Your thoughts on atheism...

[canadarocks]

I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions.

Thanks.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

In some cases, there is no difference. For example, I consider myself to be both an agnostic, and an atheist. I am an agnostic because I do not know whether or not some sort of God exists, and I am an atheist because I am not a theist, where a theist is somebody who believes that some sort of specific god does exist.

Note that agnosticism has to do with what you know (or think you know). Atheism and theism have to do with what you do, or do not, believe.


Dr. Stupid

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Note that agnosticism has to do with what you know (or think you know). Atheism and theism have to do with what you do, or do not, believe.
I guess I think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know what he believes.

[canadarocks]

I guess I think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know what he believes

I know what I don't believe, such as "the Bible is the word of god" and that "organized religion is the one true way", and I know that I believe theories that are supported by observable evidence and are repeatable. I can easily imagine that there is no god as well as concede the existance of a higher being if provided evidence that I consider sufficient. Would I be considered agnostic or atheist?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by canadarocks
I know what I don't believe, such as "the Bible is the word of god" and that "organized religion is the one true way", and I know that I believe theories that are supported by observable evidence and are repeatable. I can easily imagine that there is no god as well as concede the existance of a higher being if provided evidence that I consider sufficient. Would I be considered agnostic or atheist?

Are there any gods that you believe exist? Not those that "you could imagine could exist," but a god that you believe does exist?

Take out a sheet of paper and list all the gods you think _do_ exist. Not those that you have not ruled out (that would actually be infinite), but those who you believe do exist.

If that sheet is empty, then I would call you an atheist ("without belief in god").

Agnostic is a different issue, and will depend on who you talk to. From my perspective, I would ask, suppose a god or gods does (do) exist. Do you think we could know it? If yes, then I would not call you agnostic.

Others may have different opinions on agnostic, but I will say I am not comfortable with agnostic = don't know whether god exists or not. Despite the claims of theists, no one really knows whether god exists or not, so saying someone is agnostic is not all that informative.

[roger]

I recommend not worrying about it much. This is a very common question on boards like these, and nothing definitive is really ever concluded. These words are used in different ways by different parts of the US population (I restrict myself to the US because I am most familiar with English as it is used in the states). I had an old philosophical dictionary, for example, that defined atheism as the philosophical stance that God's existence can be disproven, which is rather different than how we tend to use it on this board: atheism = a-theism, or a lack of theism; a lack of belief in god. So really, whenver you use the term you really need to define how you are using it, or risk confusion.

In general, however, agnostic is the position of unknowability, whether philosophical (we can't in principle know if god exists) or personal (I haven't made my mind up yet), whereas atheism usually entails a statement of disbelief, again whether philosophical or personal. As you have found out, there is a fair amount of overlap in those definitions; both terms can apply to some positions.

[canadarocks]

Thanks. Very informative discussion and I am starting to see where there is not going to be a concensus of opinion. As my sheet of paper is blank, I would be considered an atheist by some. By other measures, an agnostic. I guess the moniker of "free-thinker" may be a better route (i.e. open mind that would consider evidence concerning god(s) as it comes).

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by roger

I had an old philosophical dictionary, for example, that defined atheism as the philosophical stance that God's existence can be disprovenThis is often referred to as 'strong atheism'. I can't recall ever seeing anyone even try to actually make a case for it.
...which is rather different than how we tend to use it on this board: atheism = a-theism, or a lack of theismFor the sake of consistency then, taking this stance earns you a rather unfortunate label: 'weak atheist'.

Introducing oneself as a "free-thinker" is likely to be met with rolled eyeballs. I usually just tell people I'm not superstitious (most people are glad to hear that -- right up until they figure out that it includes their faviorite brand of superstition as well).

[balrog666]

Aren't we all atheists?



Some of believe in no gods.




And some of us believe in 1 out of a thousand past gods and disbelieve in the other 999.



Is there really that big a difference in our positions?

[Atlas]

I don't know whose word it is but I like the term: apatheistic, meaning I don't really care what God or gods you may or may not believe in.

Perhaps you should make up your own term for the belief that you have. I did.

I always find myself choosing the middle way. I'm not Buddhist but that's the way I end up choosing.

I call myself an Experiential Deist. Which to believers sounds like I accept a God over all things. But what it means to me is that I've had an experience that I have called God. I am sure it is the same spiritual experience that Christians have. I was a Christian when I had it. I've also had Buddhistlike spiritual experiences.

What it comes down to for me is that across time and culture people have had feelings of God. That has led them to believe that God exists but all it means is that feelings exist. If you think God is a feeling you can be an Experiential Deist too.

It's a flexible term and I like that. I can choose to explain it if I have to as inoffensively as I want depending on the circumstances.

I'm on the lookout for good terms (I love words) so if anyone cares to be creative, maybe I'll steal yours.

[Iacchus]

Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right? Sounds to me like we may very well be stuck in a Matrix of sorts. Hmm ... yet where could it have originated? Well, I have heard that the temporal springs forth from the Eternal. Could that be a possibility?

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by balrog666
Aren't we all atheists?


Some of believe in no gods.


And some of us believe in 1 out of a thousand past gods and disbelieve in the other 999.


Is there really that big a difference in our positions?

So what you're saying is there are no true <S>scotsmen</S> theists?

/Atheist. But would never describe myself as "free-thinker".

canadarocks I think you've seen some working definitions of atheism and theism. I consider myself an atheist, but that dosen't mean I'm beyond convincing otherwise.

I don't know whether a god(s) exists, so in that sense I can be called an agnostic. I also have a positive disbelief in god(s) which makes me an atheist. In the same vein I also have a positive disbelief in the easter bunny. I can never prove the easter bunny dosen't exist, but I still think he dosen't.

