A "real" atheist...

[shawmutt]

My experience with atheists, outside of the internet, is with folks that deny the existence of any deity. It was a dichotomy between atheist and theist. When I got on the internet and started getting into forums, I found atheists with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and the term qualified with words like "weak" and "strong". I was looking around a new site I found, and looked up the words "atheist", and "agnostic".

Here's "atheist": http://www.wordnik.com/words/atheist

vs "agnostic": http://www.wordnik.com/words/agnostic

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic, but for some reason don't want to label themselves agnostic, or want the label of atheist. In fact, in my internet travels I notice most folks would be considered a "weak atheist". I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

To complicate my brain more, I can certainly see how someone can be a "strong atheist" against most religious beliefs. Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic mainly because I recognize our insignificance in the universe.

[arthwollipot]

Remind me one day to tell you about Strong Agnosticism... :rolleyes:

[shawmutt]

It never stops, does it? We need more imaginative folks making up new words.

From now on I'm an Aabrahamicistic--without any of the Abrahamic religions.

[KingMerv00]

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic...

What makes you think they are mutually exclusive labels? I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't believe in any gods, but I am a theist. I'm just really bad at it.

[shawmutt]

What makes you think they are mutually exclusive labels? I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist.

That sounds like a "weak atheist" or, to me, like an agnostic. If you believe as the wiki article states, wouldn't your default position (or the default position of the agnostic theist) be agnosticism? The atheism, in this case, seems to be merely an unsubstantiated belief.

Why is agnosticism not sufficient to explain your stance?

[ImaginalDisc]

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic thiest or a gnostic atheist. The gnosis part refers to certainty and knowledge, not the specific conclusion.

[KingMerv00]

That sounds like a "weak atheist" or, to me, like an agnostic. If you believe as the wiki article states, wouldn't your default position (or the default position of the agnostic theist) be agnosticism? The atheism, in this case, seems to be merely an unsubstantiated belief.

Why is agnosticism not sufficient to explain your stance?

Agnosticism is my position on metaphysical certainty and applies to all of my beliefs. Atheism is my tentative conclusion on one particular issue.

I think the problem here is that you are using a non-standard definition of "agnosticism". In the end it doesn't really matter. Fighting over "proper" definitions of words is pointless.

[shawmutt]

Agnosticism is my position on metaphysical certainty and applies to all of my beliefs. Atheism is my tentative conclusion on one particular issue.

I think the problem here is that you are using a non-standard definition of "agnosticism".

What do you believe is the standard definition of agnosticism?

In the end it doesn't really matter. Fighting over "proper" definitions of words is pointless.

I disagree. Speech is what sets us apart from other animals, and should have concrete definitions. How else are we to understand what others are saying? I understand that words and phrases can evolve, or change over time, but I believe there must always be a consensus of the definitions of words. It seems there are a lot of agnostics (online) trying to change the definition of the word atheist.

[jimtron]

Agnostic and atheist are tricky terms that mean different things to different people. In my experience, many if not most people think that an atheist is someone who is absolutely certain god doesn't exist. I consider myself an atheist, and I doubt that god exists, but I'm not absolutely certain. Folks should call themselves whatever they want, but if you call yourself an atheist I think many people will have the wrong idea about your views. Sometimes I think everyone is agnostic...

[Dogdoctor]

What do you believe is the standard definition of agnosticism?



I disagree. Speech is what sets us apart from other animals, and should have concrete definitions. How else are we to understand what others are saying? I understand that words and phrases can evolve, or change over time, but I believe there must always be a consensus of the definitions of words. It seems there are a lot of agnostics (online) trying to change the definition of the word atheist.

I don't think pigeonholing people into particular mental frameworks is so important. It's their actions beyond their beliefs or philosophies that is important. Whatever philosophy or belief a person may have they are not like every one else with that particular philosophy or belief. For such broad terms to mean something you need an incredibly large number of descriptors that it becomes impractical. It really doesn't matter except if they say something or do something. Then each of these actions can be evaluated for their own merit.

[Kopji]

Being an atheist is like saying that God exists only in your heart. :)

[jimtron]

What makes you think they are mutually exclusive labels? I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism).

Hmm, I from that Wikipedia article:

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist.

I wonder how many atheists "claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist"? That reeks of straw in my view.

[CurtC]

I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

... Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic...

So, you're a weak atheist. Welcome to the atheist club. Potluck is next Thursday.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

I agree with these definitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol1JEM0nU4w

[gentlehorse]

It seems there are a lot of agnostics (online) trying to change the definition of the word atheist.

I use the words thusly:

Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge of god(s). (A-gnostic)

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god(s). (A-theist)

I've run into some on this forum who disagree with the manner in which I use the words, but I can live with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I am atheist as a direct result of the fact that I am agnostic.

[slingblade]

I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I reserve the right to change my mind, but seriously doubt that I ever will.

[arthwollipot]

I wonder how many atheists "claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist"? That reeks of straw in my view.Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god. He sees no indication that we live in that kind of universe, and comes to the firm conclusion that there is no god. Gnostic atheism. Personally, I disagree.

I think that if there is any confusion over the word agnosticism, then you have to look at the word itself. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, in the same way that atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosis is knowledge. For example, we can know that a stone is heavy, or that water flows. Its opposite, agnosis is a lack of knowledge.

Theism/atheism refers to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have belief without knowledge.

