Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: AtomicClucker on July 02, 2013, 10:48:08 am
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/atheists-monument_n_3523762.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
STARKE, Fla. — A group of atheists unveiled a monument to their nonbelief in God on Saturday to sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County courthouse.
As a small group of protesters blasted Christian country music and waved "Honk for Jesus" signs, the atheists celebrated what they believe is the first atheist monument allowed on government property in the United States.
"When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.
It also serves another function – a counter to the religious monument that the New Jersey-based group wanted removed. It's a case of if you can't beat `em, join `em.
American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away from the courthouse lawn in this rural, conservative north Florida town best known for the prison that confines death row inmates. The Community Men's Fellowship erected the monument in what's described as a free speech zone. During mediation on the case, the atheist group was told it could have its own monument, too.
"We're not going to let them do it without a counterpoint," Silverman said. "If we do it without a counterpoint, it's going to appear very strongly that the government actually endorses one religion over another, or – I should say – religion in general over non-religion."
About 200 people attended the unveiling. Most were supportive, though there were protesters, including a group from Florida League of the South that had signs that said "Yankees Go Home."
"We reject outsiders coming to Florida – especially from outside what we refer to as the Bible Belt – and trying to remake us in their own image," said Michael Tubbs, state chairman of the Florida League of the South. "We do feel like it's a stick in the eye to the Christian people of Florida to have these outsiders come down here with their money and their leadership and promote their outside values here."
After a cover was taken off the 1,500-pound granite bench Saturday, people rushed to have their pictures taken on it. The bench has quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists. It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.
"Some people think it's an attack simply by us exerting our existence. They put a monument on a public lawn that, if you put it in context, says atheists should be killed," Silverman said. "It is an attack, but it's an attack on Christian privilege, not an attack on Christians themselves, and not so much an attack on Christianity."
At one point someone in a car driving by tossed a toilet seat and a roll of toilet paper at the crowd. Neither struck anyone. At another point, Eric Hovind, 35, of Pensacola jumped atop the peak of the monument and shouted his thanks to the atheists for giving him a platform to declare Jesus is real. Atheists shouted at him, and he stepped down after about a minute. One man yelled that religion is a fairy tale.
"The problem is it's not a fairy tale," Hovind said. "We definitely have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."
Hovind and Tubbs did say they respect the right of the group to install the monument, even if they disagree with the message behind it.
And the atheists said they expected protesters.
"There always are," said Rick Wingrove, the director of a Washington D.C.-area office of American Atheists. "We protests their events, they protests our events. As long as everybody's cordial and let people speak. This is our day, not theirs. We're fine with them being here."
A call to the group that sponsored the Ten Commandments monument, the Community Men's Fellowship, wasn't returned. But the group gave Facebook updates on the legal battle with the American Atheists and praised the compromise that allowed them to keep their monument.
"We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters," the group posted.
While Silverman said he believes religion is wrong and teachings in the Bible are violent, he said he welcomes non-Christian religions to follow the atheists' example and put in their own monuments in free-speech zones.
"I will back them because it will be their right," he said. "This is one of the tricks that Christians have used, because they go up and call it a free-speech zone and then they're unopposed. They get their government legitimization because nobody else calls their bluff and puts something in."
-Huffington Post
Ah, cute, funny, and saturated with irony like a Texas grill drenched in barbecue sauce.
On an intellectual note, the humanist in me died a little more after reading this, but the satirist was cackling with an evil glare in its eye. After a couple of snafus with the American Athiest movement and seeing thir public stunts, I understand why many intellectuals treat them like Uncle Cletus and his shotgun to ward of the Commies. I think Carl Sagan is probably hitting his head against a cosmic fence post too.
-
ATHEISTS!
Also, my only gripe? It's an ugly bench.
-
It's pretty ugly, but other than that, where's the issue?
-
That Atheism is a religion now, I guess?
A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion; A particular system of faith and worship
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
-
Just like baldness is a hairstyle, sure. What the hell, an4. You should know better.
-
That Atheism is a religion now, I guess? A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion; A particular system of faith and worship
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity
Oops, guess you forgot about that part.
I fail to see how erecting a monument on government property basically to spite the Christian monument on that same property makes atheism a religion, but whatever.
-
They could definitely use some tips from the religious crowd in the iconography department. The Atheist Atom there is looking a little out of date :lol:
-
I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.
-
They could definitely use some tips from the religious crowd in the iconography department. The Atheist Atom there is looking a little out of date :lol:
Do they really have anything to teach? I don't recall anyone dying in a cross for a long time now.
-
Nice. Religions can have their monuments, so why shouldn't atheists have some? Sure, that bench is ugly, but at the time actual art was still being made, atheism wasn't as popular.
-
I don't practice any religion ( beside Discordianism ;) ) and I can't understand why those Atheist are against the ten commandments.
What's wrong with rules like "You shall not murder" "You shall not steal" "You shall not break a marriage oath"... ?
Is murdering, stealing and screw around behind your partners back a social acceptable behaviour for those atheists ?
The ten commandments are IMHO the least problematic part in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
-
I'd guess it has to do with the first three commandments, Al Rik. Ever read them?
-
I don't practice any religion ( beside Discordianism ;) ) and I can't understand why those Atheist are against the ten commandments.
It's not about the commandments, it's about a monument related to religion.
Also, if you don't believe in God, you'll be able to easily follow the first 3 commandments (at least, the translation I know). Nowhere do they say you have to believe in God.
1. Thou shall not have any gods before me. - Well, you don't have any gods at all, so check.
2. Thou shall not call my name in vain. - Well, what's the point of calling a name of a nonexistent being? Check.
3. Remember to celebrate the holy days. - That's the most ideologically problematic of the bunch, but unless you're a die-hard atheist, you probably celebrate holidays such as xmas and easter just because of tradition. Besides, who doesn't like a Christmas tree and presents, or Easter Bunny and egg painting/chocolate egg hunt (depending on where you are). So I also follow that one. :)
-
Of course they are "easy" to follow. I just shouldn't have to.
-
The problem with the Ten Commandments is that they're religious laws posted by what should be a secular building. It doesn't matter if they're easy to follow or not, they have no place there.
-
While Silverman said he believes religion is wrong and teachings in the Bible are violent, he said he welcomes non-Christian religions to follow the atheists' example and put in their own monuments in free-speech zones.
I respect them for encouraging this.
-
They could definitely use some tips from the religious crowd in the iconography department. The Atheist Atom there is looking a little out of date :lol:
Do they really have anything to teach? I don't recall anyone dying in a cross for a long time now.
Totally, when it comes to summing up your brand message in a single iconic symbol, the major world religions have it down to a science ;)
This particular atheist logo looks like a reject that the cover artist might have come up with for the original Avengers comic. The silly font, the outdated model of the atom (which seems to have one of its orbitals cut off at the bottom, maybe it's an error?), even the fact that it uses a character from a particular alphabet makes it less universal than the emblem of a global movement should be. Even second-string religious icons like the Jesus fish or the Menorah curb stomp this sorry logo.
****, why isn't the logo itself an image of a bench? That would be awesome.
-
Alright that's it. We need a monument to Nuke now.
-
Nice. Religions can have their monuments, so why shouldn't atheists have some? Sure, that bench is ugly, but at the time actual art was still being made, atheism wasn't as popular.
Because as much of Christian and an Atheist (yes I claim to be one in point of view and rationality, it's complex so don't ask), the monument looks stupid as hell, not too mention that organizations has more in common with high school hijinks with bus billboards then serious discussion and dialogue about religion. Overall I think the movement is made by stupid for stupid. They are really light on dialogue because that involves a dangerous dose of philosophy and philosophers in the dirt, and with Americans, it does make some sense, we are stupid and ignorant at heart XD.
-
At one point someone in a car driving by tossed a toilet seat and a roll of toilet paper at the crowd. Neither struck anyone. At another point, Eric Hovind, 35, of Pensacola jumped atop the peak of the monument and shouted his thanks to the atheists for giving him a platform to declare Jesus is real. Atheists shouted at him, and he stepped down after about a minute. One man yelled that religion is a fairy tale.
Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, who is in jail for tax evasion. Remember, "Thou shalt not steal" is optional.
-
I actually don't mind the bench. It's a lot more interesting than I imagined.
-
I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.
This. So much this.
I think we should work to make atheism as valid and acceptable of a philosophy as any religion in the general public's eye, and exercising the right to erect monuments and such is a good way to do it. (For the time being, at least. In the long run, I think monuments to non-belief are kind of missing the point. :p) But the way they're going about it here feels like at best fighting on the same level.
It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.
This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow. The whole thing is a nice idea that just reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism and makes me want to distance myself from the actual label "atheist" much like Neil Tyson does.
If it were up to me, I'd rather go the subversive route. Put up a sculpture celebrating the beauty of nature or something, and then when people stroll over to take a closer look, it has a small plaque with one of the nicer secular quotes on it and "donated by American Atheists". We should push the positives, like helping your fellow man for its own sake and appreciating the inherent wonder of the universe, rather than have a pissing match about who's more wrong.
e: Also, the "capital A and hundred year old atomic model" logo is dumb.
e2: I missed the picture section. Looks like they got a couple good quotes on there, but I still say it's tacky overall. :p
-
This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow.
I definitely don't consider pointing the stupid parts of those divinely inspired holy texts 'low-brow.' If you are going to base your worldview on something so dumb and outdated, you deserve to have it rubbed in your face on every occasion.
-
I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.
This. So much this.
I think we should work to make atheism as valid and acceptable of a philosophy as any religion in the general public's eye, and exercising the right to erect monuments and such is a good way to do it. (For the time being, at least. In the long run, I think monuments to non-belief are kind of missing the point. :p) But the way they're going about it here feels like at best fighting on the same level.
It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.
This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow. The whole thing is a nice idea that just reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism and makes me want to distance myself from the actual label "atheist" much like Neil Tyson does.
If it were up to me, I'd rather go the subversive route. Put up a sculpture celebrating the beauty of nature or something, and then when people stroll over to take a closer look, it has a small plaque with one of the nicer secular quotes on it and "donated by American Atheists". We should push the positives, like helping your fellow man for its own sake and appreciating the inherent wonder of the universe, rather than have a pissing match about who's more wrong.
I've embraced old school intellectual atheism [it rocks] as both an excellent POV and system of rationality, but am quite saddened at the level of low brow tactics and idiocy that has taken hold of Atheism at mainstream. Instead of engaging in humanism, we get "knock offs" like secularist humanism that is essentially the same thing, but a certain level of religiophobia has taken hold in the ranks. Simply put, many Atheists can't approach religion or even the topic without resorting to purile or juvenile tactics. Then when you drag in philosophy, then eyes glaze and Sartre does another rotation in his grave.
