Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumAgnostics are not Atheists and they deserve their own forum.
An Agnostic Manifesto
At least we know what we don't know.
Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.
Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.
Advertisement
I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)
Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive. (For a review of the centrality, and insolubility so far, of the something-from-nothing question, I recommend this podcast interview with Jim Holt, who is writing a book on the subject.)
Having recently spent two weeks in Cambridge (the one in the United Kingdom) on a Templeton-Cambridge Fellowship, being lectured to by believers and nonbelievers, I found myself feeling more than anything unconvinced by certainties on either side. And feeling the need for solidarity and identity with other doubters. Thus my call for a revivified agnosticism. Our T-shirt will read: I just don't know. (I should probably say here that I still consider myself Jewish in everything but the believing in God part, which, I'll admit, others may take exception to.)
Let me make clear that I accept most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself. I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.
Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation "ex nihilo" (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.
This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs. I'm thinking in particular here of the ones who like to call themselves "the brights." (Or have they given up on that comically unfortunate term?) The "brights" seem like rather dim bulbs when it comes to this question. It's amazing how the New Atheists boastfully stride over this pons asinorum as if it weren't there.
You know about the pons asinorum, right? The so-called "bridge of asses" described by medieval scholars? Initially it referred to Euclid's Fifth Theorem, the one in which geometry really gets difficult and the sheep are separated from the asses among students, and the asses can't get across the bridge at all. Since then the phrase has been applied to any difficult theorem that the asses can't comprehend. And when it comes to the question of why is there something rather than nothing, the "New Atheists" still can't get their asses over the bridge, although many of them are too ignorant to realize that. This sort of ignorance, a condition called "anosognosia," which my friend Errol Morris is exploring in depth on his New York Times blog, means you don't know what you don't know. Or you don't know how stupid you are.
read rest here http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2010/06/an_agnostic_manifesto.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rexcat
(3,622 posts)agnostic is better described here: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
The author of "An Agnostic Manifesto" crosses the line when he places atheism in the religious column. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more or less.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)One is written by an agnostic the other by an atheist. Only a true agnostic knows what an agnostic is. They are not atheists.
This type of graph was done to determine political persuasion also. There are a million shades of gray but gray is still gray but when it comes to the polls it's black and white.
You are also an atheist. A true Agnostic does see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
Any statement to the contrary is the real bull shit. More than likely a ruse. An atheist posing as an agnostic or a confused person who doesn't understand what an agnostic is.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)It seems you are in agreement with the author. I found the author of the blog to be rather condesending towards atheits. Please note that this forum is a safe haven for atheists and agnostics and not a place for insults to either group.
If you want to be condesending to atheists try posting in the Religion forum.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Agnosticism is about knowledge and valid sources thereof. It is absolutely silent on the question of belief.
Atheism and theism are positions of belief.
They don't even answer the same question.
The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis" - had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
Thomas Huxley - the man who invented the word.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Saying agnostics are not atheists is like saying women are not atheists. Both demonstrably wrong, and utterly irrelevant.
I am 100% agnostic
I am 100% atheistic
Challenge those however you choose to, and you will fail.
There is a reason atheists and agnostics are lumped together here and it's nothing to do with them being either the same thing OR mutually exclusive as you suggest. It is entirely to do with the demonization of the word atheist, and both the intentionally deceptive and innocently ignorant misuses of the word (not sure which category yours is in yet). This means people need multiple words to describe one thing, and they end up misusing them both.
Here's the sole, absolute and integral way to tell who's an atheist. They answer "No" to "Do you believe that any gods exist in reality?".
Note that the question is NOT "Do any gods exist?" and that the question cannot accurately be answered "I don't know".
How is it possible for a person who can understand that question to not know what they believe? It is not possible, obviously. I know whether I believe Obama will one day be added to Mt. Rushmore. I don't. I can only answer the question "Will Obama be on Rushmore one day" with either an estimated probability or "I don't know" however. I know whether I believe it will happen - I can't be sure whether it will or not.
Atheism is an answer to an analog of the first question. "Do you believe any gods exist?' No = atheist. Yes = theist. No possibility of other answers
Agnosticism is an answer to the analog of the second. "Do we know that any gods exist?" No = agnostic. Yes we know and yes they do = gnostic theist. Yes we do and no they don't = gnostic atheist.
