause gains no credibility solely because our knowledge is incomplete — If you spin that circular logic any faster, the tautology is going to disappear up its own backside.

I am a traditional atheist: since there is zero evidence for the existence of a god or gods, I refuse to behave as if such a thing were something a sensible person would take into account when living one's life.

But since I am human, I suffer from the human tendency toward belief: I believe, with great confidence, that there is no God nor other supernatural force in the universe. But that belief in and of itself is not evidence. It's just a tidy way for me to order my activities and behaviors according to the logical conclusion that tooth fairies and gods are equally irrelevant.

[defacto7]

186. You paint a very clear picture of reality and fiction.

I agree with you up to the belief part. That's where the ignostic in me takes hold and says "I need a definition before I can proceed". I don't think I believe in anything in the sense of an unknown.. I "think" something is true or not based on facts or evidence. I like the idea of thinking and thought instead of believing. I leave "belief" to those who allow concepts that have no evidence to be relevant and want them to be true.

Just my twist on it.

[MrModerate]

189. "Belief" is evolutionarily advantageous emotional shorthand . . .

For something you've concluded is true. It's a psychological convenience.

How you get there (if you do) is your own business.

Where it stops being useful is when people try to use it as proof (or even evidence) that something is literally true. It was never designed for that and it doesn't work for beans.

[rug]

187. "we are as of yet unable to comprehensively explain existence"

Why do you say yet?

Do you think it is inevitable?

[MrModerate]

188. Not inevitable, but highly likely.

It's going to be some combination of physical processes.

[rug]

190. I think that's a rather hopeful position.

What is more likely is a contemporaneously accepted theory which will be replaced by the next generation's theory ad infinitum. Steady progress to be sure but far from an accurate comprehensive explanation.

[MrModerate]

193. "Close enough for engineering purposes" . . .

Would satisfy me.

Yes, we will be refining our understanding of the universe until it collapses again (we or our literal or figurative descendants), but I think we'll get it to within a few decimal places in well under a thousand years.

And no, I can't provide proof of that — and I could be way wrong on the time frame — but it's a useful working hypothesis.

[AtheistCrusader]

195. Context.

"In order for the tooth fairy analogy to be accurate, we would have to modify reality in one way: teeth would have to magically go missing from under pillows in a manner that science cannot even begin to explain. If that were the reality, no one could assert with any merited confidence that tooth fairies are definitely behind the inexplicable disappearance of teeth, but the idea would not be so patently absurd either. If that were the reality, then God would indeed be as probable as a tooth fairy."

That is precisely what is happening, in your analogy. But the context must be fixed correctly.

In the 'our place in the universe' model, we are the unknowing children, exploring and finding forces previously beyond our knowledge as we grow.
In your substitute model, the child, told by his or her parents that the tooth fairy exists, and later, surreptitiously replaces a toot with a coin like a thief in the night, is also growing, and learning, and will eventually someday discover his or her parent's duplicity.


So your analogy is ok, so long as you are talking about a child/humanity that simply hasn't yet learned the nature of the tooth fairy tale/universe's workings, rather than assuming that prior knowledge that the parents are taking the teeth is known to all.


You and I know that the tooth fairy is a tale, and is not required to explain how teeth become coins at night under pillows. There was a time we did not know, and likely were in awe at a seemingly supernatural occurrence.

The learning process that faced your hypothetical child, will in time reveal the truth. Same is true of us, with regard to our lack of understanding of the universe. So far we have discovered nothing that requires the intervention of a supernatural special pleading case to explain. When we do... then that'll be a different question that does not match your hypothetical..

"What is analogous in the real world to the magic disappearance of teeth is the very existence of existence. Yes, science can (and if we survive long enough, probably will) explain almost everything about our evolution and the development of the universe, but it can't explain why there is something in the first place rather than nothing. Dawkins argued that it is easier to comprehend simple beginnings to the universe than complex ones, but I would argue that, when it comes to the universe, beginnings are fundamentally unfathomable, be they simple or complex. What "beginning" could possibly stop us from asking, what was there before that? The alternative, of course, would be that the universe has always been here, which is equally unfathomable, as we have evolved in Middle World to think in terms of beginnings and ends because everything we know is temporary."