Of that other type of atheist you mentioned, (the type that thinks they can prove all gods does not exist), they are fairly rare, and I've never met one. However, some people are strongly atheist about a particular god (and hence about particular claims commonly associated with that god). If the claims that are made about a particular god are mutually exclusive, then you can say with high epistemological certainty that either the claims are wrong, or the god does not exist.
I'll give you an example (using the most common western god):

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.

[American]

It's a conscious attempt to rid yourself of an inate, evolved trait (belief in God). I say "conscious" on the idea that religion is so natural. (That doesn't make it true, of course.)

Why bother being an athiet? An atheist should commit suicide as swiftly and pleasurably as possible, and otherwise lead the most amoral life they can until they get up the nerve to do it. (I know there are logical, non-suicidal benefits to atheism, I just don't think they outweigh the alternative.)

There's no evidence for a God. Any faith I have, therefore, is tremendously powerful, since it's all-the-more baseless considering that lack of evidence. And I wouldn't hesitate to exploit my faith for comfort, power, and to communicate certain ideas "for the greater good". Indeed, I would even foster my own faith if I had the time and motivation. (I don't.)

I REALLY don't belong here........ :D

[c4ts]

Atheism is too easy, and I find it is empty. Whatever happened to jumping through dogmatic hoops and retreating to mystery every time you had to think about something? There are no challenging contradictory ideas to feverently believe against my nature to reject outlandish claims as substitutes for truth. Why can we not gather to toss our change into a plate and cower in fear of the devil, which we know to be free thought or anything else not like us? Ideas are big and scary things which carry with them the possibility of being wrong. Let's train ourselves like Russian space monkeys and award ourselves mental bananas for charitable deeds. Hell, let's award ourselves mental bananas just for showing up and listening to the head monkey. Because it's perfectly healthy to go completely insane as long as you only do it in groups on the weekend. Horray for that feeling we get for hopping around blindfolded in a high altitude tub of ice while chanting broadway tunes backwards until we feel secure because we're doing it together, for that is the wonderful feeling of religion, and that is exactly what atheism is missing. Whakka whakka doo doo I AM GENGHIS KHAN!

[Atlas]

Originally posted by c4ts
Whakka whakka doo doo I AM GENGHIS KHAN! Khan you are full of whacka doo doo. I was with you though right up til you started talkin about them damm Roosky Monkees. Keep you damm bananas. Here is one space monkee goin to heaven wearin the good ol stars and stripes of old glory herself. Do whacka do whacka do and God Bless 'Merica

(paid for by the Roosky Monkey Defamation League
a subidiary of Angels on your Shoulder
a for profit, psuedo religious, front company
for the God, Guns, and Guts 2nd Ammendment Church of Light)

[Ratman_tf]

While I don't like summing up my opinions in one word, I find "atheist" is the closest term for me.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right? Sounds to me like we may very well be stuck in a Matrix of sorts. Hmm ... yet where could it have originated? Well, I have heard that the temporal springs forth from the Eternal. Could that be a possibility?

Do you have a problem with staying on topic?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Do you have a problem with staying on topic? I don't know, what don't you believe in, besides God that is? And yet if man were nothing but a creature of faith, how can he not be predisposed towards the belief in something? And why not God, since that would be the belief of all beliefs?

[canadarocks]

And yet if man were nothing but a creature of faith

I don't agree with your supposition. Egro, the remaining arguement is lost on me.[

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Do you have a problem with staying on topic?
Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't know, what don't you believe in, besides God that is? And yet if man were nothing but a creature of faith, how can he not be predisposed towards the belief in something? And why not God, since that would be the belief of all beliefs?Asked and answered, Ratman...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by canadarocks
Thanks. Very informative discussion and I am starting to see where there is not going to be a concensus of opinion. As my sheet of paper is blank, I would be considered an atheist by some.

And a lot of people will note that these are not mutually exclusive terms, and you could well be one of either or both.

agnostic-theist
agnostic-atheist

etc

I agree with roger. Don't get caught up on labels.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Asked and answered, Ratman... My thoughts on Atheism? Atheism is just a set of beliefs, just like any other religious set of beliefs.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
My thoughts on Atheism? Atheism is just a set of beliefs, just like any other religion ... Please list this set of beliefs, as you see them.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
My thoughts on Atheism? Atheism is just a set of beliefs, just like any other religion ... Which shows that you do not understand what atheism is.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Please list this set of beliefs, as you see them. No need to, have already established that man is a creature of belief. You know, where does the belief of this real world go when we die? Certainly, according to you, we are no longer capable of believing that we were here, right? Anyway, so much for the idea of having the whole thing etched in concrete, because it isn't any more concrete than the notion of God ... when we die that is. ;) So really, what it all boils down to is what we believe will happen after we die.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No need to, [snip] Didn't think you would, or could.

Care to retract your earlier statement and admit your ignorance?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Didn't think you would, or could.

Care to retract your earlier statement and admit your ignorance? And yet what is a religion, except a certain set of precepts or beliefs? Buddhism is a religion isn't it? And yet it doesn't outright proclaim the notion of God does it? So, to insist that Atheism, in its lack of belief, is not religious in any way whatsoever, is bogus. Because we have to believe in something.

[Mercutio]

Having beliefs is not the same thing as having a set of beliefs. Again I ask you, please list the set of beliefs that unites atheists such as myself. You must know more about it than I do, because I am in ignorance of any such set of beliefs.

Enlighten me.

[epepke]

Originally posted by canadarocks
I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions.

This question is at the root of some of the longest flame wars in the history of digital electronic communication.