Why then combine them on a message board? Because too few people understand the above; too many atheists who do are too timid or scared of "offending" those who don't by using the correct word for themselves; too many shallow thinkers believe the label agnostic means they never have to answer or even consider the first question; too many believers assume they are synonyms for strong and weak atheism.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,132 posts)http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html
I think RR was right in #12; Huxley was saying that an agnostic, as he defined it, is not an atheist.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)atheist is the correct term for both strong/explicit/positive atheists (the terms vary depending on source but mean the same thing) who say "I believe no gods can possibly exist" and for weak/implicit/negative atheists who say "I do noy believe in the existence of any known gods". Since Huxley is rattling off faiths, including the faith-based setrong atheism in the list makes perfect sense.
It's also worth repeating: I am NOT saying agnostics are atheists. I am saying the two terms are answers to different questions which can either be held concurrently or separately. I am both. It doesn't mean anyone else has to be both to be either.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh please!
They ARE watered down atheists! Make up your mind already. Any atheist would not be one if there were proof of a deity.... so their minds are not closed by any kind of "faith". Stop portraying atheists as some kind of radicals....like some kind of fundie. Agnosticism is wishy-washy.
Brewinblue
(392 posts)the rubric of doubt rather than disbelief.
Show me proof, or even any reasonable evidence to suggest that god exists and I will be the first to admit that I have, or may have been wrong all along. Otherwise, my thoughts on god are identical to any agnostic, I'm just not afraid to publicly state that I do not believe in god
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)now what?
I don't know if there is a god - I can't prove it and I can't rule out the (incredibly slim) possibility.
But I damn sure don't believe there is one. So that's how I live my life.
I suspect everyone is agnostic but some people believe and some don't.
michael811
(67 posts)I will believe in the existence of god when I see evidence of the existence of god. Same with any other being or idea. Until then I am putting god in the same category as any other mythical creature,dragons. fairies. leprechauns. Sure its possible any of these beings exist somewhere in the universe but I don't consider me thinking they don't to be an act of faith.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Worthy of the most deluded of Fundies.
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)Any agnostic who see atheism as "a theism" probably sees "atrophy" as "a trophy." 
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Who unfortunately are quite numerous. Heck some self-labeled atheists don't get it right either.
And yet I've never met a single person who thinks that being asymmetrical means symmetry cannot possibly exist, or that aseptic manufacturing techniques means manufacturers think there are no germs anywhere in the universe.
Quite probably because we haven't had 500 years of orchestrated campaigns to make people link those words with evil, satanism, nihilism or Communism.
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)There appears to be a lot of confusion surrounding the word ”atheist,” even among people who consider themselves atheists. My atheist family members and I consider an atheist to be someone who doesn’t believe in any gods – not necessarily someone who claims to know that no gods exist. I suppose some people would call us “agnostic atheists,” because we don’t claim to know that no gods exist, only that there is no evidence that they do, and we therefore have no belief in them. We feel the same way about fire-breathing dragons, about which many stories have been written as well.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)not collecting stamps 
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)"a" = without.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Hi there RegieRocker! Welcome to the AA forum! I am sorry you are unhappy with the current arrangement of lumping atheists and agnostics into the same group.
If you want to start a new group the thing to do is this: Go to the Meta forum and submit a post on the topic. You have to have a certain number of star members (donors), maybe 10 but not sure, agree this is a good idea and then you can move forward from there.
I can see by the one lonely rec your post has so far yielded that cbayer from the religion group agrees with your notion so you are on your way to gathering the support you need to start a group!
In the meantime, while you are working on that, for discussion that might better fit your purpose I humbly recommend the religion forum. Your OP here is very similar in tone to much of the discussion there and I do believe you would find a more willing audience for the knock-down~drag-out brawl you seem to be seeking. Plus you will find many who share your view that atheists are the worst of the worst. Sounds like a win/win!
Best of luck in your quest for....discussion!
Julie
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why can people who have been blocked from this group still rec posts here? Maybe that's just the way the site is set up, but it seems like that should be part of blocking.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)a first-rate response!
rexcat
(3,622 posts)My feelings on the poster was he/she was being disruptive and no surprise that cbayer would recommend the post. In one way we can be assurred that trolls and stalkers leave their footprint, so to speak.
on edit: good reason to keep some people banned from this forum.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)I don't see any disagreement with my posts other than yours.
I found your comments concerning atheists to be condescending and rather rude. And for the record I am no fan of cbayer. If you have not gotten the jest of the situation she can not post in this forum but she does troll and stalk her all the time.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)We're outnumbered as it is.