Dawkins, a biologist, isn't the proper authority on origins of the Universe. I suggest you read Krauss or Hawking, two leading scientists chipping away at that conundrum right now.

Science can and will explain why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, here's an hour long lecture on it.

[edhopper]

196. And even if we ask the something vs nothing question

absent any evidence of a supernatural cause, why even consider a God or deity behind it?

'We don't know yet, therefore God' doesn't seem to be a logical step.

[AtheistCrusader]

197. Precisely. And that was Hawking's point in his most recent book.

We don't know everything about the universe, and we don't know everything about how it came to be, but from what we know so far, nothing requires the existence of a supernatural being for the universe to come into existence.

Which is of course, not making a positive claim that 'there is no God(TM)'.

[rug]

198. I presume you're addressing the author.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. Correct.

However, if you feel like defending the author's point, or feel I have made an error, by all means.

[Jim__]

212. Baddar is making a simple point: in the face of uncertainty, we can't be certain.

In the case of the tooth fairy, we are certain about what's happening. In the case of the origin of existence, we don't know. Rationality seems to break down when trying to understand the origin of existence. Toward the end of the video that you posted, Krauss says that there is more that we don't know about the universe than there is that we do know. I agree. In the face of this ignorance, we should be careful about ruling anything out.

You claim:

Science can and will explain why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, here's an hour long lecture on it.

Actually the lecture is not really on that question. Yes, Krauss claims to know why there is something rather than nothing, but, in an interview given in April 2012, he admits that he is really talking about empty space and not nothing:

Krauss: I'm making a deeper claim, but at the same time I think you're overstating what I argued. I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. I try to be intellectually honest in everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you. They see I'm a physicist and so if I say that protons are little pink elephants, people might believe me. And so I try to be very careful and responsible. We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore.

[AtheistCrusader]

213. I don't think you understood the lecture.

"The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing"

That was the entire point of weighing systems that have mass where we don't expect to say it. That's why he said "Nothing isn't nothing anymore, it weighs something".

[Jim__]

216. That video is not difficult to understand. There's nothing new in it.

He's not claiming that particles come from nothing. He's saying that particles come into existence in empty space. That's not an explanation for existence. Where does the empty space come from? Empty space is something. Krauss know that:

... The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing ...

He's not claiming to know how something can come from nothing. He's blaming his readers (listeners) for misunderstanding his claim:

I'm making a deeper claim, but at the same time I think you're overstating what I argued. ... We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

[AtheistCrusader]

219. "but we do know some plausible ways that it might."

Krauss, Dawkins, and the rest all know they can never prove that there is no god. For instance, a truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that created the universe but does not wish to be directly perceived, CANNOT, by definition, be directly perceived. (Otherwise it wouldn't be very omnipotent, would it?)

Krauss and Co. aim to show how the universe works, and if that means each mechanism in the chain of it's coming into existence can be shown to be natural, then there are no more gaps for a hypothetical supreme being to hide in. That's what is being done; showing that the universe is natural, and operates and exists by understandable natural principles, sans supernatural powers/origins.

That's all.

Lets say we DO figure out every tiny detail of how the universe works, and how it, and time/space itself came to be. And lets say it is 100% natural and non-metaphysical.

Still doesn't disprove god. It just puts the ball back where it belongs, in the court of said being to establish its presence, of its followers to establish its presence, etc. No more cover for believers to hide behind incredulously denying natural processes, insisting it is too complex to not have a designer, simply because we don't understand it, therefore 'god did it'.

Just chipping away at that cover. No big deal.

[Jim__]

221. Krauss doesn't cite any of those plausible ways.

And, he doesn't seem to really have any. An excerpt from a conversation:

...

Holt: Space and time pop into existence? You make that sound like a temporal process, a process in time.

...

Krauss: No, I mean I used words, and the problem with words are [sic], as T. S. Eliot says, they're sort of slippery.