It may sound biased, but I've started to seriously wonder if Atheism is starting to become anti-intellectual as well.
-
reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism
I considered adding "like Turambar" after that part in the original post, but thought calling out specific people was taking it too far. I think taking an aggressive approach like that is not only ineffective but also actively hurting the cause.
-
Don't worry, I'm an Antitheist, so the labels don't get confused.
-
I am defeated. You've won.
-
Putting up an atheist monument isn't really proof it's a free speech zone. That will be proved when the Satan worshippers ask to put one up.
-
I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.
Imagine the uproar if a Christian group (or Muslim group, or any other group you could care to name) had erected this bench, but instead had inscribed "Athiests are going to burn in hell" or other similarly deliberate antagonistic or combative phrase.
I'm not going to be the one to say that religious groups can do no wrong, but I absolutely feel like there's somewhat of a double standard going here.
-
I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.
Imagine the uproar if a Christian group (or Muslim group, or any other group you could care to name) had erected this bench, but instead had inscribed "Athiests are going to burn in hell" or other similarly deliberate antagonistic or combative phrase.
I'm not going to be the one to say that religious groups can do no wrong, but I absolutely feel like there's somewhat of a double standard going here.
The impression I got from the whole endeavor was that erecting the Ten Commandments was insulting, but the builders were too narrow minded to realize this. They assumed that this was some how a universal good, when it was not. The atheist bench was erected to point this fact out. Unfortunately, I don't think the intended audience will fully grasp (or be able to appreciate) what is being said.
-
Actually the reason behind the Ten Commandments statue was to publicise the Cecil B. DeMille film. :p
Seriously, I **** you not (http://www.shaheenlawoffice.com/the-ten-commandments-monument).
I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.
You mean you think the people who claimed the Ten Commandments statue was free speech would be okay with a tasteful Satanic statue? :p
-
That's the difference, though, isn't it? Tasteful? If the Satanists aren't trying to be dicks about it, I see absolutely no problem with it.
The problem here is that this group apparently was trying to be dicks about it with a such a deliberate jab.
-
But that's the problem of atheism. If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left. There is no atheist mantra. The only thing that "unites" atheists is their non-religiosity, so I see no problems when one atheist group gathers a lot of quotes justifying the non-religiosity of their country. I see that as patriotic, even.
-
If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.
That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.
-
there are reasons i do not call myself an atheist. most of the atheists are thumping science as their religion. most of them dont really do science, or even understand science. they still have faith, but not in deities or prophets but in scientists and like minded philosophers, the intellectual works of which become their bible. by this definition the scientists become the prophets and the laws of the universe become god and you got a ****ing religion.
the whole point of atheism is t break down the walls caused by religion, not to put up new ones. if science papers become scripture then what happens when evidence is found that is contrary to their findings. do those scientists become heretics? will atheism take over the role of suppressing science? this is not good. atheism should be beyond the realm of propaganda, symbolism, and blind faith that religion currently thrives on.
Alright that's it. We need a monument to Nuke now.
they are all over the place theres one in every american nuclear missiole silo.
-
If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.
That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.
Not as a person. As an atheist, yes you haven't anything left.
For instance, if you happen to be an humanist on top of being an atheist, you'll have lots of other really interesting things to say. Etc.
-
If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.
That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.
Not as a person. As an atheist, yes you haven't anything left.
For instance, if you happen to be an humanist on top of being an atheist, you'll have lots of other really interesting things to say. Etc.
So you're saying that not believing in imaginary people makes you a dick? I think you're confusing your distaste of public displays with an entire group of people.
-
No, I'm saying that the Atheist part of me *is* a dick. By necessity. This atheist guy inside me is always saying stuff like "Come on you don't really believe this ridiculous **** now do you?", and I have to stop it before it starts talking aloud or in words.
-
I think that says more about you, than it says about atheists.
Atheism is simply about not believing. Nothing more. Being a condescending douchebag about it is not a requirement.
-
Ok I'll bite, tell me something exclusively atheistic that isn't about dismissing, ridiculing, refuting, negating, facepalming, etc. any religious mode of thought.
The best you can ever hope to do is to take theology somewhat seriously, but even that exercise is filled with poison and madness if one's an atheist.
e: Hey, I said "dick", you are saying "Condescending douchebag". Pay attention.
-
Atheism is simply about saying "There's no proof of a god, so the default belief should be that there is no god." No part of that requires you to be a dick. Any more than saying "There is a god and his name is....." requires you to be a dick.
What causes people to be dicks is the way they go about stating either of those. Stating you're a Christian doesn't mean you're being a dick to Hindus. So why should saying that you don't believe in a god make you a dick to either?
-
That's absolutely dickish. Look, I understand what you mean, that the basic line of just saying "Sorry I am not a christian" should not be seen as dickish.
Regrettably, it is seen by many religious people as dickish. Even insulting. What do you mean, you don't believe in God? Are you some kind of ATHIEST [sic] Immoral creep? So no, I don't think there's this "world" where being an atheist isn't insulting to other people. Perhaps we are slowly coming to such a world but not yet. As of 2013, atheists are still dicks.
But I'm diggressing. So let me ask you something. How would you go about doing an "atheist" monument? I have an idea let's see if yours is equal... :D
-
Ok I'll bite, tell me something exclusively atheistic that isn't about dismissing, ridiculing, refuting, negating, facepalming, etc. any religious mode of thought.
"I don't have evidence that leads me to belief that your God exists, but I respect that you have your own reasons for holding your beliefs."
In fact, that's pretty much atheism in a nutshell. Contrast with agnostics (me):
"I don't have enough data to make any determination about the existence of absence of deities, but you obviously do and that's OK too."
The lack of religious belief - be it among atheist or agnostics - does not by its very nature mean all agnostics or atheists are automatically being dicks.
-
"I don't have evidence that leads me to belief that your God exists, but I respect that you have your own reasons for holding your beliefs."
That's condescending. No way around it (not a bad thing also).
In fact, that's pretty much atheism in a nutshell. Contrast with agnostics (me):
"I don't have enough data to make any determination about the existence of absence of deities, but you obviously do and that's OK too."
This is what I never got about "agnostics". They claim to be different from atheists, but then I cannot see any difference whatsoever.
But more to the point, what's really funny is that agnosticism was precisely invented as a concept because Atheism was just too dickish at the time of Darwin, and it was hurting his hypothesis, etc.
-
To be honest, people really need to sort out what the term means. What MP-Ryan describes is what I've often heard called Weak Atheism. Agnostics on the other hand are people who supposedly do believe in the existence of a god but believe that it is either
a) Unknown
or
b) Unknowable
I tend to agree with this definition more because if you go with MP-Ryan's you end up lumping the people who do believe in a god with those who don't. Separating atheism into strong and weak at least puts them under the same title.
That's absolutely dickish. Look, I understand what you mean, that the basic line of just saying "Sorry I am not a christian" should not be seen as dickish.
Regrettably, it is seen by many religious people as dickish. Even insulting. What do you mean, you don't believe in God? Are you some kind of ATHIEST [sic] Immoral creep? So no, I don't think there's this "world" where being an atheist isn't insulting to other people. Perhaps we are slowly coming to such a world but not yet. As of 2013, atheists are still dicks.
I think that's a pretty poor way of describing someone for pointing out their point of view. Especially as you're basically saying any Hindu in America is also a dick by the same reasoning.
But I'm diggressing. So let me ask you something. How would you go about doing an "atheist" monument? I have an idea let's see if yours is equal... :D
I think MP-Ryan provided a couple of the sort of quotes that should be on an atheist monument. Get a lot more of those sorts of thing.
-
That's condescending. No way around it (not a bad thing also).
Not necessarily. I grant you that there are some pretty sensitive religious people who might take it that way, but I know a fair number of people who hold religious beliefs that don't.
This is what I never got about "agnostics". They claim to be different from atheists, but then I cannot see any difference whatsoever.
But more to the point, what's really funny is that agnosticism was precisely invented as a concept because Atheism was just too dickish at the time of Darwin, and it was hurting his hypothesis, etc.
The difference is this: atheists have a lack of belief (by definition of the word roots), and typically deny the existence of deities (and supernatural forces) altogether. Agnostics are fence-sitters and confess they lack data to substantiate or refute the existence of deities, and prefer the "keep my mouth shut until I have more information to work with" paradigm.
I don't deny the existence of the Christian God, for example. I simply tell Christians that I don't have any evidence of the Christian God's existence, so I don't believe in it at this juncture, nor do I believe it doesn't exist either. I make no claims on whether or not such a God actually exists, mostly because I suspect we'll never have the data to support or refute that hypothesis. I happen to believe that agnosticism is the more scientifically-sound philosophical position of the two because it makes no claims either way because there is no data available. Theists believe there is data and thus believe in their gods; atheists believe there is data to the contrary and thus do not believe in any god; agnostics don't think either of the former have any idea what they're talking about and would like someone to come up with some convincing evidence either way before they render an opinion. Like I said.... fence-sitters :P
Also, agnosticism may have been coined as a term by Huxley in 1869, but it's been around much longer.
-
To be honest, people really need to sort out what the term means. What MP-Ryan describes is what I've often heard called Weak Atheism. Agnostics on the other hand are people who supposedly do believe in the existence of a god but believe that it is either
a) Unknown
or
b) Unknowable
Not according to Huxley. Hume, Kant, and Kirkegaard wrote similarly (at least, according to Wikipedia; I generally stayed away from their writings at University :P)
Agnosticism may often be called weak atheism, but there is a difference. Atheists maintain that gods do not exist. Agnostics believe they don't know either way.
As with most of their philosophical entries, Wikipedia'a article on the subject is an excellent primer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
-
To be honest, people really need to sort out what the term means. What MP-Ryan describes is what I've often heard called Weak Atheism. Agnostics on the other hand are people who supposedly do believe in the existence of a god but believe that it is either
a) Unknown
or
b) Unknowable
I tend to agree with this definition more because if you go with MP-Ryan's you end up lumping the people who do believe in a god with those who don't. Separating atheism into strong and weak at least puts them under the same title.
I have a similar scheme in my mind.
1) Agnosticism is about the absence of certainty one way or the other.
2) Theism is the belief that God exists.
3) Atheism is the lack of belief that God exists.
4) Both 2) and 3) are compatible with 1)
5) Gnosticism is the certainty of a belief.