[Mar\/in]

Hm! Looks like a good newbie thread and I'm definitely a newbie. It seems to me that the applicability of the various terms (atheist, agnostic, strong-A, weak-A) all represent answers to different questions, and it might be possible to be all of them at once, depending on the issue at hand.

Do I think it's possible to prove whether a deity exists? No, so I'm an agnostic.

Do I believe that a god exists? No, so I'm an atheist.

Weak-atheist vs. strong-atheist is tougher.

Do I actively believe that no gods exist, and that it's a good thing (considering the goofy and inconstant nature of the gods proposed by humankind to date)? Yes, which I suppose makes me a "strong" atheist. There's no contradiction here with agnosticism because that's a statement about metaphysical certainty, whereas my worldview w/respect to atheism is a best guess based on the preponderance of the evidence I've seen to date.

"Weak" atheism I've never entirely understood because it seems to imply a passive absence of beliefs in or about gods without any correlated positive belief that we live in a godless universe, which strikes me as a neat psychological feat which I, as a person who was raised Christian and therefore had to actively discard a belief system, am unqualified to attempt.

One can make similar clarifications about other terms like skeptic, humanist, Bright, and so on, and I'm happy to embrace all those terms in the contexts where they really matter.

[arthwollipot]

I don't like "bright". It implies that everyone else is dim. I'll call myself a humanist, but not because I identify with any humanistic organisation.

[Hokulele]

I call myself an ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) these days. Tell me what you mean by "god", and I will tell what I think of it.

[gentlehorse]

Tell me what you mean by "god", and I will tell what I think of it.

God: All the stuff we don't know about life, the universe, and everything, expressed in three letters... with an attitude...

[Wolfman]

This is a discussion/debate I get into with theist friends all the time.

Theist: "Can you prove that God does not exist?"
Me: "No, I cannot."
Theist: "If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, that means you must acknowledge there is a chance he does exist, and therefore you cannot be an atheist!"
~~pause for appropriate appreciation of their impeccable logic~~
Me: "So then, you believe that Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Zeus, and all those other gods are real?"
Theist: "Of course not! Only [name of their particular god] is real!"
Me: "But you believe that it is at least possible that those other gods are real!"
Theist: "Of course not!"
Me: "Ah, I see...so you can prove that those other gods do not exist?"
Theist (belatedly catching on): "Well...*sputter*...no...but since I know that my god is real, therefore I know that the other ones are not!"
Me: "So, we could best summarize you as being agnostic about all the other gods besides your own?"
Theist: "No, of course not! I'm a Christian/Buddist/Muslim/Whatever!"
Me: "So, even though you cannot prove that all those other gods do not exist, you nevertheless are certain that they do not. Correct?"
Theist: (generally, they don't like to answer this question)
Me: "Same for me. Even though I cannot prove that god does not exist, I nevertheless do not believe that any god exists. I am therefore an atheist."
~pause for them to consider this, and then return to their original point~
Theist: "But you can't prove god doesn't exist, that means you must acknowledge there is a chance he does exist, and therefore you cannot be an atheist!"
~repeat ad infinitum/nauseum~

[Hokulele]

God: All the stuff we don't know about life, the universe, and everything, expressed in three letters... with an attitude...


Actually, that sounds more like my mother-in-law.

[Cavemonster]

God: All the stuff we don't know about life, the universe, and everything, expressed in three letters... with an attitude...

Hah! I can answer that question in two digits.

[arthwollipot]

Hah! I can answer that question in two digits.I can do it with one.

[Wolfman]

I can do it with one.
I'm an a-digitist.

[shawmutt]

Hah! I can answer that question in two digits.

But do you know the question?

[!Kaggen]

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god. He sees no indication that we live in that kind of universe, and comes to the firm conclusion that there is no god. Gnostic atheism. Personally, I disagree.

I think that if there is any confusion over the word agnosticism, then you have to look at the word itself. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, in the same way that atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosis is knowledge. For example, we can know that a stone is heavy, or that water flows. Its opposite, agnosis is a lack of knowledge.

Theism/atheism refers to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have belief without knowledge.

Atheism the opposite of Theism.
I was told this is not the case at all on this forum since the pre-fix A in Atheism does not mean "opposite" it means "without"
Theism is a belief in God ,
Atheism is not non-belief in God but lack of belief in God.

Please clarify.

[arthwollipot]

Atheism the opposite of Theism.
I was told this is not the case at all on this forum since the pre-fix A in Atheism does not mean "opposite" it means "without"
Theism is a belief in God ,
Atheism is not non-belief in God but lack of belief in God.

Please clarify.Okay, well by this definition, agnosticism is without knowledge. It's an equally valid definition, and doesn't much change what I said.

And atheism can be either lack of belief in God (weak atheism) or belief in the lack of God (strong atheism). Neither of these have anything to do with gnosticism/agnosticism, which is about whether knowledge exists or not.

[!Kaggen]

Okay, well by this definition, agnosticism is without knowledge. It's an equally valid definition, and doesn't much change what I said.

And atheism can be either lack of belief in God (weak atheism) or belief in the lack of God (strong atheism). Neither of these have anything to do with gnosticism/agnosticism, which is about whether knowledge exists or not.

weak and strong atheism: lack of belief , belief in lack

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.
I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.
Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.

[arthwollipot]

Huh?