Basically, atheism (or theism) is a statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Many combinations are possible. For example, many Catholic priests are theists and also agnostics. They will say they don't claim to know that God exists but take it on faith.

Atheism is usually subdivided into strong and weak varieties. In the strong variety, there is a belief that there is no God. In the weak variety, there is simply an absence of a belief that there is a god. Most dictionaries allow for both.

Agnosticism is also usually subdivided into strong and weak varieties. The strong variety holds that the existence of God cannot be known by living people, even in principle. The weak variety simply holds that the speaker lacks knowledge. The term was invented by Huxley, and at times he seems to use the strong definition, at times the weak definition.

It is certainly possible for both strong and weak atheists also to be strong or weak agnostics, though the weak-weak combination is the most likely. However, culturally, a lot of agnostics seem to like to go around saying that they're more rational than atheists. So it isn't clear that agnostics recognize the possibility of overlap. Atheists would generally be fine with agnosticism except for the fact that it seems that this behavior of agnostics is little more than an attempt to dissociate themselves from atheists.

For a while, somebody came up with the term "bright" as an umbrella term, and Randi and a few other people seemed to like it. A lot more didn't like it, so it seems to have fallen out of fashion. There is another umbrella term, "freethinker," which would seem to apply to Universalists as well and dates from the German Freethinker community in Texas (which was, of course, pretty much slaughtered by the "turn the other cheek" folks; extended story on request or do a Google search). These, however, are autonyms used within the community, and it's not the kind of thing that you're likely to be asked during an interview.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Having beliefs is not the same thing as having a set of beliefs. Again I ask you, please list the set of beliefs that unites atheists such as myself. You must know more about it than I do, because I am in ignorance of any such set of beliefs.

Enlighten me. Are you saying that you don't believe the real world is all that we have? That certainly sounds like a set of beliefs if you ask me. And, since when is Science capable of defining anything with 100% accuracy? Why is the theory of evolution still a theory? Why will it always remain a theory? ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying that you don't believe the real world is all that we have? That certainly sounds like a set of beliefs if you ask me. And, since when is Science capable of defining anything with 100% accuracy? Why is the theory of evolution still a theory? Why will it always remain a theory? ;) I did not ask for a set of questions, I asked for a set of beliefs.

You said earlier that Buddhists were atheists--Buddhists have a set of beliefs. I am not a Buddhist. What are the set of beliefs which you are saying unites atheists? Your ignorance of science is not the issue; the issue is, you have claimed that atheism is a belief system. I am simply asking you to back up your allegation, or barring that, to admit you have no clue about this.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

I did not ask for a set of questions, I asked for a set of beliefs.

You said earlier that Buddhists were atheists--Buddhists have a set of beliefs. I am not a Buddhist. What are the set of beliefs which you are saying unites atheists? Your ignorance of science is not the issue; the issue is, you have claimed that atheism is a belief system. I am simply asking you to back up your allegation, or barring that, to admit you have no clue about this. Do you mean to tell me you don't believe in Science? That in fact Science is what makes the whole world go round? Hey, ever get the sensation that you just stepped in something kind of gooey and smelly? :D

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Don't tell me you don't believe in Science? That in fact Science is what makes the whole world go round. Hey, ever get the sensation that you just stepped in something kind of gooey and smelly? :D
Are you saying that atheists all believe in science?

I asked for statements, not questions--I honestly can't tell if you are claiming that all atheists believe in science. Or was it your intent to obfuscate?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Don't tell me you don't believe in Science? That in fact Science is what makes the whole world go round. Hey, ever get the sensation that you just stepped in something kind of gooey and smelly? :D


Yes, but "belief" in science is not a defining property of Atheism. (1) Theists and Deists can do so too and (2) you can be an Atheist and not "believe in Science".

[Kopji]

Agnostic is a socially acceptable word for atheist?

***Kopji's Godless Calculator***

My experience and study do not lead me to know for sure, but based on the evidence so far I believe there is a God.
-Theist

I have felt the power of God in my life and I know there is a God. I wish you could know this feeling too.
-Theist

My experience and study do not lead me to know absolutely, but based on the evidence so far there's only a tiny infinitesimal chance of there being a God. A chance like apples suddenly falling up instead of down.
-Atheist

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I continue to look for answers.
-Agnostic

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I choose to believe in God, let go of the search and just live.
-Theist Light

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. Time to let go of the search and just live.
-Atheist Light

I want there to be a God, but there's not. I participate in religion because I think that belief has value to society. But not because I actually believe.
-Closet Atheist or Evil Theist

I wanted there to be a God, but thankfully there's not. I participate in religion for control or power, not because I actually believe.
-Atheist as described on religious websites.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Are you saying that atheists all believe in science?

I asked for statements, not questions--I honestly can't tell if you are claiming that all atheists believe in science. Or was it your intent to obfuscate? On first thought I would say yes, however, that does not mean there are no other considerations. Also, I think if Atheists were even to approach the worship of something, it would have to be Reason. So, what's wrong with that? And who was this nutcase (must be if all Atheists are irreligious) that wanted to start up the Church of Critical Thinking? ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
On first thought I would say yes, however, that does not mean there would be no other considerations. *sigh* Once again, then...please give us your list of beliefs that atheists hold. (Note also, that Lord Emsworth has already called into question your initial "yes".) What are these "other considerations"?

You have had many chances now. I am concluding that you spoke out of ignorance. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

*sigh* Once again, then...please give us your list of beliefs that atheists hold. (Note also, that Lord Emsworth has already called into question your initial "yes".)Gosh I don't know? What on earth have we been arguing about over the past nine months?