6) Both 2) and 3) are compatible with 5).
I think that's a pretty poor way of describing someone for pointing out their point of view. Especially as you're basically saying any Hindu in America is also a dick by the same reasoning.
Except that isn't true. There's no greater sin than being an atheist. Christians and Hindus and whatever have some kind of mutual respect. They fervently fear/hate the absence of religious belief altogether.
I think MP-Ryan provided a couple of the sort of quotes that should be on an atheist monument. Get a lot more of those sorts of thing.
Ah. Na, don't like that. I'd place the 2001's monolith there instead.
-
Agnosticism may often be called weak atheism, but there is a difference. Atheists maintain that gods do not exist. Agnostics believe they don't know either way.
That's not really useful at all. I've yet to meet an atheist that is absolutely sure that "gods do not exist". When they say "God does not exist", they are speaking about the God in contextual question, namely the Christian for example. We have ample evidence that he is man-made. How sure can we be of this? Well, how sure can we be of anything really? Unless you are going the radical skepticism way and be coherent with your criteria, then I submit that it is not at all premature to tentatively conclude that the Christian God does not exist.
So most atheists, and pretty much all prominent atheists are always "agnostics" deep down. We all are. Hell, I'm deeply Relativist myself. But that doesn't help anyone if they want to know what we think on the matter. "Fence Sitters" also doesn't help much, because that gives the impression that the evidence for the, say, Christian god is as good as the evidence against him. And that's bollocks. Hell, if you really thought that way, I'd advise you immediately to go the Pascal Wager's route and become a Christian yourself, or else you have a 50/50 chance of going to hell. But ponder that for a moment, do you really think the odds are like that? No, of course you don't.
I happen to believe that agnosticism is the more scientifically-sound philosophical position of the two because it makes no claims either way because there is no data available.
There's a ****ton of data available wrt to the question of the Christian god, what the hell are you talking about.
-
Agnosticism may often be called weak atheism, but there is a difference. Atheists maintain that gods do not exist. Agnostics believe they don't know either way.
That's not really useful at all. I've yet to meet an atheist that is absolutely sure that "gods do not exist". When they say "God does not exist", they are speaking about the God in contextual question, namely the Christian for example. We have ample evidence that he is man-made. How sure can we be of this? Well, how sure can we be of anything really? Unless you are going the radical skepticism way and be coherent with your criteria, then I submit that it is not at all premature to tentatively conclude that the Christian God does not exist.
So most atheists, and pretty much all prominent atheists are always "agnostics" deep down. We all are. Hell, I'm deeply Relativist myself. But that doesn't help anyone if they want to know what we think on the matter. "Fence Sitters" also doesn't help much, because that gives the impression that the evidence for the, say, Christian god is as good as the evidence against him. And that's bollocks. Hell, if you really thought that way, I'd advise you immediately to go the Pascal Wager's route and become a Christian yourself, or else you have a 50/50 chance of going to hell. But ponder that for a moment, do you really think the odds are like that? No, of course you don't.
There's a ****ton of data available wrt to the question of the Christian god, what the hell are you talking about.
Your last line just contradicted your entire previous content, and this is why agnostics and atheists are different.
I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that would support the evidence of gods, Christian or otherwise. Similarly, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence from the other side of the debate that conclusively refutes the evidence of gods, Christian or otherwise. Both sides seek to present a hypothesis: God does not exist OR God does exist. Agnostics don't have a stake either way. I realize most atheists frame this as "you do not have evidence of gods, therefore the null hypothesis is true" but by that argument their position would be better explained as "I don't have data that shows me God exists" instead of "I don't believe in God," which are two VERY different philosophical statements.
Incidentally, I happen to find my belief system tends to attract less flak from both theists and atheists, in addition to being slightly more scientifically valid than the typical atheist's statements on the subject. To flesh this out further, I have just as much trouble with the statement "God probably does not exist" as I do the statement "God probably does exist." I don't think anyone has enough knowledge to make either claim. Then again, maybe they do, in which case they are welcome to whatever beliefs they want so long as they don't try to force them on me.
-
I tend to agree with Dawkins on the point that people who claim to be permanent agnostics are often guilty of intellectual cowardice. Atheists generally do not believe with 100% certainty in the non-existence of god and it's quite dishonest to present them as such.
Except that isn't true. There's no greater sin than being an atheist. Christians and Hindus and whatever have some kind of mutual respect. They fervently fear/hate the absence of religious belief altogether.
That is however a lack on the part of the Christian or Hindu, and not on the part of the Atheist. To say that the Atheist is being a dick for the reactions of other people is like blaming a black man for people being racist towards him.
As for the whole definition thing. I'll just completely screw it up by linking to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). :p
-
I never said life is fair.
-
I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that would support the evidence of gods, Christian or otherwise. Similarly, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence from the other side of the debate that conclusively refutes the evidence of gods, Christian or otherwise. Both sides seek to present a hypothesis: God does not exist OR God does exist. Agnostics don't have a stake either way.
To answer the question "Is there a God", we must first define what "God" means. Now we can be a cynic and state we are some kind of ignostics on these matters, but that's just trolling so let's not go there. We do know what the God according to Christians mean. And if so, we do have a ****ton of data on whether if all the characteristics usually attributed to this God, his historical evidences, and so on are true or not. It's not my fault if you are oblivious to this deluge of data concerning this question, but you just force me to point that one out.
Is it true that prayer works? If the Christian God exists, the answer *should* be yes.
Are the events as told by the Bible minimally true wrt to the relationship between this God and its chosen people?
Well, just look at all the studies made surrounding this very question. You can start here:
And on and on and on and on and on....
-
As for the whole definition thing. I'll just completely screw it up by linking to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). :p
This is a perfect example of why, when philosophy enters a discussion, everyone loses :P
At the end of the day, my position does agree with a lot of atheists in that I usually say something to the effect of "Show me the data!" It's just that I enjoy saying it to militant atheists just as much as religious fundamentalists =)
-
-snip-
The absence of data supporting the existence of the Christian God does not provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that there is not a Christian God. You don't - and can't - know either way.
Welcome to agnosticism, Luis =) Drinks may or may not be at the side table. Snacks may or may not be provided later. We may or may not be joined by some other "atheists" later on today, depending how the discussion does or does not go :P
/me runs before Luis does or does not try to see if he fits in Schroedinger's box.
-
The absence of data supporting the existence of the Christian God does not provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that there is not a Christian God. You don't - and can't - know either way.
Welcome to agnosticism, Luis =) Drinks may or may not be at the side table. Snacks may or may not be provided later. We may or may not be joined by some other "atheists" later on today, depending how the discussion does or does not go :P
Perhaps this thread is a testament that probably atheists aren't necessarily dicks, but gods look at agnosticism!
YES, MP, we cannot be certain either way. That ain't AGNOSTICISM. That's ****ing common sense. Dawkins (arg, who do you force me to quote!) says rightly here:
"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
So now someone could come up and say "Well aren't you just too sure of yourself here by proclaiming there aren't fairies out there? What a bunch of arrogant afairisits! I'm not one of those, I'm an agnostic on that matter!"
Insert random infinite "agnostic" questions about the universe. Hell, are you even sure there's such thing as "Global Warming"? Let's all be agnostic on the matter coz, you know, we can't be certain either way. In that path lies madness.
So if you OTOH regard the Christian God question as "mostly solved", then you are a de facto atheist. Just accept it and stop with the condescending nonsense.
-
I still say I'm an atheist cause quite frankly it makes the most linguistic sense. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. Same as someone who is asexual lacks certain sexual characteristics or someone who is amoral lacks morals. As far as I'm concerned trying to say that someone who is an atheist must actively disbelieve in god is linguistically incorrect.
An asexual doesn't necessarily purposefully display characteristics of both sexes, nor does someone amoral have to deliberately go out of their way to show behaviour that is considered to not be moral (that's someone who is immoral).
So in the end we have two overlapping definitions. Claiming you are agnostic simply tells people that you don't believe that whether god exists or not is known. Claiming you are atheistic tells people that you don't believe in god. Given that you can be agnostic and believe in the existence of a god, the latter is the more useful definition in every day life.
Saying you're agnostic doesn't actually answer the simple question "What do you believe in?" Saying you're an atheist does.
-
Saying you're agnostic doesn't actually answer the simple question "What do you believe in?" Saying you're an atheist does.
That's kind of the point, folks =)
-
That's also why it is widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.
-
I still say I'm an atheist cause quite frankly it makes the most linguistic sense. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. Same as someone who is asexual lacks certain sexual characteristics or someone who is amoral lacks morals. As far as I'm concerned trying to say that someone who is an atheist must actively disbelieve in god is linguistically incorrect.
An asexual doesn't necessarily purposefully display characteristics of both sexes, nor does someone amoral have to deliberately go out of their way to show behaviour that is considered to not be moral (that's someone who is immoral).
"Asexual" (among humans, anyway) means "has no sex drive", not "androgynous". I'll grant that this is confusing given that biology uses the more literal definition (as in "asexual reproduction").
-
In that path lies madness.
At least for a certain Portugese HLP member, it seems. Your responses are making me chuckle more and more - this doesn't have to exasperate you, Luis ;)
That's also why it is widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.
That's OK, the probability that atheists are scientifically incorrect in their beliefs is much higher than the probability that agnostics are incorrect. :P
You atheists need to quit pressuring agnostics to take sides. We're comfortable on the fence. The view is lovely, and people aren't generally as angry. We may or may not have cake and drinks up here too. Certainly, the local cats are alive (but also dead). We don't even know how far the fall is, because every time we measure it it seems to change on us. No matter. Or maybe matter. Possibly antimatter. Might be dark too? Can't be sure. Ask us if the scientific evidence starts to lean one way or the other. Presumably our fence is eventually going to fall in one direction or another, but probably not in my lifetime.
Before someone thinks I'm trolling, please read that last paragraph very carefully.
-
That's OK, the probability that atheists are scientifically incorrect in their beliefs is much higher than the probability that agnostics are incorrect. :P
Agnostics are never incorrect. They are never correct either.
Problem is that if you don't go to mass, repent and kneel to Jesus, you are a de facto atheist to Yaweh.
You atheists need to quit pressuring agnostics to take sides. We're comfortable on the fence. The view is lovely, and people aren't generally as angry. We may or may not have cake and drinks up here too. Certainly, the local cats are alive (but also dead). We don't even know how far the fall is, because every time we measure it it seems to change on us. No matter. Or maybe matter. Possibly antimatter. Might be dark too? Can't be sure. Ask us if the scientific evidence starts to lean one way or the other. Presumably our fence is eventually going to fall in one direction or another, but probably not in my lifetime.