Alternative state of consciousness? Care to elaborate on this a little?

[Fiona]

Why is agnosticism not sufficient to explain your stance?

Like Hokulele I think you do have to define what you are talking about in any particular discussion of the existence of god/gods. I get the impression that some theists become frustrated when that is asked of them: but it is not nitpicking or any trivial thing like that: it is absolutely essential. A friend of mine puts it well: If the theist's belief is in the Abrahamic god then I am a very strong atheist indeed: if, however, he is so perverse as to define god as a tea biscuit then I am a strong theist. So that is the first problem.

As Wolfman said, theists tend to get irritated by an insistence of definition because they "know" what they mean by god: it is just that they don't all mean the same thing. But in most discussions they are talking about some variant of the abrahamic god or about deism in one form or another: mainly because my interactions are usually with people who grew up in a western culture. So if we can establish that then like others I am an agnostic atheist

In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe); or maybe it is intrinsic to its nature (as some deists appear to believe); or maybe it is because it does not exist (as atheists believe). Hardly matters. The kind of evidence which leads me to believe in things is wholly lacking: there is nothing I can sense; there is no crucial experiment; and there is no logical argument either. Since the question has exercised people for thousands of years I conclude that for some reason it is truly impossible to know in any meaningful sense of the word "know". And so I am agnostic

But it is perfectly possible to take that position and yet believe: if it were not then there would be no believers, because it is my position that they cannot know. There are agnostic theists. I am not one of them. There are many areas of my life where I come to conclusions on the basis of insufficient knowledge: nearly all of them in fact. I do not understand the concept of gravity at all: but I believe gravity exists because that is what works for me. I do not drop something over the side of my bed before getting up each morning to check whether gravity still works: I did that loads of times from my pram when I was a baby and it always did; so now I don't bother. I cannot know that gravity will not switch off one of these days (those who understand gravity may well "know" it won't, and why it won't, but I don't): that does not prevent me living my life as if I did. In the case of gravity I am not agnostic (because there is the possibility of knowledge) but I believe in it.

In the case of god I am atheist on the same basis: I must come to a conclusion because I need to make decisions about how to live my life. Whatever kind of god the theist believes in it has consequences for behaviour at some level. My particular mindset leads me to conclude that there is no god because, unlike gravity, I have never come across any problem which could be solved if god existed and not otherwise. That is where my occasional lapses into "if I got the evidence I would change my mind" come from, and that is true: but I would not be honest if I said that my agnosticism covers it: because I do not believe in god in a reasonably active way - by which I mean all of my relevant behaviour is predicated on lack of belief.

[arthwollipot]

In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe); or maybe it is intrinsic to its nature (as some deists appear to believe); or maybe it is because it does not exist (as atheists believe). Hardly matters. The kind of evidence which leads me to believe in things is wholly lacking: there is nothing I can sense; there is no crucial experiment; and there is no logical argument either. Since the question has exercised people for thousands of years I conclude that for some reason it is truly impossible to know in any meaningful sense of the word "know". And so I am agnostic.This is what I describe as "strong agnosticism". I thought I'd come up with the idea myself. :D

[Aepervius]

Shawmutt , I think this one from Mar\/in nailed it :

Do I think it's possible to prove whether a deity exists? No, so I'm an agnostic.

Do I believe that a god exists? No, so I'm an atheist.

Atheism and Agnosticism are two perpendicular axis where one can find himself defined/projected. So yes, atheist are not automatically agnostic as you stated above.

[Georg]

weak and strong atheism: lack of belief , belief in lack

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.


That´s not how it works. When you claim atheists need a belief system/mythology, then it´s your job to show the evidence for that claim.

I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.
Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.


I´ve experienced quite a lot of alternate states of consciousness in my life, but can tell you for sure that I never felt the need to mythologize.
I do like good stories, but I do not take them for real.

[Georg]

In line with the first definition in your link, I believe it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not. I am not always consistent in stating this and I have caught myself saying things like "I would change my mind if I got evidence of god's existence": and I think that is true but a little disingenuous: because I do not believe that could happen. It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a god or gods it does not work that way. Maybe that is its choice (if it is omnipotent as some believe);


If you allow for the possibility I bolded, then it´s possible that this god would change its choice.
So it may not be possible today to know whether a god exists, but it could be possible in the future? Or do I have a mistake in my thinking?

[KingMerv00]

I wonder how many atheists "claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist"? That reeks of straw in my view.

For what it is worth, I have known at least one gnostic atheist.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god.

Richard Dawkins is not a gnostic atheist. He said:


On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."


A better example would probably be Victor Stenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger).

[!Kaggen]

That´s not how it works. When you claim atheists need a belief system/mythology, then it´s your job to show the evidence for that claim.




I´ve experienced quite a lot of alternate states of consciousness in my life, but can tell you for sure that I never felt the need to mythologize.
I do like good stories, but I do not take them for real.

Refer to the what is religion thread for my evidence.

Mythologizing is part of waking analytical consciousness and is not restricted to a story which you believe is not true.
For instance it is easy to create a myth around a well establish scientific theory.
Darwinism is one of these in my opinion. It is a personification myth of inanimate objects and forces.

[KingMerv00]

What do you believe is the standard definition of agnosticism?

I'll go with dictionary.com I guess:

an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.