What are these "other considerations"? Bates me, Norman. ;)

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, to insist that Atheism, in its lack of belief, is not religious in any way whatsoever, is bogus. Because we have to believe in something.

As usual, I'm coming in late on things, and I imagine there's some prior history here, but if you could humor my curiosity Iacchus, why do we have to believe in something?

Edited to add:

I know it's become a cliche' now, but as it hasn't been used in this thread yet, please let me be the first to say...

If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Gosh I don't know?
Correct. You don't know.

Good night.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Yes, but "belief" in science is not a defining property of Atheism. (1) Theists and Deists can do so too and (2) you can be an Atheist and not "believe in Science".

And what is an agnostic then, besides somebody who's sitting on the fence ... of belief? ... which, could go either way? In which case it's still a matter of belief no matter how you look at it. And yes, Atheists do have a tendency to behave differently than Theists which, is all contingent upon what they believe.

[Mercutio]

Iacchus, are you trying to demonstrate that ignorance is a form of knowledge? It's not working...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dogwood

As usual, I'm coming in late on things, and I imagine there's some prior history here, but if you could humor my curiosity Iacchus, why do we have to believe in something?

Edited to add:

I know it's become a cliche' now, but as it hasn't been used in this thread yet, please let me be the first to say...

If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color. So, does that make me bald with respect to my lack of belief in purple kangaroos? I suppose it would. However, we must be able to maintain a full set of hair over something, right? And this would be our set of beliefs (or philosophy) by which we determine how we govern our lives. Or, am I to believe that Atheists have no way of determining which way is up and down in this world? In fact why even call yourselves Atheists if it doesn't mean anything?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what is an agnostic then, besides somebody who's sitting on the fence ... of belief? ... which, could go either way? In which case it's still a matter of belief no matter how you look at it. And yes, Atheists do have a tendency to behave differently than Theists which, is all contingent upon what they believe.


In fact I would say that everybody behaves differently from everybody else - strictly speaking. More loosely speaking, you get Deists and Theists who have opinions that are almost indistinguishable from what you would expect from a "stereotypical Atheist" (except of course in one crucial matter).

And furthermore you still have not demonstrated that
• "belief in Science" is what distinguishes Atheism from Theism and Deism
• there is one thing that Atheists believe in (let alone a set of beliefs) that distinguishes them from Theists and Deists.

Oh, and Agnostics hold that knowledge of God is impossible.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

In fact I would say that everybody behaves differently from everybody else - strictly speaking. More loosely speaking, you get Deists and Theists who have opinions that are almost indistinguishable from what you would expect from a "stereotypical Atheist" (except of course in one crucial matter).And yet the key here is what determines what we do if, not from the standpoint of what we believe?


And furthermore you still have not demonstrated that
• "belief in Science" is what distinguishes Atheism from Theism and Deism
• there is one thing that Atheists believe in (let alone a set of beliefs) that distinguishes them from Theists and Deists.Anybody can believe in Science, just that Atheists tend to adhere to it more than others, in the absolute sense that is. ;)


Oh, and Agnostics hold that knowledge of God is impossible.And yet they still insist on believing in the possibility of God. Why?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, does that make me bald with respect to my lack of belief in purple kangaroos? I suppose it would. However, we must be able to maintain a full set of hair over something, right? And this would be our set of beliefs (or philosophy) by which we determine how we govern our lives. Or, am I to believe that Atheists have no way of determining which way is up and down in this world? In fact why even call yourselves Atheists if it doesn't mean anything?

I believe that my keyboard is white. Does that mean that I worship the whiteness of my keyboard? I have a set of beliefs that I call progressive liberalism. Does that mean that I worship liberalism? I believe that science is a useful endeavor that helps us understand the world. Does that mean I worship it? When was the last time I prayed to "Science" or promised my eternal soul to "Science"?

To put all beliefs under the name "religion" is to make it so generic as to be meaningless. Meanwhile, I'm sure most religions would deny being in any way a generic state of belief.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, does that make me bald with respect to my lack of belief in purple kangaroos?

Yes, I suppose so. But would that make you an Afucusmacropeismist?

I suppose it would. However, we must be able to maintain a full set of hair over something, right?

I can tell you from personal experience, that this is not necessarily so.

And this would be our set of beliefs (or philosophy) by which we determine how we govern our lives.

So would you allow then that there is a difference between a set of beliefs and and a personal philosophy?

Or, am I to believe that Atheists have no way of determining which way is up and down in this world? In fact why even call yourselves Atheists if it doesn't mean anything?

You are creating compound false dilemmas and tautologies here. You are suggesting first that everyone must have a set of beliefs or a philosophy that governs their lives, because if you don't you cannot determine which way is up and down. And if you cannot determine up and down, this suggests that your set of beliefs or philosophy doesn't mean anything.

An atheist is someone who is without a belief in a god. Period. It means nothing more than that. Atheism does not come with a predetermined set of beliefs or a philosophy. There are, in fact, at least as many different types of atheists as there are theists. It is a null position. It does not require a knowledge of science much less a belief in it.

Why must everyone believe in something?



edited for spelling

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet the key here is what determines what we do if, not from the standpoint of what we believe?


So a person is characterized by a set of beliefs?


Originally posted by Iacchus
Anybody can believe in Science, just that Atheists tend to adhere to it more than others, in the absolute sense that is. ;)


"In the absolute sense"?? What if science is about finding out more about God's creation?


Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet they still insist on believing in the possibility of God. Why?