Before someone thinks I'm trolling, please read that last paragraph very carefully.
Not at all. Reminds me of the ruler of the universe in the Hitchhiker's Guide. It's just hilariously ridiculous.
-
It's just hilariously ridiculous.
Now now, are you really calling philosophers and scientists who advanced this philosophical bent (and its is philosophy), including the likes of Schroedinger and Heisenberg, ridiculous?
The line of reasoning is fundamentally the same - there are a lot of things we don't know, and can't know, and therefore (while we can make educated guesses), there's nothing wrong with saying we don't and can't know. It's honest, not ridiculous. This is where I notice a number of very rational, very good scientists (Dawkins included) regularly overstep themselves. In a rush to counter the bat**** lunacy that stems from the religious crowd, they bend some of their own principles. That irks me. If you don't and can't know, admit that. It's not a fault in your reasoning; in point of fact it's the ultimate acknowledgment of the power of science.
-
widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.
Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.
-
I don't think it's honest, no. I think that if someone asks me "Do you believe in God", I think it's preposterous to start indulging in philosophical shenanigans when the only thing he wants to know is if I believe in the Christian God (or muslim or whatever) or not. To start saying "Well I don't know really, I mean I have no clue either way...", is either a lie or blatant admission of sheer ignorance of all the evidence put forth for both pro and contra the idea.
There is always a moment when you must decide you know enough to make a conscious decision on what to believe or disbelieve. You do this all the time regarding everything else. You also decided that this issue is "different" somehow. And that's the bull****. There is no qualitative difference at all. If you then say "But I can't ever say there is no God", well then how do you solve the Golden Teapot between the orbit of Venus and Mercury question? Do you partake in the ridiculous fence-sitting of "Well technically...." oh come on. That's just hubris to the highest degree.
At least I'm being honest and down to earth regarding what I believe. You just pretend you can be some kind of super-objective hyper-relativist mega-fair and Schrodingerizing everything and everyone, when whenever I read your other comments it's clear you never behave, think or write like that. You just have your own beliefs backed up by your experience and evidence or whatever and are just assertive about them. Then you make an exception to this one question out of... nothing really.
Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.
Who said anything about "threat"?
-
widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.
Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.
Well, as you can see in this thread there are many shades of atheist out there. Those that believe the philosophy necessitates being a dick would probably have a beef with agnostics... and everyone else too. :p
-
widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.
Is there any truth in this? It's the first I've ever heard of atheists having a problem with agnostics. Aren't atheists generally just happy to get on with their lives as long as religion doesn't intrude into their lives? Agnostics are no threat.
Well, as you can see in this thread there are many shades of atheist out there. Those that believe the philosophy necessitates being a dick would probably have a beef with agnostics... and everyone else too. :p
Oh, okay. I've never met an atheist that falls into that category. It's always been the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" kind of thing. I guess the "dick atheists" are much like the religious types who want to jam their beliefs down everyone else's throat, whether they like it or not.
-
Not exactly like that. It's more like, I think atheism is a dick ideology of a sort, but by definition, by its nature. Because basically it's saying to all the religions out there, "You know, that's just all bull****". And sometimes that's necessary. I didn't say that I wanted to be a dick, nor that I am one. I said that the atheist in me is dickish in that sense. I don't go out preaching atheism for some years now, and I never did that "whether they like it or not".
-
You could say that about any religion though, couldn't you? That no matter what you believe, it means you believe most of the World is wrong.
And I don't think there's anything "dickish" in that.
Although if you actually say straight out to someone "You know, that's just all bull****" then it is.
-
Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?
Also, mandatory youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqw-idOwUc
-
You just pretend you can be some kind of super-objective hyper-relativist mega-fair and Schrodingerizing everything and everyone, when whenever I read your other comments it's clear you never behave, think or write like that. You just have your own beliefs backed up by your experience and evidence or whatever and are just assertive about them. Then you make an exception to this one question out of... nothing really.
You seem to have a fundamental misconception about the way I think about the world.
In order to believe that something must be true, I accept there must be evidence that it is true. Conversely, for me to believe something is false - or better put, the opposite to be true, I require evidence of that. If I have no evidence, then I typically don't render firm judgement either way. In this context, I'll argue just as vehemently against someone who asserts there is no God as someone who asserts there is. I don't have a problem with atheists who claim there is no enough evidence to substantiate the existence of God because that is half of my belief set.
If a person believes something to be true, or the opposite of that thing to be true, then either they have evidence for it or they're full of crap. This does not mean I have a problem with believing something should be treated as false because of a lack of evidence that it is true (this is the scientific method); it's just an overstep to then assert that the opposite is true (the opposite may be true or false).
Experimental hypothesis: "The Christian God exists."
Null hypothesis: The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.
Experimental hypothesis: "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis: The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.
Note that neither case actually says if the opposite is true when the experimental hypothesis fails. This is an important distinction, because science is never about just two options; we merely frame hypothesis testing that way for the purpose of the scientific method. There technically exists a conceptual space where both experimental hypotheses fail and both nulls are adopted. Is this paradoxical? Absolutely - if we can't find evidence that something exists, then we should immediately be able to prove it does not exist according to conventional thought, but that is not the way science works. Take the Higgs-Boson: its existence and function was predicted for years, yet could never be proven, yet could never be disproven (Hi Schroedinger, you're appearing a lot around here lately). Finally we found evidence that indeed supports its existence. Paradox resolved. Possible with God? Unlikely. From a rationalist philosophical perspective, God and Schroedinger's Cat are one and the same.
-
Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?
He didn't say that.
In fact I'd say all that is an extension of
... if you actually say straight out to someone "You know, that's just all bull****" then it is [being a dick]
-
If I can swing this back to the original topic for a moment, I have to chuckle at the fact that this group has just constructed a monument that, by its very definition, is dedicated to nothing. Like, if they had decided to make a big sculpture of a brain, with the quote "Humans are awesome!", that would actually be saying something, and would be pretty cool to boot. As it stands, the bench isn't doing anything so much as antagonizing the previously-existing monument.
(There's also the little fact that half the people they quoted on it were at the very least Deists, but we'll let that slide.)
-
Of course there isn't anything dickish about the Cruzades, the Fatwas, the suicide bombers... yeah those religious people are all behaving nicely with each other ain't them?
I don't know why you're saying that.
Anyway, I just wanted to know about the agnostic thing.
-
Like, if they had decided to make a big sculpture of a brain, with the quote "Humans are awesome!", that would actually be saying something, and would be pretty cool to boot.
You've got me thinking what could have been put there instead now. How about a wheel, the most important human invention? And going clockwise around the wheel key moments in the advancement of the human race over the centuries from ancient times to today?
-
MP, your "null hypothesis" scheme makes my point, you are basically conceding that what you have to say about the Christian God is that "it's all bull****". That's atheism. That's not "Strong Atheism". All "prominent atheists" or "militant atheists" don't give a damn about that latter question. If you search for their thoughts on the latter, you will always find they are amazingly imaginative to what may or may not be after death. Paraphrasing the late Christopher Hitchens quoting Star Wars, "Luke tells Solo he will get a prize beyond his wild imagination, to which he responds back, I can imagine quite a lot", and that's the obvious problem in all religious beliefs. The atheist is not someone parading his higher epistemological ethics stating the obvious fact that this unknown may never be solved, the atheist is someone who tells the priests they can't possibly know any of what they are saying, aka, it's all bull****.
--
Sorry Mongoose, for the slight devation of topic. As I said before, my preference would have been to place the black monolith from 2001. That would have been awesome.
-
MP, your "null hypothesis" scheme makes my point, you are basically conceding that what you have to say about the Christian God is that "it's all bull****".
That is not at all what my previous post said. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1697853#msg1697853)
-
Experimental hypothesis: "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis: The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.
Ah I see. So it's a problem of ignorance of the evidence hanging around us. That has an easy solution: stop parading your fence sitting and educate yourself. There.
-
Experimental hypothesis: "The Christian God does not exist."
Null hypothesis: The experimental hypothesis is false.
Poor evidence presented for the experimental hypothesis; it fails; the null hypothesis is adopted.
Ah I see. So it's a problem of ignorance of the evidence hanging around us. That has an easy solution: stop parading your fence sitting and educate yourself. There.
You're proving your own point from pages 2 and 3, Luis. As for "ignorance of the evidence," I politely suggest that taking this thread theological is a spectacularly bad idea, and I don't see responding to this leading in any other direction. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself - that breaks another rule of the scientific method.
-
No, positive evidence is, for instance, evidence that any depiction of the Christian God is man made without divine inspiration. If you research how the bible was constructed over the hundreds of years then it becomes more than obvious to you that this God isn't "real", or if it is, it's by sheer arbitrary luck.
There are plenty of "positive evidences" like this, in the sense not that "Christian God does not exist" but that a concept of God was created for a political purpose in a very specific time and space, or that the concept of God itself is a psychological social construct, etc., etc.
It's not as if the lack of evidence is enough, it's that we have better - in the scientific sense - explanations on how these gods came to be.
-
I stopped reading when I got to here.
I still say I'm an atheist cause quite frankly it makes the most linguistic sense. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god... As far as I'm concerned trying to say that someone who is an atheist must actively disbelieve in god is linguistically incorrect.
And then I realized the thread went on a tangent and won't be coming back soon. So I'll go on another tangent! I'm an atheist and a Humanist. And when I meet an agnostic, I treat them like fellow atheists because there really isn't a difference in that regard (I'm of the sort that believes that weak Atheism is the same as Agnosticism). The only thing I have to change is that instead of calling them atheists, I call them agnostics out of respect.
I believe agnostics do take a side. They're clearly not undecided nor in the middle. To me, they share the exact same beliefs as atheists but are politically safe about it. That might not be how other agnostics view themselves, but that's fine too. I once claimed to be agnostic, but then I realized there isn't any reason I should deny what I believe is true.
By the way, I share the same view that karajorma has on atheism. To be atheist is to lack a belief in god. That is not to say that if we can prove there is a god, I will actively deny the god's existence. If science can somehow prove that god(s) exists, then I will believe in one (or many). But without actual proof, I will say that I'm reasonably sure there is no god.
Compare "There's probably no god" to "There might (not) be a god." To me, they're the same. If you don't have a religion yet, that says a lot about what you want to believe.
Compare "There is no god" to "There's probably no god." Still the same.
Not so much of a stretch to go from "There is no god" to "There might or might not be a god."