I disagree. Speech is what sets us apart from other animals, and should have concrete definitions. How else are we to understand what others are saying? I understand that words and phrases can evolve, or change over time, but I believe there must always be a consensus of the definitions of words. It seems there are a lot of agnostics (online) trying to change the definition of the word atheist.

I both agree and disagree. It is important that definitions have widespread use so we can avoid confusion. That being said, this particular argument in this particular setting is pointless. You understand my philosophical position so quibbling over labels isn't necessary.

I specifically call myself "agnostic atheist" because people tend to think "agnostic" means I'm on the fence while "atheists" are dogmatic.

[KingMerv00]

Darwinism is one of these in my opinion. It is a personification myth of inanimate objects and forces.

"Darwinism" involves no personification at all.

[!Kaggen]

Huh?

Alternative state of consciousness? Care to elaborate on this a little?

Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.

[!Kaggen]

"Darwinism" involves no personification at all.

Darwin was not a person then?

[KingMerv00]

Darwin was not a person then?

Do you know what "personification" means?

[shawmutt]

I specifically call myself "agnostic atheist" because people tend to think "agnostic" means I'm on the fencf while "atheists" are dogmatic.

so you're dogmatically on the fence? :D

I can see where you're coming from--at least you have folks asking what you mean by that instead of just assuming based on the label. I'm right along the lines with Dawkins, the probability of a Deity based on religious thought is highly unlikely, and I live my life as though there were none. However, when asked, I just say I'm agnostic--I don't really care what they think about it.

To be honest, I'm not asked much, everyone assumes because of where I live that I'm a Christian.

[slingblade]

Real atheists are made of chocolate.

[KingMerv00]

so you're dogmatically on the fence? :D

I can see where you're coming from--at least you have folks asking what you mean by that instead of just assuming based on the label. I'm right along the lines with Dawkins, the probability of a Deity based on religious thought is highly unlikely, and I live my life as though there were none. However, when asked, I just say I'm agnostic--I don't really care what they think about it.

To be honest, I'm not asked much, everyone assumes because of where I live that I'm a Christian.

I don't like "agnostic" in isolation. It is too general. It could mean that you have no serious opinion on God because you have not looked at the arguments pro or con. "Atheist" is more specific.

[proudnonbbeliever]

a Real Atheist (tm) is one that has paid their dues.

[!Kaggen]

Do you know what "personification" means?

Yes, personify = to represent (a thing or abstraction) in the form of a person

Darwinism= Theory of Evolution "as represented by" Darwin

[KingMerv00]

Yes, personify = to represent (a thing or abstraction) in the form of a person

Darwinism= Theory of Evolution "as represented by" Darwin

Naming a theory after someone is not the same as personification. Anyway, no need to get into debates over definitions.

[!Kaggen]

Naming a theory after someone is not the same as personification. Anyway, no need to get into debates over definitions.

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

[tsig]

So, you're a weak atheist. Welcome to the atheist club. Potluck is next Thursday.

I'm a strong atheist i know god doesn't exist 'cause I asked him.

[shawmutt]

I'm a strong atheist i know god doesn't exist 'cause I asked him.

You saw it in the watermelon seeds?

Xfqht0LEOWQ

[tsig]

You saw it in the watermelon seeds?

How did you guess? Cold watermelon slices on a hot summer day is as close to god as I've ever been.

[tsig]

Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.

Posters who misstate their intentions are not usually treated well.

[PixyMisa]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.
Name one.

[Dave Rogers]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "Darwinism" used as anything other than an attempt to mischaracterise the acceptance of an overwhelming body of evidence as a mere personality cult. Those of us who accept the evidence for evolution of species by natural selection would not normally characterise ourselves as "Darwinists" - I'm sure I don't - but simply as sane reasoning beings. Therefore, any discussion of what "Darwinism" does or doesn't mean seems to me entirely specious; the very word seems no more, at least in current usage, than a strawman used by the religious to ascribe properties of religion where there are none.

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

Dave

[This Guy]

Only read the OP, and will likely give a reply that sounds a lot like someone else's.

I consider myself a "Weak Atheist". I don't believe there are any deities, but I don't have the proof to say they do not exist.

My understanding of an Agnostic is that they feel they can't say there is or is not a God (or Gods).

I feel the evidence against there being any deities is strong enough to convince a rational person. But, again, I have no proof to back up my lack of belief, so I only claim to not believe, I do not claim there is no God.

Personally, I think many of the people that claim to be Agnostic are just chicken Atheist. I give Michael Shermer as an example. I've read several of his books, Skeptic magazine, eSkeptic, and his articles in Sci-Am each month. I believe, based on several things he has said that he does not believe there are Deities, yet he claims to be Agnostic. If forced, I believe I could find some quotes to back up what I've said, but it would take a while to go through the books (though I think "Why Darwin Matters" and "How we believe"/"Why People Believe Weired Things" is where I will find them). I think he has also debated the existence of God perhaps? Yet last I read, he still considers himself Agnostic. I have much respect for Dr. Shermer! I enjoy reading his books and articles very much! But, I think he's a chicken Atheist, unless he has crossed over to the Dark Side, and I missed it ;)

I can understand why someone that really does not believe in any Gods would rather be known as an Agnostic rather than an Atheist. They each invoke different preconceptions from the general public. Personally, I just really don't give a rats behind what people think ;)

[!Kaggen]

You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "Darwinism" used as anything other than an attempt to mischaracterise the acceptance of an overwhelming body of evidence as a mere personality cult. Those of us who accept the evidence for evolution of species by natural selection would not normally characterise ourselves as "Darwinists" - I'm sure I don't - but simply as sane reasoning beings. Therefore, any discussion of what "Darwinism" does or doesn't mean seems to me entirely specious; the very word seems no more, at least in current usage, than a strawman used by the religious to ascribe properties of religion where there are none.