Anyone who is...
1) Not part of a religion, and
2) Not willing to allow religion to be pushed on the rest of us
...is close enough in my book.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)3) Not actively trying to demonize or marginalize the most basic definition of lacking theistic religion.
4) this forum is a safe haven for both atheits and agnostics (no matter the definition).
dmallind
(10,437 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)I am an atheist. What is with the snarky comment?
Warpy
(114,580 posts)to the group but it would have made the group title entirely too windy. By the time someone finished reading it, he'd have lost interest in reading the actual group.
Still, I find the agnostic elitism and atheist bashing in the OP's article to be something more suited to the Religion forum. This is a protected forum where both agnostics and atheists should be able to come without fear of being bashed. We get enough of that elsewhere, thanks.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Not that there isn't a difference between someone who's sure there's no god and someone who's sure we can't know either way, but what really matters to be is whether someone is buying into ... unsupported claims, let's say.
As long as the answer to someone's attempted evangelism is basically "I'm not buyin' it" then I think they're in the same bucket as me.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)enough of the in-fighting, already.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Oh, and for posterity:
rexcat
(3,622 posts)on edit: It wasn't nice of you to forgot humblebum!
I never knew "evolution is a twisted fucked up idea that doesnt (sic) prove anything but only to morons..." As a scientist and microbiologist crap like this makes me want to 
second edit: I went to the OP that you copied and looked at RegieRocker's posts. My goodness how lame to think creationism should be in the school circulum along with evolution in a science class, no less, does not deserve any respect. Some of his other posts are just as outrageous.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Apparently, he never chose to share his "wisdom" with us.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)respects the protected status of this group unlike others.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Iggo
(49,909 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts) Iggo
(49,909 posts)
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Iggo
(49,909 posts)I will say that the definition of atheism you and the manifesto writer seem agree on is an incorrect definition, and one that is not thought highly of in this neighborhood.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Iggo
(49,909 posts)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)if you do it in a non-condescending way. Look, in this country the only allies agnostics (like yourself) and atheists (like me) have is ourselves. I won't pick on you for your inability to prove the non-existence of god if you don't pick on my lack of belief in a god
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you're a vegetarian. Whether you choose to call yourself one or not, you are. If you attended classes at Penn State for four years and were awarded a Bachelor's degree from there, you're a Penn State alum, whether you identify yourself as such or not. If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist, whether you adopt that label or refer to yourself as an atheist or not. And if you say that you don't believe in any gods right now, but are open to the possibility that evidence may one day convince you otherwise, then you've taken a position no different from that of many atheists.
In any case, to attribute arrogant certainty to atheists while claiming to be free of it yourself is just well concealed intellectual dishonesty. Are you an agnostic about Zeus? Baal? Quetzalcoatl? Xenu? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? Or are you as sure as you're likely to be about anything that one or more of those simply doesn't exist in the real world?
And this condescending little fellow ought to read a little more deeply of the subject of something from nothing before he displays such arrogance. Atheists don't have "faith" that science will eventually solve this problem. We simply see no reason to resort to either "gawddidit" or "we don't know now so we never will". We'll simply wait, in good skeptical fashion, for evidence before making up our minds, rather than wearing our ignorance as a badge of honor.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)However that isn't the way an Agnostic views this topic. Atheists words speak loudly to the fact that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD or that ONE COULD POSSIBLY EXIST.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)what exactly are you arguing about?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)How many atheists have you asked this question:
Are you absolutely certain that not one of the gods that any culture in the history of the universe has ever worshipped exists?
And gotten a "Yes" answer from? We'll wait.
And BTW, Richard Dawkins (one of those dreaded "New Atheists" afflicted with absolute certainty, by your contention), when asked how certain he was that there was no god, answered 6 on a scale of 7, where 7 is absolutely certain.
Not only are you a disruptor in a safe haven room, but you tell really transparent lies.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)he said 6 but all his words spoken tell the truth which is 7. For me to state that Agnostics are not the same as Atheists is not disruption. The point of the post was that Agnostics should not be joined with Atheists. That is all. I have no problem that you don't believe in GOD. None at all.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)
No need to let facts get in the way of your self-important intellectual puffery.
And no, you didn't just state that agnostics aren't the same as atheists. Though (as pointed out clearly) even that isn't self-evident, you posted an OP that was so denigrating of atheists and atheism, in such demonstrably false ways, that it was barely short of flamebait, if at all.