-
Well, negating the existence of any kind of god is childish, you should at least be unconclusive about it. As of Gödel's incompletness theorems, any logical-mathematical (dare I say human) construction can't prove itself nor prove anything beyond it to be true, so there's no way to negate any concept exterior to your paradigm.
And Ockham's razor is not the best way to go either. It'll only do good to simplify your model if the information is complete (and I just said it can't be). Positive evidence is also a big logical falacy.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just saying you have no valid proof either way and so you have choosen to believe what you believe. Most agnostics I've met state that they haven't made any choice, that theirs is the only "logical conclusion". I simply don't agree.
And saying "Something <may/may not> be <true/false>" is not the same as saying "Something <is/isn't> <false/true>". The second one is an affirmation/negation and leaves no room for the opposite statement. If in doubt go the agnostic way. I find it's better to say "I don't know but I choose believe this" regarding a discussion in which you CANNOT proove your statement.
-
Well, negating the existence of any kind of god is childish, you should at least be unconclusive about it. As of Gödel's incompletness theorems, any logical-mathematical (dare I say human) construction can't prove itself nor prove anything beyond it to be true, so there's no way to negate any concept exterior to your paradigm.
It's a deeply human trait to anthropomorphize things that they can not understand. That is why we have religion and that is why there are so many different religions as well. The existence of an actual higher being is purely optional. The existence of religion can be explained without a higher being perfectly fine.
So while an actual higher being might exist I really won't concern myself with the possibility any more, or less, than the existence of actual real life Shivans somewhere in the galaxy. Those too "might" exist after all and Volition might have had some prophetic vision as they made the game. :P The only difference is that we did not form a religion to back up the notion. (yet? HLP worries me sometimes ... ;) Hey... it wouldn't be the first actual religion based on bloody science fiction ... :coughs:)
-
It's not as if the lack of evidence is enough, it's that we have better - in the scientific sense - explanations on how these gods came to be.
Which says nothing unless you're talking about a man-made figure and not an actual deity. I don't want to bring ignosticism in all that much but there exist an infinite number of distinct beings that, if we assume they exist, could be called gods. Showing that one of them doesn't exist (or in your case, makes more sense as a fictional character) says nothing about the crux of the matter - does some "divine" being exist? It's much more straightforward to prove that they do than they don't. To prove that there exists no gods, you need to show that nothing that could possibly match your definition of "god" could possibly exist, whereas you only need to show that there exists one being that fits your definition to show that a god can exist.
In other terms, it's proving (∀x, ~exists(x)) vs proving (∃x, exists(x)) where x is anything that could be called a god. Unless you can also show that you've exhaustively shown that all x can't exist you've failed to prove anything.
Which I guess brings me to a place that just complicates the discussion: It's not enough to wonder if "God" exists, you need to firmly understand what "God" refers to if you're going to be wondering anything. Asking "does god exist?" analogous to asking "does a book exist?". Some people claim that the only book that exists is The Hobbit, other people claim that the lyrics to "Bohemian Raphsody" is a book, other people claim that a book doesn't exist, and some people don't really care because they don't read.
So while an actual higher being might exist I really won't concern myself with the possibility any more, or less, than the existence of actual real life Shivans somewhere in the galaxy. Those too "might" exist after all and Volition might have had some prophetic vision as they made the game.
This is what gets me, too, usually. What exactly are the implications if some God exists? Judging from our understanding of the universe I would say there are very little implications. But obviously some people disagree and they go off doing things, and what's really disappointing is when they get the idea that God wants you to hurt people. Even people in this thread have noted how atheists can be total assholes about their beliefs, and they don't even have a god to blame it on. :p
-
And saying "Something <may/may not> be <true/false>" is not the same as saying "Something <is/isn't> <false/true>". The second one is an affirmation/negation and leaves no room for the opposite statement. If in doubt go the agnostic way. I find it's better to say "I don't know but I choose believe this" regarding a discussion in which you CANNOT proove your statement.
In the context of a god, there is no difference to me. I am actually the opposite. If in doubt, go the atheist way because at least you don't have to pretend that you really believe there is an option either way. "I don't know but I choose to believe this," is better than "I don't know so I won't choose" to me. It might be safer politically, but all you're doing is denying what you actually believe. In the case of agnostics, I'd say they are pretending that god is a possibility even if they don't believe that one exists.
It's like a coin toss. Once you toss it, it will either land heads or tails. It's no longer 50/50. Agnostics already flipped the coin. They just don't want to see it land yet.
E: Oh, and as karajorma mentioned earlier, atheists don't actively disbelieve in god. There is nothing childish about lacking faith in one. I would argue it is childish trying to cling on to options that don't really exists. You can't be non-religious yet claim that there may be a god. You either are, or you're not. To say that atheists are childish for not believing in a god is to say that religious people are childish for believing in one (or many). I don't think that's true either. I'm not militant in my belief. I'd be surprised to meet a militant agnostic.
-
It's like a coin toss. Once you toss it, it will either land heads or tails. It's no longer 50/50. Agnostics already flipped the coin. They just don't want to see it land yet.
Actually ... a coin toss is 50-50 unless you cheat or the coin is flawed. Furthermore... the actual probability can be measured by repeated tests/coin tosses.
Agnostics however, when questioned about the probability of the existence of god tend to say something along the lines of "while not discounting the possibility entirely, bloody unlikely". I.e. more like 99-01 instead of 50-50. Think a 100 sided dice where one face is the existence of god. You only get to roll once. That would be a better approximation of what many agnostics actually believe. I.e.: Pretty sure there isn't one, just not 100% sure, because the question is, by definition, not verifiable.
The interesting part is that any idea of a "god" by definition and/or design has to be unverifiable because otherwise someone would just go ahead and verify that it is false. lol.
-
Well, negating the existence of any kind of god is childish, you should at least be unconclusive about it.
That's reasonable to a point. Are you also unconclusive about fairies? What about invisible pink unicorns? Where do you draw the line? Are you drawing the line in an objective way or just being amazingly prejudiced towards our own cultural traditions?
Which says nothing unless you're talking about a man-made figure and not an actual deity. I don't want to bring ignosticism in all that much but there exist an infinite number of distinct beings that, if we assume they exist, could be called gods. Showing that one of them doesn't exist (or in your case, makes more sense as a fictional character) says nothing about the crux of the matter - does some "divine" being exist? It's much more straightforward to prove that they do than they don't. To prove that there exists no gods, you need to show that nothing that could possibly match your definition of "god" could possibly exist, whereas you only need to show that there exists one being that fits your definition to show that a god can exist.
But I did bring up ignosticism. I said it was clever trolling. I just assume when people talk about "God" they are most probably thinking something really close to the Christian God. As you rightly put, "God" can mean almost *anything*, and so it's not only "unconclusive", it's borderline irrelevant to our daily lives. To that kind of "possible God" I say "derp". That's all I can say really, because everything's possible in that metaphysical sense. God can be a long-past dead demiurge that is no longer here. Or he can be a complete sadistic God who convinced a lot of folks to follow this Jesus guy and then picks everyone that does so and places them in eternal hellfire. He can be a computer nerd from an upper universe. He can be a vat where our brains are resting. And on and on and on. There's no point in all this, I even believe that all these possibilities are probably symetrical in any characteristic we can imagine.
So I scrap all of that and say, "come on when people are talking about God, they are not referring to all these possibilities, they have something in mind". It's towards that "Something" in their minds that I call myself an atheist.
In other terms, it's proving (∀x, ~exists(x)) vs proving (∃x, exists(x)) where x is anything that could be called a god. Unless you can also show that you've exhaustively shown that all x can't exist you've failed to prove anything.
That's insane. Let me give you an alternative: I see the world around me and I see lots of people claiming there's a God. I see their evidence and it is a failure. I see evidence against their claims, reasoning, etc. I conclude there's no such thing and move on.
Isn't that so much simpler? I don't need to engage in infinites here. I just live my finite life with the best possible conclusion I can gather given all I know. I can wander philosophically why all those infinite possibilities are insane and ridiculous and possible in a certain point of view, but that isn't really the point.
Which I guess brings me to a place that just complicates the discussion: It's not enough to wonder if "God" exists, you need to firmly understand what "God" refers to if you're going to be wondering anything. Asking "does god exist?" analogous to asking "does a book exist?". Some people claim that the only book that exists is The Hobbit, other people claim that the lyrics to "Bohemian Raphsody" is a book, other people claim that a book doesn't exist, and some people don't really care because they don't read.
Been there done that. I said that earlier here.
-
My fairytale is better than yours ... that's why it's true. Prove me wrong or I am right.
-
It's like a coin toss. Once you toss it, it will either land heads or tails. It's no longer 50/50. Agnostics already flipped the coin. They just don't want to see it land yet.
Actually ... a coin toss is 50-50 unless you cheat or the coin is flawed. Furthermore... the actual probability can be measured by repeated tests.
Agnostics however, when questioned about the probability of the existence of god tend to say something along the lines of "while not discounting the possibility entirely, bloody unlikely". I.e. more like 99-01 instead of 50-50. Think a 100 sided dice where one face is the existence of god. You only get to roll once. That would be a better approximation of what many agnostics actually believe. I.e.: Pretty sure there isn't not, just not 100% sure.
A coin toss is only 50/50 prior to throwing it. Once it lands, it's either 100-0 or 0-100.
And what you said about the probability of a god is what I mean. 99-01 is exactly the same as what atheists believe. No atheists would say that god doesn't exists if god shows evidence of existing. That's why I mentioned that there is no difference between agnostics and atheism. That's why I believe that agnosticism is exactly the same as weak atheism.
An agnostic would not believe god exists but would play it safe saying that there is a slim chance that it might exist. An atheist would believe god does not exist and has no reason to tell others that there is a slim chance even if the atheist knows there is a slim chance.
-
Perhaps the real difference is how much bull**** one can take. There's a moment in life where you go "You know what? I'm fed up of all this bull****, from now on I'll call like it is". It's probably an emotional difference. Here's Asimov:
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-
The quote works well to explain my point. Thank you Luis Dias.
-
That's insane. Let me give you an alternative: I see the world around me and I see lots of people claiming there's a God. I see their evidence and it is a failure. I see evidence against their claims, reasoning, etc. I conclude there's no such thing and move on.
Isn't that so much simpler? I don't need to engage in infinites here. I just live my finite life with the best possible conclusion I can gather given all I know. I can wander philosophically why all those infinite possibilities are insane and ridiculous and possible in a certain point of view, but that isn't really the point.