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

Dave

My point exactly

[!Kaggen]

Name one.

creationism

[Aepervius]

My point exactly

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

In case you missed it the first time. Our point exactly.

[!Kaggen]

In case you missed it the first time. Our point exactly.

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

from wiki

In the United Kingdom the term retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[20]

[Monketey Ghost]

My experience with atheists, outside of the internet, is with folks that deny the existence of any deity. It was a dichotomy between atheist and theist. When I got on the internet and started getting into forums, I found atheists with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and the term qualified with words like "weak" and "strong". I was looking around a new site I found, and looked up the words "atheist", and "agnostic".

Here's "atheist": http://www.wordnik.com/words/atheist

vs "agnostic": http://www.wordnik.com/words/agnostic

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic, but for some reason don't want to label themselves agnostic, or want the label of atheist. In fact, in my internet travels I notice most folks would be considered a "weak atheist". I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

To complicate my brain more, I can certainly see how someone can be a "strong atheist" against most religious beliefs. Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic mainly because I recognize our insignificance in the universe.

Okay... well, my own self-description to others is as an atheist, but if the discussion becomes deeper than simply "this is what I am"s, I must be intellectually honest and say it's closer to agnosticism since I can't be sure.
So, an agnostic who would bet heavily against the existence of a superbeing.

[Monketey Ghost]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

Incorrectly used, yah.

[slingblade]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

Um....you realize we don't all know each other just because we're atheists, right?

I'd have no idea how to answer any question for you regarding Dawkins. I don't know him.

[Foster Zygote]

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations.

Could you describe this belief system/mythology in a bit more detail? I'm sure the atheists on this forum would be interested in learning about it.

[Dave Rogers]

My point exactly

Your statement: "Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone."

My statement: "Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so."

Your response: "My point exactly."

If you claim your statements to be synonymous with their opposites, then by definition none of your statements can contain any information, therefore it is pointless paying any attention to them.

Dave

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

from wiki

In the United Kingdom the term retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[20]

And?

"Darwinist", in this context, is obviously simply a term used to describe one who accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection which was first put forth by Charles Darwin. What does the fact that others have used the term in a negative context have to do with Dawkins' semantic choice?

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

Thanks for pointing out a counter-example. Personally, I think Dawkins is a bit of a jerk about religion; he seems to care rather too much about it. To many of us, it's simply irrelevant.

Dave

[Improbable Joe]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

That's just a lie... which is why only liars tend to use the term "Darwinism," at least in America. Everyone else uses the term "evolution." We recognize that Darwin was wrong on all sorts of details, and there's no sort of worship or idolizing involved.

[Improbable Joe]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he? :rolleyes:

[Foster Zygote]

Incorrectly used, yah.

Yes. The fact that some people have misappropriated the term "Darwinism" in an attempt to legitimize their pseudo-scientific justifications of racism and class hierarchy has no bearing on the veracity of the actual theory of evolution by natural selection in the same way that some spiritualist's use of the word "quantum" has nothing to do with physical science.

[arthwollipot]

Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.Well, thanks, but this still does not explain how such altered states aid our understanding of the universe.

[!Kaggen]

Your statement: "Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone."

My statement: "Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so."

Your response: "My point exactly."

If you claim your statements to be synonymous with their opposites, then by definition none of your statements can contain any information, therefore it is pointless paying any attention to them.

Dave

Your right I need to clarify.

My Statement
I was meaning that Darwinism is used in other contexts apart from just naming the "Theory of Evolution" after someone and my arguments have been directed at those who use the term in these other contexts.

My response to your statement
I agreed with the negative aspect of the use of the term in your statement which you alluded to, dishonesty.

I am still interested in the how the term is used, which I believe tends to be much more not about the Theory of Evolution, but more about belief systems and therefore my interpretation of it as a myth.

I realize the connotations that this term carries because of the whole creationist thing, but it still needs to be dealt with by people like myself who take for granted the Theory of Evolution and I believe others who understand the Theory of Evolution should also critique its use as a myth.

[Trakar]

But anyone who feels strongly enough about their opinion on the issue to respond to a discussion board post on the general topic of atheism or theism, explaining their personal beliefs and/or considerations with regards to the subject, should probably capitalize the A or T in reference to themselves (regardless of issues of gnosis). In my experience those who truly earn and deserve the weak label, aren't interested enough in the topic to read posts about it, yet alone consider or discuss it.

[!Kaggen]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he? :rolleyes:

I am not sure but on the forum management forum I was wrapped on my knuckles by a moderator for telling someone to "get a life".

This seems a little stronger than that or am I mistaken?

Perhaps you should take a moment and re-read your Membership Agreement; especially Rules 1 and 12. is what the moderator said and that's what I say too

[!Kaggen]

Well, thanks, but this still does not explain how such altered states aid our understanding of the universe.

Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that.

[Dr Adequate]

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming. And everyone seems to be hardwired to interpret the Earth as a plane, rather than a sphere. But we aplanists simply do not need the concept of the Earth as a plane.