Do they? And if so, why not?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by gnome

I have a set of beliefs that I call progressive liberalism. Does that mean that I worship liberalism? Do you revere what this means or, do you practice it for any particular reason in general? If, in fact it involves ritual, and a specific set of beliefs, I would suggest it's awfully close to smacking of religion.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

"In the absolute sense"?? What if science is about finding out more about God's creation? And what if it is? That only reiterates what I have to say even more? ;)

[Iacchus]

So, what was the purpose of the title of this thread? To establish what Atheists believe, or what?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dogwood

Why must everyone believe in something? And when you die, what then? What will have happened to this reality that you believed in while you were still here? It certainly puts your lack of belief on equal grounds with the possibility that God does exist now doesn't it? (at least at this point). And let's say that there was an afterlife. What options would Atheists have to believe then?

[Z]

And when you die, what then? What will have happened to this reality that you believed in while you were still here?

When you die, that's it, you're dead. No further experiences, no further belief - nothing to continue on. Just empty oblivion.

Icky-us, stop smoking hash with Lucianarchy and get a life - and move your broke-a&& out of yo' mama's apartment!

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when you die, what then?

dunno

What will have happened to this reality that you believed in while you were still here?

Loaded question. I do not "believe" in this reality. I assume it will still be here after my death, but I can't prove anything.

It certainlys put your lack of belief on equal grounds with the genuine possibility that God does exist now doesn't it? (at least at this point).

???? What puts my lack of belief on equal grounds with the possibility that god exists? You've completely lost me here.

And let's say that there was an afterlife. What options would Atheists have to believe then?

Mmmm, nope. I'm just getting clicking sounds. Can you rephrase this?

Why must everyone believe in something?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
When you die, that's it, you're dead. No further experiences, no further belief - nothing to continue on. Just empty oblivion.Row row row your boat, gently down the stream ...

[American]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when you die, what then? What will have happened to this reality that you believed in while you were still here? It certainly puts your lack of belief on equal grounds with the possibility that God does exist now doesn't it? (at least at this point). And let's say that there was an afterlife. What options would Atheists have to believe then?


I imagine it's something like before you were ever born. In an old thread, we discussed how everything is explained by the 4 (or so) forces, and the current state of physics and cosmology is to unite them under a singular theory. (Offhand, I believe the forces are gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and the electric force. Or something like that.)

ANYWAY.

Many seek satisfaction in explaining everything, whether by seperate theories or a future single explanation..... to get to the point that I believe: nothing explains existence. And to say "it just is" seems equally disturbing.

My own personal feeling is that nothing should exist, by any right. Nothing- no vacuum, no space (empty or otherwise), no matter, energy, time, fabric, particles, Platonic ideals, no God, no something, no anything. (Get the idea?)

Sometimes I will blank out in a frightful stare just thinking about this. It's the same feeling I got when I was about 12, and I was occasionally struck with a brief feeling of depression - an awareness - that childhood slips away, and one must face adulthood without the many lies that parents use to protect children. I made a conscious effort to shake it off and forget those epiphanies by filling my life with videogames. But inevitably, it overwhelms you like a cancer, and one succumbs to a new reality.

Think about it-- nothing should exist. Nothing!

[canadarocks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what was the purpose of the title of this thread? To establish what Atheists believe, or what?

Although you can look at the top of the thread...

"I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions."

I didn't ask for an establishment of what atheists believe. I wanted to know more about the distinctions between an atheist and an agnostic based on what I heard Randi say. Several people gave me some good ideas to think about. Your comments, however, I found less than helpful (although I do like reading the on-going responses and how questions asked by others go unanswered [must get frustrating]).

Cheers

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by canadarocks

Although you can look at the top of the thread...

"I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions."

I didn't ask for an establishment of what atheists believe. I wanted to know more about the distinctions between an atheist and an agnostic based on what I heard Randi say. Several people gave me some good ideas to think about. Your comments, however, I found less than helpful (although I do like reading the on-going responses and how questions asked by others go unanswered [must get frustrating]).

Cheers Yeah, you're right. Albeit I did read the original post (honest), I guess I just got carried away. Sorry.

Perhaps I should start a new thread? How about Life is Just an Illusion? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44882)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by American

Think about it-- nothing should exist. Nothing! I agree, it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. However, I will refrain from posting on this thread (albeit it's probably too late), as I've started a new thread called, Life is Just an Illusion? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44882)

Please feel free to post over there. Thanks!

[Atlas]

Originally posted by American
I imagine it's something like before you were ever born. In an old thread, we discussed how everything is explained by the 4 (or so) forces, and the current state of physics and cosmology is to unite them under a singular theory. (Offhand, I believe the forces are gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and the electric force. Or something like that.)

ANYWAY.

Many seek satisfaction in explaining everything, whether by seperate theories or a future single explanation..... to get to the point that I believe: nothing explains existence. And to say "it just is" seems equally disturbing.

My own personal feeling is that nothing should exist, by any right. Nothing- no vacuum, no space (empty or otherwise), no matter, energy, time, fabric, particles, Platonic ideals, no God, no something, no anything. (Get the idea?)

Sometimes I will blank out in a frightful stare just thinking about this. It's the same feeling I got when I was about 12, and I was occasionally struck with a brief feeling of depression - an awareness - that childhood slips away, and one must face adulthood without the many lies that parents use to protect children. I made a conscious effort to shake it off and forget those epiphanies by filling my life with videogames. But inevitably, it overwhelms you like a cancer, and one succumbs to a new reality.

Think about it-- nothing should exist. Nothing! One thing I took from Christianity is that a doorway to the spiritual experience is in the "death of self" experience. It's kind of a misnomer and I think you actually stumble through the doorway and then upon returning you realize that in your "One with everything" experience there was no self as there is in the normal sense.

That, of course, is a awesome feeling. But there are several spiritual experiences that can be described after the fact as a "death of self" phenomonon.