Still waiting for those words, btw. Tick Tock.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Why do you think he lied?
What purpose does Dr. Dawkins have for lying about such a thing?
What evidence do you have he is lying?
Also... do you live your life as if a god might possibly exist?
Or do you go about your daily business as if he were not there?
And
Why are you so scared of religious persecution that you are afraid to be an atheist?
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)do not or could not exist. They say that until there is empirical evidence to support the contention that a god or gods do exist, they will not have a belief in any.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)The grown-ups are talking.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)agnostics don't need a seperate forum. The A&A forum works well. You appear to be the exception.
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)a David Berlinskiesque agnostic group. EDITED TO ADD 
(Wiki)
David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author of several books on mathematics. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is an agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life. He has also written on philosophy and a variety of fictional works.
...
A 2008 Slate magazine profile by Daniel Engber characterized Berlinski as "a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank [...and] zealous skeptic, more concerned with false gods than real ones."[12] In that same article Berlinski said he "got fired from almost every job [he] ever had" before finding a career as a writer as a "maverick intellectual." Engber characterized Berlinski's viewpoints as:
Berlinski's radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He's merely its most methodical practitioner."[12]
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)One question: do you currently have an active belief in god?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Most atheists simply lack a belief in any god, which is the exact same position you take. I can count on one hand the number of atheists I've met who actively believe that there is no god* (that's both on-line and in real life).
If you want more information, you should Google the difference between weak atheists and strong atheists. While you self-identify as an "agnostic", weak atheists identify as "atheist", even while holding the same views as you.
Just so you know, it's highly offensive to accuse atheists of being "just another religion". Part of our identity is in our lack of religious belief, and the accusation is meaningless as anything other than an insult.
(* - there's a significant difference between actively and explicitly believing there is no god and simply lacking a belief)
valerief
(53,235 posts)religion is political tool so the con men can keep the masses under control while they fleece them.
Atheists do not use religion for such purposes.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)is a refusal there is a GOD. An agnostic simply doesn't know. For your understanding this means, there could be or there could not be a GOD. An Agnostic doesn't go around making fun of or ridiculing those that believe in a GOD. They have no desire or need to do so. Nor do they have to go around and ridicule Atheists for their non beliefs. I have no problem with an Atheist not believing in GOD. I respect that totally. I have no problem with a religious persons belief and respect that. I however do not respect either side ridiculing someone for their beliefs or non beliefs. Once they cross that line they loose my respect. The post was only that I feel Agnostics need their own Safe Haven and they should not be grouped with Atheists. That is all.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Ridicule is something that happens a lot in the A&A group. If something is ridiculous, we tend to point it out, and if that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps this is not the place for you.
If you'd like to mold the direction of this group, the next time a host position opens, apply for it. I'm sure you'll get tons of votes - we absolutely adore faitheists.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and why is that?
Atheists & Agnostics
Make it Atheists
take Agnostics off
Until then an Agnostic safe haven can not be established.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)It's just not a safe haven for faitheists or apologists. Sorry if that pisses you off.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)We don't care much for faitheists or apologists.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is a lie.
To not believe is a refusal there is a GOD. Lie. To not believe is NOT "a refusal there is a god". It simply means that there is not sufficient evidence to accept the existence of god at this point. You know this perfectly well, and you keep pushing the point.
An Agnostic doesn't go around making fun of or ridiculing those that believe in a GOD. They have no desire or need to do so. Nor do they have to go around and ridicule Atheists for their non beliefs. Lie. Your OP does little EXCEPT ridicule atheists for their non-beliefs. Do I really need to give you the quotes?
I have no problem with an Atheist not believing in GOD. I respect that totally. Lie. For the same reasons
The post was only that I feel Agnostics need their own Safe Haven and they should not be grouped with Atheists. That is all. Lie. That was not even close to all. You could have made that point very simply, without posting a whole diatribe that was deeply insulting and condescending to atheists.
Ok hosts...please tell me again why this OP has been allowed and why the poster who put it up is still here. If someone came into this safe haven and put up a post saying nothing more than "Atheism is just another religion!!", would that (and they) be allowed? This OP is much worse.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)RegieRocker, meet Robert Ingersoll - the "Great Agnostic."
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
"Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."
"The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it."
"There can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven."