You can believe anything you want, but it has no bearing on the truth value. Personally, I don't hinge my life on whether god exists or not so I see no problem in not committing myself to any particular belief. I'd go farther to say that if you're going to engage in serious theological discussions about the existence of God, you'd have to be just plain lazy to ignore these possibilities.
disclaimer: I'm not calling you lazy; we're discussing discussions about the existence of god, not discussing the existence of god. :nervous:
-
A coin toss is only 50/50 prior to throwing it. Once it lands, it's either 100-0 or 0-100.
And what you said about the probability of a god is what I mean. 99-01 is exactly the same as what atheists believe. No atheists would say that god doesn't exists if god shows evidence of existing. That's why I mentioned that there is no difference between agnostics and atheism. That's why I believe that agnosticism is exactly the same as weak atheism.
An agnostic would not believe god exists but would play it safe saying that there is a slim chance that it might exist. An atheist would believe god does not exist and has no reason to tell others that there is a slim chance even if the atheist knows there is a slim chance.
It's completely irrelevant to the question as you can not verify the existence of god like you can the result of a coin toss.
Who says no one wants to see it land? Frankly I would be delighted if we could actually verify it in a way that no person could question.
You have to understand that from an agnostics perspective the most likely outcome (i.e. 99 to 1 ... or rather a couple of million to one) would be that people finally stopped believing in those fairytales they call religion. ;)
Or rather... it would be extremely surprising if there was a god.
The irony is ... that if an actual god, like the "Christian god" would actually exist, a lot of people would not be happy about the revelation, but rather raving mad about what that sadist has been doing with his human toys. Which again.... does make it even more likely, that the whole thing is simply a badly constructed fairytale with all the inconsistencies and paradoxes that came up over the centuries barely holding together.
Too bad you can't monopolize education and torture anyone who denies the existence of god anymore until they repent their atheist ways... now that was how you made religion really work. ;)
-
@Polpolion
Oh right, I think you do have a point there. But then there's a big difference between a theological serious discussion that brings up probabilities and logical thinking into the debate, just as a lot of metaphysical and mathematical thinking, and a much more down to earth questionnaire about the simple question of whether the God we learned exists in our culture actually does or is just make-believe.
Ironically enough, all that pondering about all those possibilities is an argument against any specific theism, and not really against atheism. It's not as if the adding up of metaphysical possibilities somehow diminishes the probability of atheism. Probabilities do not work that way.
-
Just to clarify, while I am an atheist, I don't necessarily share all of Luis Dias's points. I am also a Humanist.
f. I'd go farther to say that if you're going to engage in serious theological discussions about the existence of God, you'd have to be just plain lazy to ignore these possibilities
I agree. It only takes a few seconds to think of the possibilities, so not thinking about them would not even be engaging in a discussion. I believe Luis Dias must have done so at one point.
I have many religious friends who explains their beliefs to me. Many of them Christians. Many of them believe in different things other than that there is God and Jesus is their savior. I was raised Catholic in school. My family is polytheistic. Without needing to go into a history of my life, all of my experiences have led me to believe that there is no god. But at one point, I did consider it. I did, in fact, believe that God existed for a short time.
-
It's completely irrelevant to the question as you can not verify the existence of god like you can the result of a coin toss.
Who says no one wants to see it land? Frankly I would be delighted if we could actually verify it in a way that no person could question.
My coin toss analogy was not about whether or not god exists. It was about whether one believes or does not believe that god exists. Atheists choose one side. Theists choose another. Agnostics, by definition, pretend to not choose even though they've already sided with the Atheists. When the coin falls, the look away.
You have to understand that from an agnostics perspective the most likely outcome (i.e. 99 to 1 ... or rather a couple of million to one) would be that people finally stopped believing in those fairytales they call religion. ;)
Or rather... it would be extremely surprising if there was a god.
This is exactly the same belief as an atheist.
The irony is ... that if an actual god, like the "Christian god" would actually exist, a lot of people would not be happy about the revelation, but rather raving mad about what that sadist has been doing with his human toys. Which again.... does make it even more likely, that the whole thing is simply a badly constructed fairytale with all the inconsistencies and paradoxes that came up over the centuries barely holding together.
This is why I don't believe in the Christian God.
-
I have many religious friends who explains their beliefs to me. Many of them Christians. Many of them believe in different things other than that there is God and Jesus is their savior. I was raised Catholic in school. My family is polytheistic. Without needing to go into a history of my life, all of my experiences have led me to believe that there is no god. But at one point, I did consider it. I did, in fact, believe that God existed for a short time.
That is why, when you marry, you still have to pledge to raise your Children the "Christian way".
You get to the Children, you can not just make a society believe anything, you can make it do anything as well.
Not exclusive to religion. Works great for installing totalitarian regimes as well. See: Hitler's youth.
Thankfully... the information society of today's age proves, at least to some extent/in some areas of the world, somewhat more resistant to this sort of manipulation than the societies of the previous century(-ies).
It was about whether one believes or does not believe that god exists. Atheists choose one side. Theists choose another. Agnostics, by definition, pretend to not choose even though they've already sided with the Atheists. When the coin falls, the look away.
I disagree rather strongly. "When" the coin falls is irrelevant as the coin, by definition, never falls and we can not make it fall. God is not verifiable by definition (or rather, as the cynic would say "by design".)
But jolly me ... if we actually could see the coin fall... why wouldn't we look? Then the matter would finally be settled once and for all. OF COURSE we would want to look.
So why can't we look?
The cynic would again point out that the problem is rather that every religion makes (has to make) their god "unverifiable", because otherwise it would be a very short lived religion.
You don't want to suggest that agnostics would not want to verify it one way or the other if we actually could? That just doesn't make sense.
It's not a matter of "looking away" ... it's a matter of not even being able to look no matter if you want to or not.
-
Well, negating the existence of any kind of god is childish, you should at least be unconclusive about it.
That's reasonable to a point. Are you also unconclusive about fairies? What about invisible pink unicorns? Where do you draw the line? Are you drawing the line in an objective way or just being amazingly prejudiced towards our own cultural traditions?
Well, I was speaking of logics there. I have a belief and I choose it like Asimov said he did. I know it's fundamentally emotional and unrational, but it's my belief. When I look at the discussion here it looks like people is trying to proove they belief is the only true one (and a logical one too). So I'm trying to point here is that there is no proof either way, and that people saying "There's a 99% chance God exists" are speaking of a coin toss that landed in a place they can't reach in a place with physics they can't understand. EDIT: Mikes said it better.
Going back to your comment, the line is subjective. In logics/math, there is no line, either it's certainly true or not. In real life, you have to choose. If you want to believe in invisible pink unicorns it's your choice and I don't have a say on it. (Though I can choose to believe you're wrong.) Pushing it to the limit, if you make a belief system that can explain all things and doesn't contradict itself, you have made a new paradigm. Normally, the scientific paradigm is the one who can explain the most, the simplest way. The concept of energy is as untangible as those unicorns. Yet, we use it to explain most things in our days. What we have to remember is that those things are artificial constructs that allow us to simplify, group and classify our observations and grasp what we can experiment. For me, discussing the existence of God and the existence of energy is the same. Both are unprovable.
And saying "If God exists why <is life so hard/are there wars/something bad exists>" is like saying "If God exists why can I kill my neighboor" which comes back to "if God exists why I'm I free to do things he shouldn't let me do" which is only a contradiction if you take God to be an authoritarian prick. Which is attacking a particular image of god, which can be unproven but by no way can be said to be the only possible representation of God. And the western view of the Christian God is reduced to a cliché as its view on Islam is reduced to extremists/terrorists, so I won't even enter that debate.
-
I have many religious friends who explains their beliefs to me. Many of them Christians. Many of them believe in different things other than that there is God and Jesus is their savior. I was raised Catholic in school. My family is polytheistic. Without needing to go into a history of my life, all of my experiences have led me to believe that there is no god. But at one point, I did consider it. I did, in fact, believe that God existed for a short time.
That is why, when you marry, you still have to pledge to raise your Children the "Christian way".
You get to the Children, you can not just make a society believe anything, you can make it do anything as well.
Not exclusive to religion. Works great for installing totalitarian regimes as well. See: Hitler's youth.
Thankfully... the information society of today's age proves, at least to some extent/in some areas of the world, somewhat more resistant to this sort of manipulation than the societies of the previous century(-ies).
It was about whether one believes or does not believe that god exists. Atheists choose one side. Theists choose another. Agnostics, by definition, pretend to not choose even though they've already sided with the Atheists. When the coin falls, the look away.
I disagree rather strongly. "When" the coin falls is irrelevant as the coin, by definition, never falls and we can not make it fall. God is not verifiable by definition (or rather, as the cynic would say "by design".)
But jolly me ... if we actually could see the coin fall... why wouldn't we look? Then the matter would finally be settled once and for all. OF COURSE we would want to look.
So why can't we look?
The cynic would again point out that the problem is rather that every religion makes (has to make) their god "unverifiable", because otherwise it would be a very short lived religion.
You don't want to suggest that agnostics would not want to verify it one way or the other if we actually could? That just doesn't make sense.
It's not a matter of "looking away" ... it's a matter of not even being able to look no matter if you want to or not.
I'm not talking about the existence of God, as I mentioned. I'm talking about the belief of a god. To put simply:
Head:Atheist
Tails:Theist
As opposed to
Head:god does not exist
Tails:god exists
See the difference?
-
This discussion is actually why I linked to that wikipedia article on agnostic atheism. Let's paste a quote so we're all on the same page.
Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none
From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism).
The irony is that with the exception of Luis, pretty much everyone who has professed to be an atheist or agnostic on this thread is actually an agnostic atheist (i.e a weak atheist). MP-Ryan keeps saying he is an agnostic but I'd bet money his views are probably no different from mine. It's simply a choice of which of two labels to apply to yourself.
Saying you're agnostic doesn't actually answer the simple question "What do you believe in?" Saying you're an atheist does.
That's kind of the point, folks =)
The point is to deliberately give a vague answer to a simple question? This is why I tend to agree with Dawkins on his point about intellectual cowardice. If someone asks me whether I believe in god or not, I just say no. Which automatically makes me an atheist. I don't see any point in obfuscating or prevaricating about an answer. I'll point out I'm agnostic if someone asks me "Why?"
-
It's what I said throughout the post. There is no reason to deny who you are.
-
yeah, the only difference between an atheist and agnostic in general usage is that atheists are typically more confrontational and agnostics are more backoffish. the actual belles held are exactly the same.
-
Great, now go and convince MP of that basic truth and get him off his high epistemological horse.