American you reminded me of the one I call "The Abyss". It is a feeling... an experience... of desolation - so complete not even despair exists in it. It is the living experience of being emptied, the life drained away. It is often brought on by the loss of one close. It is the nothing of which you speak.

It is a horrible experience. It is deeply spiritual. I use that term in the sense of the range of experiences of the human spirit. But it is as you describe a turn of yin and yang. Tomorrow might hold extreme abundance.

I don't have your faith in God. For me, God is a feeling, well several. The Nothing that you describe - it does exist, you seem to have felt it intellectually, but a much more profound understanding awaits. Maybe you have been torn up by it, like falling into a black hole, it really is one of those God feelings that people have in their life. And things are new and different when you emerge on the other side of the nothingness.

I am not like Iacchus, I believe these experiences are given to us here. But they are so powerful they take on the personality of God or the Devil.

Anyway, put that aside. There is another Nothing from ancient days. The Abyss or Chaos was the Nothing from which the first gods were born. The Earth and Sky and Light - were all pulled from the Abyss. So say the ancients - you may have the right idea but you are a few thousand years late.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Asked and answered, Ratman...

Yah. *Shrug*

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what if it is?


Yeah, what if it is? You are surely going to tell me. :)


Originally posted by Iacchus
That only reiterates what I have to say even more? ;)


You have something to say? Why don't you just say it then, huh?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right?


[irony]My god Iacchus, you're right. Roaches, bacteria and anthozoans must believe they are alive while they are living.[irony]

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Kopji
Agnostic is a socially acceptable word for atheist?

***Kopji's Godless Calculator***

My experience and study do not lead me to know for sure, but based on the evidence so far I believe there is a God.
-Theist

I have felt the power of God in my life and I know there is a God. I wish you could know this feeling too.
-Theist

My experience and study do not lead me to know absolutely, but based on the evidence so far there's only a tiny infinitesimal chance of there being a God. A chance like apples suddenly falling up instead of down.
-Atheist

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I continue to look for answers.
-Agnostic

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I choose to believe in God, let go of the search and just live.
-Theist Light

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. Time to let go of the search and just live.
-Atheist Light

I want there to be a God, but there's not. I participate in religion because I think that belief has value to society. But not because I actually believe.
-Closet Atheist or Evil Theist

I wanted there to be a God, but thankfully there's not. I participate in religion for control or power, not because I actually believe.
-Atheist as described on religious websites.
Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by MLynn
Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them. Good question! I personally do think it is a bad comparison, although if Iacchus had answered my earlier request, it might make a difference.

Different denominations of religions do share (within each, that is) a particular set of beliefs. It is not merely that they can be seperated into, say, catholic and protestant, evangelical or not, biblical literalists, etc, but that they actively separate themselves into such groups. They have, as an organized group, a set of beliefs which describe (or prescribe) the beliefs of the group members. This is not at all the case with the different types of atheists Kopji listed. Kopji's list described categories into which one might sort atheists, but not a set of beliefs by which atheists organize. Indeed, the values systems of any two atheists may have nothing in common, and a given "hard atheist" may share more in common with a "soft atheist" or even a "hard theist" (yeah, with a few notable exceptions) than with another hard atheist.

The labels are merely descriptive of one aspect of an individual, and do not carry with them any other information. The label of a religious denomination, on the other hand, describes a true "set of beliefs". (Iacchus claims atheists do have a set of beliefs, but it seems that rather than describe them, he has retreated into gibberish.)

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because we have to believe in something.

That something is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in theism.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

(Iacchus claims atheists do have a set of beliefs, but it seems that rather than describe them, he has retreated into gibberish.) So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea? Do "most" Creationists believe in Evolution? Yea or nea? Now do you mean to tell me it doesn't make any diffference what you believe here and, that it's not going to effect how any of these people behave, in the least?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea? Do "most" Creationists believe in Evolution? Yea or nea? Now do you mean to tell me it doesn't make any diffference what you believe here and, that it's not going to effect how any of these people behave, in the least? I would assume the first to be a "yea", but since atheists come in so many sorts I cannot back that up (I know of no data addressing the question, but perhaps some one else here does.). I think the second is a "yea", because it is a fundamental tenet in their set of beliefs--i.e., they are in part defined by their failure to be convinced by the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Thank you for this example of exactly the distinction I was making to MLynn. Note, Iacchus, that the vast majority of Catholics also "believe in" evolution (see note below), or rather, are convinced by the available evidence that evolution by natural selection is true. The vast majority of Lutherans do, too, as do many (indeed, a majority, if memory serves) other denominations. So your strawman is exposed.

Do I mean to tell you it makes no difference what you believe? I meant, if you have been paying attention, to find out what you meant by a "set of beliefs" which you feel constitutes atheism. That is all I am after. I am not trying to make any other points. You could have answered the first time, and you'd have found out. (Of course, once you list them, we can examine them...but if you are right, you have nothing to fear.)

Note: For the record, I also answer your first two questions under protest, as the word "belief" makes this a question with a hidden surprise. One may believe something because the evidence for it is overwhelming (as, say, natural selection), one may believe in the absence of evidence (for,say, the soul), or one may believe in contradiction of the evidence (the creationists you mention--although, to be fair, not all of them believe in contradiction of evidence, but because they are fed misinformation as evidence). I would argue that the word "belief" is used vastly differently in each case.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I would assume the first to be a "yea", but since atheists come in so many sorts I cannot back that up (I know of no data addressing the question, but perhaps some one else here does.).

Probably, the majority of atheists worldwide are Buddhists or Taoists. Although a Taoist would probably have no problems with evolution, I don't know what a Buddhist might think.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea?