Kennah
(14,578 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It's people who can live without certainty and admit it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)agnosticism. See my tag line. "Agnostic" is simply a label for people who are afraid to say out loud whether evidence is sufficient to accept something provisionally or not, and who would rather appear to be wearing ignorance as a badge of honor.
Lack of absolute certainty does not equate to lack of knowledge. Simple as that.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The agnostic is not lacking knowledge due to his or her position but merely stating current establishment of a lack of certainty in either proving or disproving any sort of higher being. Can one prove or disprove something so far unattainable through lack of evidence?
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)We don't. Google the difference between a weak atheist and strong atheist.
Agnosticism and atheism address entirely different issues, and most atheists are also agnostics.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)The term "new atheists" is a description invented by believers to lump all nonbelievers into one homogenous group, allowing them to bash away all day at a strawman. I guess you could say that I'm a "new atheist", but I'm a weak atheist.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Traditional atheists do not see the need to try and set out to prove or disprove a negative. In other words, they have become comfortable to come to the conclusion that a diety or god does not exist since there is no evidence out there to believe any exists. Splitting hairs maybe.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is ever "proven" to a 100% certainty in the way that things are in mathematics. Again, see my tag line. Waiting for 100% certainty (or insisting that those who don't are somehow flawed in their thinking) before saying that something is by far the best and most likely explanation for what we see, or that something has no reliable evidence to support its existence bespeaks either a complete lack of understanding, or deep intellectual cowardice.
What exactly are you claiming that "new atheists" express certainty about? And just out of curiosity, are you certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Or are you agnostic about that?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I'm of course speaking of the touring "new atheists" vs just an atheist that writes about the universe such as Carl Sagan. I'm only speaking of those completely content about not knowing the ultimate and thus stake no position nor see a need to.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)This is simply a frantic backpedal after having your argument demolished. You said that "new atheists" express certainty just like the religious. I challenged you to show exactly what "new atheists" are claiming "certainty" about. You had (and I suspect will HAVE) no answer whatsoever. I asked whether you are agnostic about whether Santa Claus exists, and you also had no answer (because, I suspect, you'll have to make a choice between looking foolish or contradicting your own argument).
Have a nice night. If you're going to try again, please be substantial.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)they have reached a conclusion. Can you understand that concept?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you STILL have no answers to the simple and direct questions I posed. So tell me why anything you post should be taken seriously until you do?
You have NOTHING, so I won't be wasting more time on you.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)you might find out it may be different than what you believe I'm saying. Peace to you.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)but rather denoting a difference in the terms agnostic and atheist.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)And explain how each applies to atheism and agnosticism.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in any diety or god. An agnostic position is somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. That is why they aren't called the same thing.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)"Do you believe in any gods?", by your own definition, cannot be answered by "I'm an agnostic" can it?
You'll surely see several posts above where I make the point that they are not the same thing. But neither is agnosticism anything to do with belief, only a position on whether we can know (more precisely a rejection that we can know by mystically revealed certainty).
So agnosticism is not then a middle ground between atheism and theism, and precludes neither.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)One cannot half way not believe or believe in a diety.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Should agnostics have their own group? And perhaps more significantly, is there a need for one on the basis of divergence as it applies to religion - the overall section of groups in which this one resides?
I can only answer the latter - I simply don't care much about how DU awards groups. But as we agree agnostics are indeed different from atheists. However, correctly defined as we again agree it seems, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists, even if eschewing the label. A rather strained analog might be masculinity and militarism. Most men are militaristic, and most militarists are men, while neither is definitional or universally true of the other.
But what about those who are not both?
Agnostic theists - those who accept that they have no way of knowing that a god exists but choose to believe in one or more from pure faith, certainly are unlikely to be happy or well-served in this group. I'm unsure how many of these people gladly adopt the agnostic label in any case however, but suspect it is few. I very strongly suspect they are and will be much better served by the progressive Xians/other faiths group.
Gnostic atheists (a rarely used term that equates to strong or explicit atheism here used for continuity) who believe that it is possible to know for sure that no gods exist anywhere in reality, despite the lack of universal knowledge, are likely to be happy and well served here. While some explicitly deny agnosticism and others ignore it, I can't recall one who complained about being lumped in with them in a group. I suspect they see it as an alliance rather than a conflation.