-
Play nice.
yeah, the only difference between an atheist and agnostic in general usage is that atheists are typically more confrontational and agnostics are more backoffish. the actual belles held are exactly the same.
That's only cause militant agnostics are rather rare. Atheists in general aren't more confrontational, it's just that there are a few who dicks about it and taint the opinion of the rest of us.
-
Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?
-
That's only cause militant agnostics are rather rare. Atheists in general aren't more confrontational, it's just that there are a few who dicks about it and taint the opinion of the rest of us.
it's more due to the fact that "atheist" has cultural baggage, you self select into these groups, the only difference is people react more outraged at the atheist label than they do the agnostic label, if you self select into the more uncomfortable name then you are more likely to be taking an attitude of "you know what **** you"
Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?
this might help to explain this to you, people who go under the atheist banner often consider solidarity important in order to confront many of the cultural and legal biases against non-beleif. one of our goals is to present our selves as a powerful voting block, we've got our number up to 20% now :)
keeping in mind there is little organized effort, so "goal" here is just sort of a common desire.
-
it's more due to the fact that "atheist" has cultural baggage, you self select into these groups, the only difference is people react more outraged at the atheist label than they do the agnostic label, if you self select into the more uncomfortable name then you are more likely to be taking an attitude of "you know what **** you"
I don't disagree, but that's pretty much just a different angle on what I said.
Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?
Well first cause he claimed that agnosticism is better than atheism. Which is nonsense if he is also an atheist too.
And second cause there is a second type of person that call themselves agnostic too. People who believe there is a god or gods, but that current religions are wrong about who or what they are. And there are quite a large number of those. For instance people who say they are spiritual but not religious. Atheists frequently have to explain that Atheism isn't just another religion, and it really doesn't help when people who aren't believers say that they are part of a group that also contains people who are. The second we start getting an agnostic theist explaining what they believe but also simply calling themselves an agnostic, the whole issue becomes much more confusing.
That second issue doesn't exist with Atheism. You occasionally get atheists who claim to believe in God, but all they prove is that they don't know what an atheist actually is.
-
An agnostic theist is not an agnostic then, they're a theist. Unattached to a religion, but a believer in God.
Where did he say Agnostic > Atheist? He has stated why he is comfortable with being an agnostic, but I never got an impression he views it as superior. Unless you're going to take that as automatically him saying Agnostic > all the rest, as I suppose you kind of default to that or you wouldn't believe in something.
Anyway, I don't want to get sucked into any drama, or go speaking for someone who is quite capable of speaking for themselves. I just wanted to know why you wanted him to change. But keep in mind, he's not going to change unless you give him a reason to change which benefits him. He is clearly very comfortable with identifying as agnostic, and honestly I don't think you'll be able to move him. I'd suggest just letting it go.
-
An agnostic theist is not an agnostic then, they're a theist. Unattached to a religion, but a believer in God.
They can still be qualified as agnostic if they do not believe that God is an explainable entity or is directly relevant to human life.
In the later case, they may sound intuitively unsound, but it is still valid.
-
That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general. Atheism is defined as rejection of theism in it's broadest sense (the existence of a god). Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists, but doesn't reject that possibility. An atheist believes that there's no God. An agnostic believes that we can't really know that. A Deist believes there is God, but he isn't doing anything we don't see (meaning he may be running the weather or determining dice rolls, but isn't going to make anyone walk on water).
The key difference is that an Atheist is certain about God not existing (well... at least as certain as a Theist is about His existence), while an Agnostic says that we don't know that and we most likely can't.
Also note, those terms are not religions in their own right, those are merely beliefs. For instance, an Atheist can also be a Buddhist, especially if we're talking about deeply philosophical Zen (that roughly describes my beliefs, BTW). Same with agnosticism. A Deist can believe in any God, though obviously would be at odds with most organized religions.
-
I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.
Not reading the 6 pages of the thread. However, the only issue I take with this other than the silliness of the atom logo is that they claim to be doing this for equality and yada, yada.. but from what I understand of the article, their bench pretty clearly is making fun of the Christian religion. That's not helping. As they are encouraging the other religions to put up their monuments, are they also encouraging them to poke fun at those they don't agree with? What if the Muslims put up one that pokes fun at the Athiest bench?
+1 for a Bench monument with a bench logo and nothing else. That would have been much more in line with what they are saying.
-
This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple. :D
-
Anyone want to try their hand at designing an atheist logo?
How about a hand or a pair of hands grasping the Earth? To signify that human hands shape the World, not Gods.
-
That seems even more theistic, IMO, since it looks like Earth is being molded by god-like hands.
I kinda like the atom logo used here, but were it not for the A, I would have associated it with scientology*.
*I have no idea what scientology actually is. My point here being that the logo doesn't really convey an atheist message other than the fact that it's related to secular science.
-
I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.
Not reading the 6 pages of the thread. However, the only issue I take with this other than the silliness of the atom logo is that they claim to be doing this for equality and yada, yada.. but from what I understand of the article, their bench pretty clearly is making fun of the Christian religion. That's not helping. As they are encouraging the other religions to put up their monuments, are they also encouraging them to poke fun at those they don't agree with? What if the Muslims put up one that pokes fun at the Athiest bench?
+1 for a Bench monument with a bench logo and nothing else. That would have been much more in line with what they are saying.
Maybe you should read the thread then, since a few of us already expressed the same sentiment.
-
That seems even more theistic, IMO, since it looks like Earth is being molded by god-like hands.
I kinda like the atom logo used here, but were it not for the A, I would have associated it with scientology*.
*I have no idea what scientology actually is. My point here being that the logo doesn't really convey an atheist message other than the fact that it's related to secular science.
Yes, amusing irony. It would be a fun logo, wouldn't it, the religious people might like it as well. Everyone is happy! :D
-
This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple. :D
here, i made a nihilism logo:
(http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc103/Emperor_of_Nihil/nihilismlogo_zps8b9e44b3.jpg) (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/Emperor_of_Nihil/media/nihilismlogo_zps8b9e44b3.jpg.html)
wacha think? too flashy?
-
I looked around and the only half-decent nonbeliever logo I could find is the Humanist Human. Even that one looks like it belongs on a heath insurance company though. It seems we're just gonna have to come up with our own. I'll get things started:
The Shining Beaker
The Vulcan Hand Thing
The Beaver Rampant
-
If you really, really want to distill it down to the base level, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the agnostic is open to the idea of a creator deity, and the atheist is closed to it. That's really about it.
-
No, it really isn't. As I keep pointing out, it's possible to be both agnostic and atheistic, only one, or neither agnostic nor atheistic. See below.
That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general. Atheism is defined as rejection of theism in it's broadest sense (the existence of a god). Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists, but doesn't reject that possibility. An atheist believes that there's no God. An agnostic believes that we can't really know that.
That's wrong on pretty much every count.
Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists
No. Agnosticism is defined as a belief that one doesn't know whether or not God exists. Strong Agnostics further believe that it is impossible to know. Weak agnostics believe that no one knows now but that the question may one day be answered.
That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general.
No. Basically all deists are agnostic theists but not all agnostic theists are deists. Especially if you're limiting deism to classical or modern deism.
An atheist believes that there's no God.
No. An atheist doesn't believe in God. I know that sounds like a nitpick but there's actually a very important difference. The lack of a belief. Someone who has never heard of god would be an atheist. Some atheists may go further and actively disbelieve in God but this derives from the lack of a belief in god.
I know that both versions of the definition are used all the time, I've probably used the same one you have. But if we're defining what an atheist is, let's get it correct!
Also note, those terms are not religions in their own right, those are merely beliefs. For instance, an Atheist can also be a Buddhist, especially if we're talking about deeply philosophical Zen (that roughly describes my beliefs, BTW).
While true, I really wish people wouldn't do that. It makes an already confusing topic even more confusing. :p Same has how although Buddhism isn't technically a religion, it makes more sense to include it with the religions.
-
This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple. :D
here, i made a nihilism logo:
*snip*
wacha think? too flashy?
Nah. I think the perfect Nihilism logo would be no logo at all.
-
The true lesson we can take away from all this is how ****ty we as humans are at coming up with collective nouns that adequately describe personal belief systems.
-
Oh good grief. I hate going on work trips in the middle of discussions like this. OK, I'm not quoting, but a general answer:
The reason why agnosticism is different than atheism is precisely because agnoticism includes agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Whereas karajorma seems to think the second word is the primary trait, I'd argue that the first word - agnosticism - is actually the more important one.
Focusing on whether or not an agnostic aligns primarily with theists or atheists puts the primary debate on the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities. Conversely, putting the emphasis on the 'agnostic' part is a matter of philosophical view of the world.
The reason I keep referencing Heisenberg and Schroedinger along with philosophers is because - in my view - agnosticism of both species shares a common method of viewing the world that is inherently rooted in the scientific method; contrast with atheism that asserts a firm lack of belief in deities or supernatural powers. Since we do not know and cannot know, we are very much sitting in the scenario Schroedinger premised with his cat thought experiment. The evidence hasn't flipped either way (and anyone saying otherwise frankly has an agenda; see my experimental design on page 4).
Agnostics are different from atheists, because all agnostics - be their bent diest or atheist - share a common view that the question of deities is inherently unknown and unknowable (at least in the immediate future; some agnostics believe that extends for eternity, others think the question may be answer one day, and still others aren't willing to call that either). Once again, this is not intellectual cowardice - it's an acknowledgement of the power and meaning of the scientific method. Atheists generally shortcut the method based on certain assumptions because they believe the data leans a certain way. While I certainly agree that atheists generally have a stronger argument than deists, this argument is primarily philosophical in nature and grounded on the observable. While I have the utmost faith (irony alert) in the scientific method, I also acknowledge the philosophical and evidentiary validity of Heisenberg's work, which is very troublesome when thinking about this topic in particular.
Atheists who refer to this view as intellectual cowardice or dishonesty are, in my view, missing the point and tradition of the philosophical roots of science. Which is why I continually refer to myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. While I believe in challenging the irrational byproducts of religious belief which cannot be substantiated (abortion, contraceptives, anti-homosexual policies, imposition of religious ideology on other peoples, religious conflicts, etc), I do not believe that I have enough information to open the box and see if I need to put some food out for the cat or not. Atheists, on the other hand, have decided the cat is dead and they're going to save money on their grocery bill. This is why position is fundamentally at odds with Luis, karajorma, and the rest.
To use what Mikes (I think) pointed out: Atheists, deists, and agnostics flipped a coin. Atheists think it landed tails. Deists think it landed heads. Agnostics see it still spinning in the air and aren't willing to call it until it gets closer to the ground. I fit in the latter category.