Hardly any do.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MLynn

Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them. Different denominations of beliefs or, disbeliefs? What the hell is the difference? Sorry MLynn, this is not directed towards you. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Hardly any do. Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here! :(

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here! :( Oh, gee, now you are in a huff.

Most theists who post on this forum also are convinced by the evidence that evolution by natural selection occurs. (If this is the definition of "belief" that you are using...but as I said before, you are conflating at least three different sorts of "belief", so I will not speak for you.)

Don't work too hard building strawmen, Iacchus; they don't last long enough to be worth your effort.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by epepke
Probably, the majority of atheists worldwide are Buddhists or Taoists. Although a Taoist would probably have no problems with evolution, I don't know what a Buddhist might think. Interesting question. I have never heard a Buddhist interpretation of the theory of evolution. I would think though that they could embrace it even more easily that Judeo-Christian-Islamists.

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you revere what this means or, do you practice it for any particular reason in general? If, in fact it involves ritual, and a specific set of beliefs, I would suggest it's awfully close to smacking of religion.

If you count voting, speaking out, and occasionally demonstrating as a "ritual"... then by your tortured definition it would be. But I think that definition of "religion" is not very useful, what word would you use for people that have a belief in a supernatural being that desires certain conduct or acknowledgments from them?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here! :(

*Edit*

Mecrutio already addressed the problem with your post. It was the term "believe" that punked it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Atlas
Interesting question. I have never heard a Buddhist interpretation of the theory of evolution. I would think though that they could embrace it even more easily that Judeo-Christian-Islamists.

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion.

I'd guess that someone who believed in reincarnation would eventually come face-to-face with a "soul counting" problem. After all, what creatures have souls? Although I think the most honest Buddhists are detached to the point where they will eat anything, many of them make a big issue about not eating animals. Which would mean that plants do not have souls, and presumably prokaryotes, viruses, and cyanobacteria wouldn't either. However, since there was a time when there were no eukaryotes, let alone animals, where did all the souls come from? And if they came from somewhere, isn't this not the same as being reincarnated?

Inquiring minds don't care, but it's kind of fun to talk about.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Atlas

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion. Hey, you see. I'm not the only one who's the least bit wacko. :D So, is life just an illusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44882), or not? :D

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Please list this set of beliefs, as you see them.
To pretend that a stance is devoid of axiom is either ignorant or disingenuous.

One obvious belief held by most atheist is the conviction (belief) that insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a belief in deity. A second, held by many, is the belief that induction is valid, as is methodological naturalism. A third is that revelation is an invalid protocol for the acquisition of knowledge.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
To pretend that a stance is devoid of axiom is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Remember, though, that this "stance" is defined negatively--not by what it believes, but by what it does not. There may be many positively defined subgroups which hold particular views, but the group "atheist" is defined, as Stimpy pointed out earlier, by the fact that they are not theists.

One obvious belief held by most atheist is the conviction (belief) that insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a belief in deity. A second, held by many, is the belief that induction is valid, as is methodological naturalism. A third is that revelation is an invalid protocol for the acquisition of knowledge. Thank you. (see how easy it was, Iacchus?)

On first reading, I agree wholeheartedly with your first belief here. That would seem to be the defining characteristic of atheism (although I would think that this may differ depending on whether one came to atheism after first being a believer, or simply never believed in the first place. The latter might never have even thought about whether the evidence is sufficient or not.)

The second...I would like to see you explain that a bit further; I don't (on first reading) see it as a necessary aspect of atheism. Same for the third, actually, and again I would like to see your further thoughts on it.

I do see two and three as common, especially here on the forum, but as they are also common among believers, I don't know to what extent they may be seen as a defining set of beliefs for atheists.

Again, though, thank you very much for the list.

[daenku32]

For those who say "Atheism" (or disbelief in a God) is enough to describe it as "religious":

Is a tree Religious? It certainly doesn't seem to believe in a God. Any at all.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in

I'll give you an example (using the most common western god):

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.

One alternative you missed: No one is truly innocent.

But that's neither here nor there to the topic of this thread. So now I shall fade back into the ether...

[wittgenst3in]

One alternative you missed: No one is truly innocent.
Point. How's this then;

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents, or if no-one is innocent, just people can kill anyone they like.

edited for apostrophe catastrophe.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
Point. How's this then;

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents, or if no-one is innocent, just people can kill anyone they like.


Better -- that would be a possible alternative. Although technically I don't know that you could consider the god of the bible a "person". Now that I think about it, if that's the case, then Premise #2 has no bearing on the situation. As it is, Premise #2 sets up a relationship of "equals" between those people and God, but that's not how the bible portrays the relationship, and I think that has bearing on the matter.

You could change it to "a just entity" I suppose. To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit." Would you agree that that's a logical alternative?

[gnome]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
You could change it to "a just entity" I suppose. To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit." Would you agree that that's a logical alternative?

I wouldn't call that "just" except if someone wants to argue that an all-powerful entity gets to define "just". The fact remains that we have our own meaning of "just" and advocates of God-as-a-supreme-and-just-being aren't shy about supposing the definitions are congruent when pitching the "good" things.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by gnome
I wouldn't call that "just" except if someone wants to argue that an all-powerful entity gets to define "just". The fact remains that we have our own meaning of "just" and advocates of God-as-a-supreme-and-just-being aren't shy about supposing the definitions are congruent when pitching the "good" things.

I understand what you're getting at gnome, but if we're agreeing that a possible alternative is that "no one is innocent" then that means "all are guilty". Surely "justness" allows for the judgement or punishment of the guilty?

[wittgenst3in]

To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit."

So if I can paraphrase your position, God can do anything he likes, and it won't be unjust. Ever.