Holt: But becoming implies time. You can't have time coming into existence as itself a temporal process. That makes no sense. That's why it's good to have philosophers around, which I'm not one, to help you use language precisely.

Krauss: Okay, so let me just pretend there--let me just say there's a global time and at some time a space pops into existence. Okay, will that make you happier?

...

But Krauss does say toward the end of the video that there is more we don't know about the universe than we do know. That is essentially what Baddar is saying:

Beyond the origins of the universe and our inability to wrap our heads around the limits (or lack thereof) of time and space, we can't even understand how the most fundamental building blocks of matter and energy operate on the sub-atomic level. Through quantum physics, we seem to have discovered that a single particle can exist in two different places at the same time. What on earth does that even mean? Do we really know enough about the universe to be clinging to any theories at all? The fact that humans at this stage, with our scientific endeavor still in its infancy, are having heated arguments about the plausibility of God is as laughable as the idea of 3-year-olds, who can barely name basic shapes and colors, having heated arguments about capitalism and socialism. We're not qualified to have strong opinions about God and the universe because we don't know anything yet.

Since there is more that we don't know than we do know, reaching conclusions about the ultimate nature of the universe is a bit premature.

[AtheistCrusader]

222. I missed where Krauss has reached a conclusion.

He actually talks quite a bit about changing positions as our understanding increases. Even scrapping entire theories.

He doesn't claim to know, only to seek.


Baddar makes a much grander mistake than anything you've attributed to Krauss. "We're not qualified to have strong opinions about God and the universe because we don't know anything yet."

If that's the case, we can't even claim to know there is a god or gods or that such a thing even exists. The Universe, on the other hand, can be fairly assumed to exist. We can directly perceive it. God or gods on the other hand...

[Jim__]

223. A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

Sounds to me like he's reached a conclusion. Of course, the title may just be a bait and switch.

Here's the book's description from Amazon:

One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With a new preface about the significance of the discovery of the Higgs particle, A Universe from Nothing uses Krauss’s characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations to take us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.

It sounds pretty conclusive to me.

Note on the edit: I added the description from Amazon while AC was responding to the post.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. It's typical advertising, I think.

Hawking's book is better titled, covers similar ground: The Grand Design.

Then again, perhaps some over-reach with 'The illustrated theory of everything'.
I have not yet read Krauss's book cover to cover, rather, getting most of my info on his position from his lectures, and the follow-up question/answer segments.

[SamKnause]

201. Atheist

Why I am an Atheist.

If a 'God' does exist, he has done nothing to impress in my 60 years on this earth.

If he is only an observer in chief, he is useless in my eyes.

A planet ruled by a loving 'God' would not resemble planet earth.

Maybe 'God' is the supreme dictator, punisher and executioner.

Either way, he is not worthy of respect or worship.

[goldent]

214. I have seen this view a number of times since joining DU

that is, an atheist apparently leaving open the possibility of there being a god, and saying that if does exist he is a good-for-nothing god not worthy of attention. I find the idea fascinating, of a god who just doesn't give a shit. And to make things worse, there are these simpleton humans who think they are experts on proper behavior of gods, and are dissing him.

[SamKnause]

215. Atheist 2

I do not care if he, she, or it exists.

Proof would not change my opinion of job performance.

Actions speak louder than words.

He, she, or it demands that I worship them blindly, with no evidence of existence that can be verified with proof and certainly not by actions.

I guess my definition, or expectations of a 'God' is very different than yours would be.

I think those who believe and follow blindly are the simpletons.

[pokerfan]

220. Deism is pretty close to atheism when you think about it

The invisible and the non-existent often look very much alike.

[AtheistCrusader]

225. Well, there are moral propositions to consider.

One I often offer to my Christian friends is that even if I could be convinced the resurrection/Jesus myth was true, and that he 'lives', and is the 'way', etc.

I would reject it on moral grounds. I would not share in the profits of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of a man. I would reject the rules of any metaphysical god that arranged the world and humanity so, that I MUST share in that atrocious crime to profit, and that there is no other way forward. I would not do it myself. I would not share a piece of it, willingly, even amortized across the souls of billions saved since that time.