[Dave Rogers]

I am still interested in the how the term is used, which I believe tends to be much more not about the Theory of Evolution, but more about belief systems and therefore my interpretation of it as a myth.

Personally I think it has more to do with deliberate dishonesty and well-poisoning, and reveals more about a set of belief systems which are quite irrelevant to the interpretation of evidence and the use of predictive theory.

Dave

[!Kaggen]

And?

"Darwinist", in this context, is obviously simply a term used to describe one who accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection which was first put forth by Charles Darwin. What does the fact that others have used the term in a negative context have to do with Dawkins' semantic choice?

Your right bad example.

[arthwollipot]

Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that.Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

[kbm99]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he? :rolleyes:

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

Name one.

creationism

Wrong. Do your research

[Foster Zygote]

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.

[Foster Zygote]

Your right bad example.

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.

[Wolfman]

Surely you can describe it clearly.Seems to me that's like telling a person with advanced Parkinson's that "surely you can draw a straight line".

[Georg]

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.


I´m not sure what he wants to explain either, but I think he did not talk about a certain belief system, he wrote



now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations.


as in "everyone needs some belief system/mythology."
It doesn´t make sense to me either, but that´s at least how I understand him.

[Nogbad]

Another form of atheist is like that of the asexual and apolitical.

They are aware that some people are interested in these things but for the life of them they can't see why. :)

[fls]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. :)

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

[Mar\/in]

I don't like "bright". It implies that everyone else is dim.

I kinda dig "bright," for more or less the same reason. (Slap my hand.) Of course I don't think everyone else is dim, and that's certainly not the explicit intent of the word, but I like the uppity quality. I wouldn't mind ruining "bright" for aggressive theists the way "gay" has been (allegedly) ruined for homophobes.

That being said, I fail to see much energy in the Brights Movement these days, and I think most of its goals -- promoting positive naturalism, creating an online constituency, advocating church-state separation and civil equality -- are being better met by JREF, FFRF, and so on. And the online constituency kind of takes care of itself. What really succeeded about the meme "Bright," thanks in large part to Dawkins and Dennett, was the promotion of the idea that it's time for atheists to get out of the closet. The idea that nonbelievers need to organize and get loud the way the gay community did 40 years ago seems to have really been embraced.

[Dancing David]

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic thiest or a gnostic atheist. The gnosis part refers to certainty and knowledge, not the specific conclusion.

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

[Dancing David]

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.


I disagree, !Kagen is much nicer and more accepting. There is more of a language barrier. Yrreg can be very clear in his use of english, recently he has taken to a very pompous style. He is channeling his Pachomius character more.

[Piscivore]

I don't think pigeonholing people into particular mental frameworks is so important. It's their actions beyond their beliefs or philosophies that is important. Whatever philosophy or belief a person may have they are not like every one else with that particular philosophy or belief. For such broad terms to mean something you need an incredibly large number of descriptors that it becomes impractical. It really doesn't matter except if they say something or do something. Then each of these actions can be evaluated for their own merit.

Heartily agreed. The need for pigeonholes is directly proportionate to the lazyness of the thinker, IMO.

For myself, I'm a Discordian Polypseudotheist.

[Mar\/in]

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.


I think that this is probably true (at least for some of use -- I don't want to generalize too much) if we understand mythology in Joseph Campbell's sense of the term, in which case a mythology isn't necessarily false or true, but it refers to the way we organize our values around our beliefs to create an interpretive worldview that we use to make sense of events. My Star Trekkish hope and belief that long-term human progress is possible in terms of science, economics, and culture, could be considered a mythology. It doesn't entail dogmatic faith claims, but it's an image of the future that I hope -- and really want to believe -- can be made true. Because I tend to evaluate the morality and decency of the acts of people and nations according to whether I think they will help to bring about such a future, all the assumptions I might use to make those evaluations -- beliefs about economics, human nature, and so on, many of which I know I can't prove -- may be considered parts of my personal mythology.


I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.


This, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. I'm openly conscious of my need and desire to mythologize. I'll grant that activities like seated meditation (or taking a long, quiet walk) can make a person more aware of feelings and judgments he or she tends to suppress when otherwise engaged, but I wouldn't call that an altered state of consciousness. It's really just redirecting one's attention.


Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.


We will always need abstract -isms for the same reason we use abstractions in general. We use them because it's impossible and wasteful to talk about exact individual specifics all of the time. No amount of altered consciousness experiences will change this, I suspect. I also suspect that the need to mythologize and the tendency to fall back on abstractions and generalizations are closely related. It's all a side-effect of trying to get by in a complicated universe while being made of meat.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. :)

Good job it's just you and me on the internet.

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

I agree. Most people do not.

[tsig]

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Without humans the gods are nothing.

[!Kaggen]

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.
Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

[paximperium]

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. No. Nursery rhythms are useful in teaching language and rhythm and many were useful memory tools.


However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. If and when you decide to one day backup any of the multitude of your claims with silly things called "evidence" is when your "Hypothesis" leaves the realm of mindless speculation to actual science.


I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason. This is called a False Dichotomy. Altered states could still lead to creativity and still be completely useless to understanding of reason.

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.No.

PS: You really need to look up the dictionary definition of "dilemma", it seems like you don't know what it means at all.

[Piscivore]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. :)
Why not in public?

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes.

"Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go.

But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.

[arthwollipot]

...However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language...I don't.

I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.You couldn't be more wrong.

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.You're putting it badly, but I still understand what you're trying to say. And exactly what is it that makes you think that skeptics undervalue creativity and its role in understanding?

What we say is that creativity and imagination cannot replace reason. Without reason, there is no way to determine that the moon is not made of green cheese, or that the cute kitty is actually a vicious sabretooth that wants to kill and eat me.

Reason allows us to answer fundamental questions about the universe. Creativity and imagination allow us to work out what questions to ask.

[Dave Rogers]

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Doesn't that make you a Bokononist?

Dave

[fls]

Why not in public?

It requires a bit of explanation and most circumstances don't allow the opportunity. And I live in the SE US where most people (I encounter) aren't interested in understanding my perspective, but rather discovering the extent to which I conform on this subject.

But what it really was was a joke about Real Life vs. The Intertoobs.

Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes.

It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary.

"Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go.

But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.

It's confusing when you fail to distinguish between a member of the class "aether" with the class "aether". Which did you think I was talking about?

Linda

[P.J. Denyer]

I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I reserve the right to change my mind, but seriously doubt that I ever will.

I'd take this slightly further

"I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming"

And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist.

[NorfolkAtheist]

It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary.


I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about?

Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct?

[fls]

I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about?

I don't understand why you think I said otherwise.

What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether?

Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct?

Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods?

[NorfolkAtheist]

I don't understand why you think I said otherwise.

What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether?



Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that.

Linda

I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods?

I suppose that is correct.

I wonder though, does one believe this possibility on faith? Or do they discover it somewhere?

Talking about gods in general always seems problematic to me. Define me a specific god and I'll tell you whether or not I'm gnostic or agnostic regarding him/her/it.

[fls]

I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations.

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

[NorfolkAtheist]

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this. But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

Ah, so you're a redundant atheist.

[Trakar]

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. :)

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

at least 2 major complications

measuring the supernatural

compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand

[fls]

I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this.

Okay, then I was on the right track with my example, because that is what I meant.

But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically.

I said that I thought it was reasonable to figure out whether or not there are any gods just like we figure out whether or not there is aether not that we figure out whether or not there is aether just like we figure out whether or not there are gods. We don't usually refer to aether as a class which made me wonder why he thought his reference to gods as a class had anything to do with what I said.

Linda

[fls]

at least 2 major complications

measuring the supernatural

Not at all. If you are referring to what people usually call supernatural (e.g. miracles or clairvoyance), then you are really talking about events/experiences, which are measurable. And if you are talking about something that is truly supernatural, then it doesn't matter since it doesn't have an effect on events/experiences anyway.

compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand

We can study two-year-old humans, can't we? :)

Linda

[slingblade]

I'd take this slightly further

"I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming"

And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist.

I think that would do quite well, P.J. Thank you. :)

And for the record, I do, too.

[Darth Rotor]

Sometimes I think everyone is agnostic...
I don't know about that, Jim. ;)

[Darth Rotor]

Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.
Onan is still over there, waiting for the food to grow.
(Poor guy)

[Darth Rotor]

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

That you, or they, are in love with me since there is no aether.

Huh, aether isn't Scots dialect for other? Sorry. :blush:

[Herzblut]

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

There's no media for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

[wuschel]

So what exactly is this "god" thing that you are certain/not certain about being/not being able to being certain/uncertain of being able to determine its existence?

Strong Agnostic Ignosticist here, holding for certain that it cannot be known whether there actually indeed may exist a possible definition of "god" that is coherent and meaningful at the same time - and thus willing to take matters further, once such definition has been supplied.

[Trakar]

Not at all. If you are referring to what people usually call supernatural (e.g. miracles or clairvoyance), then you are really talking about events/experiences, which are measurable. And if you are talking about something that is truly supernatural, then it doesn't matter since it doesn't have an effect on events/experiences anyway.

Doesn't directly have an effect on events/experiences at the present time.

Distinction Doesn't prevent all interaction.

I personally believe the two are completely distinct (natural/supernatural) at this time. There may be some form of weak or subtle interaction, but nothing I've seen any compelling supporting evidence for,...but my beliefs and considerations are my own.

Regardless, being somewhat logical and rational beings, the mere belief in the supernatural results in an impact on our considerations/perceptions and thus on events and experiences.



We can study two-year-old humans, can't we? :)

Linda

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

[Xulld]

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god. He sees no indication that we live in that kind of universe, and comes to the firm conclusion that there is no god. Gnostic atheism. Personally, I disagree.

I think that if there is any confusion over the word agnosticism, then you have to look at the word itself. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, in the same way that atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosis is knowledge. For example, we can know that a stone is heavy, or that water flows. Its opposite, agnosis is a lack of knowledge.

Theism/atheism refers to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have belief without knowledge.

Well said, belief is not proportional to certainty.

[shawmutt]

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

You aren't alone...I'm seeing my sweet kiddo turn into a monster with the approach of his second birthday.

Thanks for the replies folks, as usual, a bounty of food for thought :)

[fls]

Doesn't directly have an effect on events/experiences at the present time.

Does that matter? Natural effects can appear capricious, including an absence of effects "at the present time".

Distinction Doesn't prevent all interaction.

I personally believe the two are completely distinct (natural/supernatural) at this time.

