[karajorma]

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?

[Luis Dias]

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...

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

"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.

[karajorma]

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...

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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

Also, agnosticism may have been coined as a term by Huxley in 1869, but it's been around much longer.

[MP-Ryan]

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 )

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

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Luis Dias]

I never said life is fair.

[Luis Dias]

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....

[MP-Ryan]

As for the whole definition thing. I'll just completely screw it up by linking to this.

This is a perfect example of why, when philosophy enters a discussion, everyone loses

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 =)

[MP-Ryan]

-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

* MP-Ryan runs before Luis does or does not try to see if he fits in Schroedinger's box.

[Luis Dias]

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

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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 =)

[Luis Dias]

That's also why it is widely regarded as "intellectual cowardice" by atheists.

[AdmiralRalwood]

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").