As Dostoyevsky wrote through the words of one of his characters (Ivan):

"I would seek to return the price of the ticket".

Going a step beyond my evaluation of the morality of such a proposition, if I *am* created, I am as my creator designed me. I can hardly be held to account for behaving as intended. For expressing my nature. Hypothetically speaking toward the idea of a personal god and creator; if I am to be condemned for rejecting, according to my innate morality, such a proposition by way of logic, reason, compassion, etc, then at the end of the day, such a creator didn't take time to know me. (Or possibly cruel, in the fashion of 'created sick, commanded to be well) And if that is the case, I do not care to know such a creator, and will accept the price of that decision. (Dostoyevsky frames that decision as 'rebellion', and I accept the charge, I suppose, if the rules and intent of such a god is accurately laid out to begin with, I certainly reject it.)

But of course, that is a bridge beyond since I do not believe any of it.

Would you accept the moral proposition of a god that hypothetically built the concept of salvation for humanity upon the scapegoating of a truly pure being?

"One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its un-avenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”

Remember, said omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created the rules and us according to those rules, knowing at the start the outcome, and the one path that must be erected based on those rules. (Allegedly)

[enki23]

237. How is it that people are so certain their idea of "absolute nothing" is even possible?

Some guy thinks it's better to say "agnostic" rather than "atheist" based on the "Why is there something, rather than nothing" trope. Whee, we don't have perfect knowledge. Whee, there's a gap somewhere where something like a god might not be completely impossible. There is nothing new or interesting here, at all. And it has absolutely fuck-all to do with the agnostic/atheist thing.

"Nothing" is the only thing that "something" can come from. "Something" in the sense of "existence itself" can't come from any other "something." Because you already had "something". Maybe your something can gain mass, or reproduce parts of itself. So what? Those are the sorts of things that a something can, clearly, do. Really, what is it that you think you mean by "come from?" You're talking about the ultimate origin, if it exists, of "something," of existence itself. But if you already have something existing, then it isn't a fucking origin. The only *possible* origin of "something," if there is an origin at all, is "nothing". And if you want to call that nothing "god," then have at it. Your god is nothing. I concur.

And I'm not sure the question even means anything anyway. One thing we can be all but sure of is that, no matter how many universes there are that exist, the number of universes that *don't* exist is uncountably infinite. The question shouldn't be "why is there something, rather than nothing". There *is* nothing. There's unimaginably much nothing. All that nothing that doesn't exist is literally limitless. The question should actually be "why is there nothing *and* something, rather than just nothing?" And the only reasonable answer to that is a raised eyebrow. This question is about as relevant to the potential existence of universe-creating intelligences as is the question of what I ate for breakfast.

(Hint: if you feel the urge to say that my breakfast choice *is* a relevant question, because it shows that there is a) something for breakfast rather than nothing for breakfast or b) blah blah... free will.. blah blah, or anything else of that sort. Don't. Just... don't. Fight the urge to be a trite idiot. Really, just fight it.)

[enki23]

239. That said, there's the actual translation of the relevant bits of the article:

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

"In my brilliant open-mindedness, I have decided to abuse the categorical term 'agnostic' (which describes a rather obvious philosophical condition of incomplete knowledge) by using it instead to define someone who assigns a probability of a god somewhere in the range (0<x<1) such that the probability is greater than that I imagine must be assigned by people who call themselves atheists."

Shall we assign (0 to 0.099...) to the "atheists," and (0.1 to 0.499...) to the "agnostics" and everything else to the theists?

It's fucking asinine. It really is.

[Act_of_Reparation]

243. The part that churned by stomach was his justification for reaching that probability...

"We can't explain everything, so God could possibly exist."

...because in the absence of a good answer, all answers stand on equal ground?

It's completely obtuse. When, in the history of the human race, has a naturalistic explanation been supplanted by a supernatural explanation? Never.

Going on previous experience, I'll accept God is a "possibility", but so remote a possibility as not to warrant a second thought.