If a just creator entity can pass judgement any way he likes, what possibly could an hypothetical unjust god do, that would be demonstratably unjust?

I.e. If a just God can kill(punish) anyone he likes, how would an unjust God behave? It seems to me that he could kill(punish) anyone he likes too.

In which case it becomes meaningless to say that God is just.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
If a just creator entity can pass judgement any way he likes, what possibly could an hypothetical unjust god do, that would be demonstratably unjust?

I.e. If a just God can kill(punish) anyone he likes, how would an unjust God behave? It seems to me that he could kill(punish) anyone he likes too.

In which case it becomes meaningless to say that God is just.

Good question. Perhaps an unjust god would punish innocent people as well, if any existed in our hypotheticals, whereas the just god only punishes the guilty. In other words, *if there happened to be any innocent people* the unjust god would punish them, but the just god would not.

But if there happens to be no innocents (as specified in one of our alternatives) then does that fact render the distinction of just/unjust meaningless, or is it enough that in theory there would be a difference?

If only guilty people are brought before a particular judge, and he hands out punishment to each of them, you can't say he's unjust, can you? Likewise, based on your original premises, I don't think you can conclude that "God is unjust" (as you did for one of your possible conclusions). At best, if there are no innocents, you could say "he may be unjust, but we have no way of knowing". If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

I'm not particularly trying to argue that god is just, per se, I'm just looking at your original argument and saying that I don't think you can logically draw from it the conclusions that you did. They may be possibilities, but as I'm trying to point out, there are other possibilities as well.

[Z]

If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

It's certainly consistant - the Bible makes a lot of meaningless statements about God. And certainly, about God's justice.

[wittgenst3in]

PotatoStew, I'm very busy in the next two days, but I'll reply then. Don't want to give the impression I'm ignoring anyone.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
... Perhaps an unjust god would punish innocent people as well, if any existed in our hypotheticals, whereas the just god only punishes the guilty. In other words, *if there happened to be any innocent people* the unjust god would punish them, but the just god would not. It seems a bizarre but effective brainwashing. A newborn is innocence. It is hard to blame a newborn for anything that happened before it's arrival into the world of sunlight.

But we have been taught that we cannot consider them innocent. All are sinners, carrying the stain of the first sin by Adam and Eve. Curiously, more believe in this innate sinfulness than believe in Adam and Eve.

So we cannot recognize innocence where it appears, up close and personal. But we can somhow divine what JUST means, as long as it remains invisible, no matter how cruel and devastating it's effects are.

[maddafinga]

What had innocence got to do with this at all? If just applies differently to god than it does to man, how does the word have any meaning at all when applied to a supernatural being? The same with innocence. If the term just is meaningless then the basis for deciding on who deserves justice wouldn't have any meaning either. The whole concept of god is rife with contradictions.

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

If only guilty people are brought before a particular judge, and he hands out punishment to each of them, you can't say he's unjust, can you?

I most certainly would, if the judge sentenced some with capital punishment, and let others go, with no consistency of sentencing. Surely justice is supposed to be for all, not for some. Anything else is favouritism at best and (in the case of 'Gods chosen people') nepotism at worst.

Take for example the firstborn children of Egypt. These are portrayed as being wiped out in enourmous bloodshed.
If one takes the assumption you stated before, that no-one is innocent, and everyone deserves death, then why is only a select group held accountable for their actions? If children are considered to have commited so grave a sin that death is warrented, why are some allowed to walk free, even rewarded, and others killed?

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Likewise, based on your original premises, I don't think you can conclude that "God is unjust" (as you did for one of your possible conclusions). At best, if there are no innocents, you could say "he may be unjust, but we have no way of knowing". If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

I think if one worked of the premise that no innocents exist, then the problem would lie with premise 3, not with premise 1.

How's this for a recap:

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.

Footnote: If one takes the postion that none are innocent, and also the postion that non-innocent people can and should be punished then the conclusion could be "God's actions are indistinguishable from a evil deities actions".

Edited for typo

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by canadarocks
I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions.

Thanks.
I guess that, paradoxically, I'm an atheist of both types. I know damn well that there is absolutely no evidence for anything paranormal (which includes the existence of gods), and more to the point, that you don't need the paranormal to explain the existence of the universe, or the existence of life. (See my sig. line for details.) I also know that gods were created by pre-scientific peoples to explain natural phenomena in the absence of science; today, however, we know that lightning is not Zeus tossing thunderbolts, and earthquakes are not waking giants or angry deities. So, this leads me to conclude that there IS no god (of any stripe, shape, or colour) in the absence of any evidence. Of course, if rational evidence were to be presented, then I'd change my position. The working hypothesis that there is no god (because of the lack of evidence for a god), however, stands unrefuted. Good luck in proving otherwise.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by roger
I...These words are used in different ways by different parts of the US population (I restrict myself to the US because I am most familiar with English as it is used in the states).
...In other words, incorrectly. :p :D
(Now that I've got the gratuitous colonial insult out of the way...)
I don't think this is a disagreement of usage based on geographical demographics. I think it's more to do with "sensibility demographics", by which I mean that people who are predisposed to believe in gods, fairies, and Leprechauns paint all non-believers with the same brush as "atheists", which to them is synonymous with "lacking moral fibre". Believe you me, the same attitude is prevalent among born-again Xpians in England, too. This is far from an attitude confined to the United States. (You just have a bigger percentage of whackos.) Rather, it is an attitude adopted by all BAX (Born-Again Xpians), who see themselves as morally superior by virtue of their faith in the sky fairy. Personally, I wear the badge of atheist with pride, as it shows I have at least a modicum of critical thinking. Something that normally goes out of the window where the sky fairy is concerned...