Excellent. Then you can answer my question (I've asked it many times but not yet received an answer). How does one determine whether a particular event/experience is supernatural a priori?

There may be some form of weak or subtle interaction, but nothing I've seen any compelling supporting evidence for,...but my beliefs and considerations are my own.

Regardless, being somewhat logical and rational beings, the mere belief in the supernatural results in an impact on our considerations/perceptions and thus on events and experiences.

I agree. Belief in belief has an impact. It seems to matter not that the entity believed in doesn't exist.

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

Well, I'm starting to wonder if "sixteen-year-old girl" deserves the same consideration. :)

Linda

[Trakar]

Excellent. Then you can answer my question (I've asked it many times but not yet received an answer). How does one determine whether a particular event/experience is supernatural a priori?


Unless we're talking about the event of ultimate creation, I'd probably vote against supernatural (that distinct and seperate issue).


I agree. Belief in belief has an impact. It seems to matter not that the entity believed in doesn't exist.


I'd prefer "...matters not that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of such an entity..." but thats just me,...and agreed.


Well, I'm starting to wonder if "sixteen-year-old girl" deserves the same consideration. :)
Linda

Most do, 16-26, the longest decade of my life was my daughter's transition through these ages. Feels like I aged 30 years in that one decade!

[godless dave]

My experience with atheists, outside of the internet, is with folks that deny the existence of any deity. It was a dichotomy between atheist and theist. When I got on the internet and started getting into forums, I found atheists with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and the term qualified with words like "weak" and "strong". I was looking around a new site I found, and looked up the words "atheist", and "agnostic".

Here's "atheist": http://www.wordnik.com/words/atheist

vs "agnostic": http://www.wordnik.com/words/agnostic

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic, but for some reason don't want to label themselves agnostic, or want the label of atheist. In fact, in my internet travels I notice most folks would be considered a "weak atheist". I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

To complicate my brain more, I can certainly see how someone can be a "strong atheist" against most religious beliefs. Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic mainly because I recognize our insignificance in the universe.


As with most words, the definition is hard to nail down when you get into specific details.

I deny the existence of all interventionist gods that have been believed in by humans. I am an atheist with respect to those gods. I am an agnostic with respect to non-interventionist creator gods. Since so few people believe in those kinds of gods, I don't see the need to qualify. It suffices to say I am an atheist.

[Trakar]

As with most words, the definition is hard to nail down when you get into specific details.

I deny the existence of all interventionist gods that have been believed in by humans. I am an atheist with respect to those gods. I am an agnostic with respect to non-interventionist creator gods. Since so few people believe in those kinds of gods, I don't see the need to qualify. It suffices to say I am an atheist.

Reading a bit between the lines, your position sounds more areligious than atheistic, a position, rather ironically, shared by most of the founders of, or icons at the center of, most modern religions!

[Beerina]

If a religious person is trying to corner the agnostic by saying, "See! You don't really know!" she should just say she's an atheist.

That's the only difference the religious care about.



I claim god doesn't exist for the same reason the teapot in orbit doesn't exist. There is, and never was, any reasonable evidence to support the claims, to say nothing about the millenia of coercion, to put it mildly, for those who didn't even go to church regularly much less of another, or no religion.


"We're doing an outcomes analysis of 6 month post-surgical knee replacement. So go ask the guy how he rates pain for various leg extension movements. Oh, by the way, he was threatened with death and beatings regularly whenever he moved his leg. So take that into consideration."

[godless dave]

Reading a bit between the lines, your position sounds more areligious than atheistic, a position, rather ironically, shared by most of the founders of, or icons at the center of, most modern religions!

Then I didn't express myself properly. I'm definitely atheistic.

[Trakar]

Then I didn't express myself properly. I'm definitely atheistic.

Your expression was clear enough, its the definitions you are employing that I am seeking to clarify.

[Robert Oz]

I find myself thinking about these labels quite a bit. It seems impossible and futile to pick one, because 'agnostic', 'atheist' and 'god' mean so many different things to so many different people.

With the definitions given in most discussions on this forum, I would label myself an agnostic atheist, but most people outside skeptical and atheism forums aren't aware of these definitions. Most people outside these forums understand 'atheism' to mean 'positive denial of the existence of gods' and 'agnosticism' to mean 'lack of knowledge of the existence of gods', but as others have mentioned, by calling oneself an agnostic, it seems like you're stuck right in the middle and don't really have an opinion either way, when this is rarely the case.

Thankfully, few people directly ask, 'Are you an atheist?' or 'Are you an agnostic?'. A dialogue is much more efficient at getting to the nut of the question. My personal views are best expressed as follows:

Question: Do you believe in God? (Let's face it, if the question is asked, it is asked in this way).

Answer: Which god?

Question: Any god?

Answer: I don't believe in any god that I am aware of. There is no conceivable reason to take one religion's view over another. So I don't take any. So, the answer would have to be 'no'.

Question: But you believe in 'a' god?

Answer: No.

Question: So then how do you think we got here?

Answer: I don't know. Science has done a good job of tracing our history a very long way back, but we're still not in a position to know if there was an ultimate source or what that source may have been. I don't think it is reasonable to make a leap from this lack of knowledge to any sort of general or specific idea of some all-powerful, supernatural creator.

Question: So, then, you don't know whether there is a god or not?

Answer: No, I don't know and, therefore, I don't believe in one.