A good portion of agnostic atheists like me, who lack any belief but remain open to the possibility however remote and consider the question unanswerable objectively, are fine with either label used correctly, and are perfectly suited here. Some agnostic atheists may not want to be called agnostics themselves, most likely because of the very widespread misuse of the term as an ontological rather than epistemological view (I rarely use it myself for this reason except in detailed discussions like this), but pretty much universally accept the alliance as above.
So far so good with a unified group.
BUT
The issue remains that some who use the label agnostic, even if they accept the definitions as above and will when pushed accept that they are atheists, strongly dislike the term. Reasons vary from fear of offending to a distaste for well-known atheists to a willingness to accept the prevalent misuse and just go along with agnosticism as if it really were a position on god belief like most people believe - sort of a "polite" word for weak atheism. As we have seen some like the OP will continue to twist the meanings to pretend, maybe even to themselves, that agnosticism really IS a belief position rather than a knowledge position. Do they have a divergent enough position on religion to form a separate group effectively?
Overall I think not. Even those repelled by the word atheism mostly accept the same alliance that gnostic atheists do - a shared view that religion should not be established or preferred by the state or normative sociologically. It's very appropriate to critique excessively combative atheism or misguided atheists here as long as that's what is being criticized (Harris' overt antagonism to Muslims is an example) so it's not that the group has a single view that excludes agnostics who prefer to avoid strident anti-religious attitudes. There is occasionally an A vs A spat where accusations of agnostic timidity are traded with those of atheistic misplaced arrogance, but other than a couple of misinformed rants from intentional provocateurs like the OP they largely blow over quickly with limited ill-will.
So - what are your thoughts? Are those who use the agnostic label - other than theistic ones - well served here or are they different enough from atheists to warrant two groups springing from this one? Obviously the inverse can be asked too - are atheists divergent enough to need a group free from those who abandon the label in favor of agnosticism as an ersatz belief position?
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Atheism is the simple and rationally supported idea that no evidence exists to merit a belief in deities.
This is not a "belief system" as our agnostic friends might and this article does claim.
This article has made the rather bold intimation that "the jury is still out on god" so the only rational point of view is agnosticism. Atheists, rightly, make the corollary claim "what jury?". By this reasoning, the jury must be out on other things too, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, yetis, Bigfoot, and Space Aliens in the Bermuda Triangle.
In short, atheists put forth the very legitimate idea that an absence of evidence is in and of itself evidence of absence.
Agnostics seem to want to play with the idea of "not knowing therefore unknown". Following such reasoning permits anything, no matter how improbable, to be deemed possible. How is this position a rational one?
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Haven't seen you around the A&A group. Welcome!
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Posted occasionally, but I tend to let others make the points. Thanks for the words of welcome.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Your first statement applies to both agnostics and atheists. The second point is atheists insist that because no evidence exists to merit a belief in dieties, there aren't any. The agnostic merely states no evidence exists to prove a diety exists. Therefore, unprovable (in any direction one wants to take it).
dmallind
(10,437 posts)But this:
"The second point is atheists insist that because no evidence exists to merit a belief in dieties, there aren't any"
is absolute tosh. The bolded part should correctly read "..there is no reason to believe any exist until evidence is presented."
Withholding belief in the presence of A is not the same as believing A is absent. I do not believe there is a 9' tall person alive. Given the generally increasing height of humans, the large number of people in remote places, and the fact that an 8'11" person has been verified in the past, I absolutely do not take it on faith that none exist, I just need evidence before I believe any do.
I take exactly the same position with gods. I believe in none, but I do not believe their universal absence is a given.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)however, there are those that declare publicly none exists.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)This is not automatically fallacious.
I know that's hard for some self-described agnostics to grasp, but it's true.
I posit the existence of a human being 20 foot tall.
After much searching for evidence of such a person, I find none. Which is the more logical conclusion to draw?
1) No such being currently exists.
2) We do not know if such a being exists, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence therefore, we cannot know.
Two, while seeming to be the most logical, is the least logical. While it may be true that direct proof of nonexistence is not possible, it is reasonable in the dearth of evidence when all reasonable effort has been made to locate direct or indirect evidence for existence that the logical requirements for indirect proof of nonexistence has been made.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)one could not see nor know about them (though I generally agree with what you are saying).
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Way before we knew of subatomic particles, we did not even posit the existence of subatomic particles. Once the idea of the unseeably small became postulated, efforts were made to find them. Evidence was uncovered which pointed to their existence. Further investigation eventually led to the proof.
