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

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

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

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

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

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

[Deckard]

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

1) Theism and atheism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Agnosticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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

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

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

Absolutely!

I am human, therefor agnostic. . .

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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

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

[stimpee]

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

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

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

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

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

[stimpee]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

it's uncanny how alike many atheists (not all, but many) evangelize in nearly the same way as christians— i think it derives from the US being a mostly christian society.

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

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

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

That's pretty much all I wanted to mention.

[Strangelet]

religion is like a penis

awesome.

[bas_I_am]

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

 function why(x){
    var answer = because ( x );
    if ( !answer ){
        return God;
    }
    else{
        return why ( answer );
    }
}

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Deckard

1) Theism and atheism

lots of stuff

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

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


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