-
This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple. :D
here, i made a nihilism logo:
*snip* */snip*
wacha think? too flashy?
Nah. I think the perfect Nihilism logo would be no logo at all.
whoooosh! "Oooooh, look! A pointy thing!"
----------
I looked around and the only half-decent nonbeliever logo I could find[snip]... It seems we're just gonna have to come up with our own. I'll get things started:
The Vulcan Hand Thing
That may not work too well as an athiest symbol, since Nimoy reportedly lifted it from a Jewish ceremony...
-
@MP-Ryan
There are really only two sides. You are either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in god or don't. Claiming that there is a middle ground is like claiming you're a little bit pregnant. Even if that can be true, it only exists as a temporary state which leads to one of the two others.
The intellectual cowardice lies in the fact that many people want to claim they are part of some third side. This third side simply does not exist. The dishonesty comes from trying to claim that it is possible to believe and not believe at the same time. Trying to claim that atheists all share a similar philosophy is a strawman at best.
Before we go any further, answer this simple question. Are you an atheist?
-
the question of deities is inherently unknown and unknowable
The VAST majority of atheists would align with you. it is an extremely small minority of the atheist community that holds the position that they know there is no god.
and atheist is not someone who believes there is no god, they are people who do not believe there is. now the former is contained in the latter, but its not a big part.
-
Yep, that last one is why I nitpicked Dragon earlier. It's a huge mistake to say atheists believe there isn't a god.
Here's where I annoy some people. Everyone is born an atheist. At birth, no one has the concept of divinity. Everyone is born with a lack of a belief in god. It's only later that some people learn (or are taught) to believe in the existence of gods.
-
There are really only two sides. You are either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in god or don't. Claiming that there is a middle ground is like claiming you're a little bit pregnant. Even if that can be true, it only exists as a temporary state which leads to one of the two others.
This speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding or refusal to see what MP-Ryan is trying to say. There's a reason he's mentioned the Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis and Heisenberg as points of philosophy.
However, regardless of that, I should think that no one is forced to pick Side A or Side B. That kind of thinking is what causes arguments like this in the very first place. You disagree with him. Fine, you have a right to. He does not, however, have to pick a side simply because you do.
EDIT: And that, at the core of things, is a fundamental right. This is freedom of religion we're talking here.
-
You either believe in god or don't.
The cat is both alive and dead, because it is impossible to prove either position.
God exists and does not exist, because it is impossible to prove either position.
You're demanding a binary state for something that cannot be measured. It's a fundamentally flawed suggestion.
-
You either believe in god or don't.
The cat is both alive and dead, because it is impossible to prove either position.
God exists and does not exist, because it is impossible to prove either position.
You're demanding a binary state for something that cannot be measured. It's a fundamentally flawed suggestion.
I'm sorry but unless the cat metaphor is an idiom I don't know about, what does that have anything to do with god?
I'm pretty sure I can prove a cat is dead if I kill it.
-
...
no, YOU have a fundamental understanding of what the word means.
atheist means literally "not theist"
it's not pic side A or side B it's pick side A or don't. there is no third team, hell, there isn't even a second. there is no ideological play of hands, there is no alternative, you are either A or you are not A. You either believe that there is a god, in which case you are a theist, or you don't, in which case you are an atheist. any additional epistemological discussions on the mater are orthogonal.
it's like asking someone if they think it will rain tomorrow, and they answer with "meteorologists are wrong all the time". It doesn't answer the question, it doesn't even relate to an answer, it's just sort of vaguely related to the question enough that someone might not notice that it didn't answer.
"I don't know" is a subset of things that are not "yes"
-
Schrodinger's Cat experiment. Put simply, if we put a cat inside a box, then depending on circumstances we cannot make an empirical statement as to whether or not the cat is alive or deceased due to lack of observed evidence either way.
Therefore, due to lack of observed evidence either way about the existence or lack of of a divine entity, an agnostic cannot make a binary statement on its existence or lack of it. The answer then, in other words is "I don't know either way. Maybe?"
-
The actual experiment is slightly more complex than that, but yes, in essence.
...
no, YOU have a fundamental understanding of what the word means.
atheist means literally "not theist"
it's not pic side A or side B it's pick side A or don't. there is no third team, hell, there isn't even a second. there is no ideological play of hands, there is no alternative, you are either A or you are not A. You either believe that there is a god, in which case you are a theist, or you don't, in which case you are an atheist. any additional epistemological discussions on the mater are orthogonal.
it's like asking someone if they think it will rain tomorrow, and they answer with "meteorologists are wrong all the time". It doesn't answer the question, it doesn't even relate to an answer, it's just sort of vaguely related to the question enough that someone might not notice that it didn't answer.
"I don't know" is a subset of things that are not "yes"
I am really trying not to act all smug about this ala Battuta, but such an arbitrary delineation into two equally arbitrary subsets of the same thing, and equally the concept that one "must" choose one or the other or one is not a "true" member of some philosophical/theological group is, quite frankly, laughable. You demand that a person be one or the other. That person is by no means bound by anything to choose one or the other.
This is a matter of labels, and when it comes right down to it, you cannot choose what someone else wants to label him or herself.
-
...
no one is asking them to.
let us say there is a group of people who are saying that they think cat is, as a matter of fact alive. Alive and not dead. Not possibly alive, possibly dead, but alive. There is no possibility of it being dead because it is alive. now, sure, maybe some members of this group are willing to admit that maybe they are wrong, but they don't think they are, they think they are right about the whole alive thing, that they assert as fact.
is someone who says something like "we cannot make an empirical statement as to whether or not the cat is alive or deceased due to lack of observed evidence either way" a member of the group described above?
-
I am really trying not to act all smug about this ala Battuta, but such an arbitrary delineation into two equally arbitrary subsets of the same thing, and equally the concept that one "must" choose one or the other or one is not a "true" member of some philosophical/theological group is, quite frankly, laughable. You demand that a person be one or the other. That person is by no means bound by anything to choose one or the other.
This is a matter of labels, and when it comes right down to it, you cannot choose what someone else wants to label him or herself.
dude, did you read a single word I said? it is NOT chose one or the other, it IS chose one or don't. atheist is the set of people who are not theists.
I'm going to have to make a visual aid, aren't I?
-
...
no one is asking them to.
let us say there is a group of people who are saying that they think cat is, as a matter of fact alive. Alive and not dead. Not possibly alive, possibly dead, but alive. There is no possibility of it being dead because it is alive. now, sure, maybe some members of this group are willing to admit that maybe they are wrong, but they don't think they are, they think they are right about the whole alive thing, that they assert as fact.
is someone who says something like "we cannot make an empirical statement as to whether or not the cat is alive or deceased due to lack of observed evidence either way" a member of the group described above?
No, dude, you're seriously not getting it. The cat is not alive or dead. Until it is observed (in the actual hypothesis there's a radioactive atom whose quantum state is not known and not observed, tied to a geiger meter and a quantity of poison that will be released if radiation is detected), the cat is both and neither because the atom has not been observed and the state has not been determined.
Put as simply as I can put, the cat is not "possibly alive, possibly dead", it is both and neither simultaneously and the only way to know is to observe the atom and collapse the state into one where the cat is either alive or dead.
If you can't grasp that, you can't grasp MP-Ryan's position, and this conversation is pointlessly confrontational.
-
people who believe there is a god are blue
people who believe there is no god are red
people who don't know are white
atheists are the red and the white
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
both and neither simultaneously
is this the position of the group I described? if not then someone holding this position here is not a member of the group I described. much like if someone is not a theist they are an atheist.
-
both and neither simultaneously
is this the position of the group I described? if not then someone holding this position here is not a member of the group I described. much like if someone is not a theist they are an atheist.
You're still not getting it.
What I'm saying is that, like MP-Ryan, I reject your postulation that there are only two groups.
Someone who believes God does not exist is an atheist.
Someone who believes God does exist is a theist.
Someone who neither believes in God nor does not believe in God because God has not been observed and thinks one cannot know until there God has been observed or proven to not exist is neither an atheist nor a theist.
You're thinking too narrowly. It's a common problem.
-
It is not my position that there are two groups
did you even look at my vinn diagram?
-
Someone who believes God does not exist is an atheist.
this.
this right hear.
this is wrong.
this is what I have been trying to correct for the last page.
this is not what the word atheist means.
you are not reading my posts. It's a common problem.
-
I'll be blunt, since trying to be polite and mildly eloquent about it seems to be escaping you.
I do not care.
I reject your groups.
I reject your classifications.
I refuse to fall into those subsets because I disagree. That is my (if you'll pardon the wordplay) God-given right as a human being, to disagree with you on matters just like this.
Now, that said, I'm going to step away from the conversation because it looks like you're getting frustrated.
-
You're not getting it. Theism is the firm belief there is a god(s). Atheism is the firm belief there is no god(s). Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know either way due to lack of observed evidence supporting either hypothesis. MP-Ryan is neither confirming nor denying the existence of any deities, therefore he cannot be atheist as he is allowing the possible existence of a deity, and he cannot be theist as he is allowing for the possible non-existence of deities.
-
I think this is enough on this topic. If you want to discuss the finer points of distinction between theists, atheists and agnostics, find a more calm way to do it.
-
"Atheism is the firm belief there is no god(s)."
NO
no it isn't
-
:doubt:
People just love to argue.
-
I love to argue, but the detail is always in the definition.
I find the most fun part is always trying to define God or the concept thereof. Had a doorknocker come and preach to me a couple weeks ago. We had a very lengthy chat on the subject. Of course, as an atheist talking to a fundamentalist we kinda went around in circles but it was fun all the same!
I'd discuss it but I don't really remember it. I've had about four cases of beer in the interim. :D
-
Your sig does you justice. ;)
Although I like to think that arguments here are intended to veer to the direction of some kind of conclusive goal.
-
I'm a bit of a theologian in that I find the whole thing fascinating regardless of my own opinion on it. Hence why I don't go "OMG PREACHER GO AWAY" when we get them showing up. :P
-
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity. b : the doctrine that there is no deity.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
a : a disbelief in the existence of a deity. b : the doctrine that there is no deity.
I could go find more if you want. You might have a different definition of atheism. However, that is not what the world means when the world uses the word "atheism". Shutting your ears and yelling "no" doesn't make it true.
EDIT: However, that does not mean that I don't respect your right to have that opinion. At the same time, don't go expecting anyone else to hold your opinions simply because you do. The right to have an opinion on this kind of subject is a very important right.
-
What part of "If you want to have this discussion, have it calmly" was unclear?