The difference between subatomic particles and God is that in the case of subatomic particles, evidence led to proof of existence. The facts were there to be discovered. The same cannot be said of God.
Had our investigations been exhaustive and not turned up a scintilla of evidence to suggest the idea of subatomic particles had merit, we could conclude that they simply did not exist. Subatomic particles do exist, therefore, it is likelihood bordering on certainty that they would be found by those with the tools, means, and intellect to find their evidence.
People have been looking for god or gods' footprint on the earth and in the heavens since time immemorial, and the only "evidence" we can seem to muster is "shit's real complex down here" as the prima facie evidence for assertion. In the light of exhaustive searching and no evidence to show to make the case for assertion, the case for negation is made.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)If you are looking for purely deductive proof on non-existence, then the agnostic is correct. However, all reasoning does not fit into the deductive category.
Where deduction fails, induction is often successful. While inductive reasoning often leaves the pure deductionist unsatisfied, it is well accepted as a logical tool.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I read a few paragraphs during the commercial break while watching swimming.
I then wondered why I was reading it. And why there's so much more than four paragraphs of this blathering being so kindly shared.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Rather - they have a theory
States of absolute nothing are highly unstable, and become something soon.
Let Lawrence Krauss explain it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/lawrence-krauss-universe-from-nothing_n_1681113.html
valerief
(53,235 posts)Ha! Sounds like our Treasury.
Neat clip.
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)I've watched it two or three times, even though he takes a few snarky jabs at biologists (I happen to be one). Also, "there being something" is a precondition for the asking of the question, so it's kind of a moot point, innit? 
BrendaBrick
(1,296 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:00 PM - Edit history (2)
Seems to me that the more I know...the less I understand.
Can I get a witness? 
Case in point: This song:
The song makes absolutely no sense at all - just a bunch of random lyrics that Bernie Taupin stringed together because he liked the sound of it, is all...and yet, it has worked on some kind of massive, (dare I say, mysterious) subliminal level for many years now and is a concert favorite...go figure!
Maybe it's somethin' (sort of) akin to that, ya'll ~
It *works* because it touches on something indescribable, yet captures the hearts and minds of many...ya follow?
Bottom line: Perhaps we have more in common with each other on this topic of atheists/agnostics than we thought...when *thoughts* are suspended temporarily and *musicality* is allowed to step in to offer another viewpoint ~
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Where is the idea of "turning science into a new religion" coming from? Oh yeah that's right, it's a complete strawman.
Um, no. I don't understand the insistence that unless you can figure out how "something" came from "nothing", that you must admit there might have been a supernatural being who waved her hands around and maybe a wand or something and POOF! there we go, something. Here's an idea, perhaps many atheists accept we might never find out, yet that doesn't cause them to suddenly decide to start saying, 'Oh! Well in that case, maybe there is a supernatural origin!' (Which would in fact be an example of actual childlike faith.)
Solving difficult problems can be done using science, though it may never solve all problems ever. One thing is certain: No "difficult problems" have ever been "solved" using religion... or whatever other magical type thinking this guy thinks must necessarily take over when science fails.
When it comes to the qusetion of how "something" came from "nothing", nobody gets over the bridge unless they resort to making things up. Which is all well and good in theoretical adventures, yet that doesn't serve as a persuasive argument to decide that since no one has come up with a convincing theory, that there simply must be a supernatural explanation. And I can say quite confidently that any theoretical explanation worth seriously considering will not be supernatural, and if any theory is ever proved, it will be proved by science. Does that certainty indicate that I somehow "worship" science? Is that a type of faith? No, that's understanding how knowledge works.
FFS ... what a steaming load this ranting editorial is.
The funny part is how he thinks it's atheists who are smug. Nice job proving otherwise, guy.
Excellent post. I find it hilarious that the default answer to any question that science doesn't have right now, is somehow proof that something else must have created it....by what twisted logic was that determined to be the answer?
redqueen
(115,186 posts)and which many of us seem well able to deal with rationally but which in many people becomes a real problem. I don't care what kind of supernatural foofaraw anyone wants to entertain, that's their business. I find it entertaining myself to speculate about now and then. It's fun.
But I'll be damned if I'd ever become one of these huffy little self-important jackasses, insisting that anyone who didn't share my predilection for whatever imagined theories was somehow displaying religious tendencies.
I really can't stand the sort of crappy, sloppy thinking displayed in the OP.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is a right wing fundie talking point, which might give us clues about the OP