The Atheism Test

skeen · 12th January 2009, 03:33 PM

I built this little site tonight, to help to appease some of the semantic arguments regarding atheism vs. agnosticism. www.atheismtest.com

I hope you might find it of some use.

JFrankA · 12th January 2009, 03:39 PM

That was great! I loved it!

GodMark2 · 12th January 2009, 04:40 PM

You forgot the option for "Do you care?" to allow for an "apathetic, agnostic atheist".

(does that mean the polar opposite is the "pathetic, gnostic theist"?)

KingMerv00 · 12th January 2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by GodMark2

You forgot the option for "Do you care?" to allow for an "apathetic, agnostic atheist".

(does that mean the polar opposite is the "pathetic, gnostic theist"?)

I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 12th January 2009, 04:53 PM

There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know.

~~ Paul

Tsukasa Buddha · 12th January 2009, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

Because a creator God can exist, but still have nothing to do with our everyday lives. And sure, maybe he makes rules, but I would still follow my conscience.

KingMerv00 · 12th January 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Because a creator God can exist, but still have nothing to do with our everyday lives. And sure, maybe he makes rules, but I would still follow my conscience.

You would still rather know the truth right?

arthwollipot · 12th January 2009, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

In my experience, most Australians are apatheists. They don't go to church, and religion has very little effect on their lives. In fact, open displays of religion are generally considered a little weird. Most apatheists have no opinion on whether a God exists or not, because their life is not affected in any way by the question. God and religion are unimportant.

Fiona · 12th January 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

Well I have mentioned before, King Mervoo: I don't care. The question is not answerable, so why would I ?

KingMerv00 · 12th January 2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Well I have mentioned before, King Mervoo: I don't care. The question is not answerable, so why would I ?

Presumably, you know it is unanswerable because you looked into the topic. Doesn't that mean the topic was important enough to look into?

Fiona · 12th January 2009, 05:50 PM

Like a lot of other things which are important to large numbers of people, I think it was worthy of some thought and debate. My conclusion was it is not possible to answer it. That does not mean I do not find it interesting: I find almost any subject which other people care about interesting (with the notable exception of sport) because any person who is truly engaged in a subject can teach me something. I have also mentioned before that I have learned a lot about ethics and stuff from the religious. But care about god's actual existence? Not one whit

DeusPhasmatis · 12th January 2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know?

Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all.

Quote:

And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing.

Sure they can. If god is the supernatural, and we can only detect the natural, then by very definition it is impossible to detect god.

Puppycow · 13th January 2009, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all.

I know that the miraculous claims in the bible are false. I strongly suspect that many or most of the mundane claims in the bible are also false.

The bible is very specific though. I don't claim to know whether all possible gods, broadly defined, are nonexistent.

Stimpson J. Cat · 13th January 2009, 02:21 AM

Paul,

Quote:

There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know.

I disagree.

Gods are man-made fictional characters. They do not exist. The idea that we somehow cannot "know" that they do not really exist is no more reasonable than suggesting that we do not "know" that the events of Star Wars did not really happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's a story that somebody made up. We know this. We also know that the various religions are stories that people made up.

I think you are probably referring to rather vague philosophical notions of "god". Clearly if you make it vague enough, one cannot reasonably claim that one cannot know that it does not exist. But I think that you will find that if you do so, it is so vague that the issue of whether or not it exists is not really relevant. Indeed, you will probably find that if you make it that vague, the question of whether it exists or not is not even meaningful. One good example of this being Deism.

In any event, with the exception of deeply philosophical discussions about epistemology and metaphysics, the person inquiring about whether you believe in god, whether you claim to know that there is no god, whether you a theist, atheist, agnostic, and so forth, probably has in mind some rather specific religious notions of "god" anyway. And in philosophical discussions where this is not the case, trying to specify one's position in terms of labels like "theist", "atheist", or "agnostic", would be completely pointless.

In other words, in those cases where it makes any sense to talk about things like atheism and agnosticism, I am an atheist, and I think that I am quite justified in saying that I know that there are no gods.

DM

El Greco · 13th January 2009, 02:52 AM

I agree. Enough with the semantics already. If it walks like a cat, meows like a cat, purrs like a cat, behaves like a cat and looks like a cat, then it is not a dog. There is no God.

Robin · 13th January 2009, 04:25 AM

I would simplify the test:

Do you believe in God?

Yes : you are a theist
No: you are an atheist

Full stop.

Apathia · 13th January 2009, 04:58 AM

Ah, bless my departed mother!
A woman so irreligious that she wasn't even an atheist.

TX50 · 13th January 2009, 05:25 AM

Is there a proper word for people like Fiona, El Greco, Apathia's mother and
myself. "apatheist" is a nonce word. "rationalist"? "rational materialist"?

Mark6 · 13th January 2009, 05:30 AM

A true apatheist would not bother taking the test.

Or posting on this forum.

skeen · 13th January 2009, 10:18 AM

Thanks for your feedback everyone. This 'test' was simply in response to people using "agnostic" as a replacement for "atheist" because they didn't want the connotations that come along with it.

As we know, the two are not mutually exclusive. One refers to knowledge, and the other to belief.

Of course it could be expanded to include many variations, but it's not supposed to be that serious. It's a pretty light hearted utility that I hope you might be able to make some use of at some point.

This is an issue that annoys me greatly. Even Bill Maher says, "I'm not an atheist, because it mirrors the certainty of theists" - this isn't true in the least. He also says, "The thing about me is, I don't know!" If he doesn't know, then he cannot truly believe, therefore he is an atheist. Or, if he likes, an agnostic atheist.

Well, the purpose of this is to try and appease the semantic arguments, so I'm not going to get into all of that. But there is an email address on the page, so should you have any questions or criticisms or whathaveyou, feel free to pop me an email. Thanks!

GodMark2 · 13th January 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

I would simplify the test:

Do you believe in God?

Yes : you are a theist
No: you are an atheist

Full stop.

Which "God"? Thor? YHVH? Brahma? Nyarlothep?

One could believe in any one of these, but none the others, and still be a theist.

Damien Evans · 13th January 2009, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

I don't care. Why should I? After all, it's not like a gods existence or lack thereof actually affects us in any way, shape or form.

Damien Evans · 13th January 2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In my experience, most Australians are apatheists. They don't go to church, and religion has very little effect on their lives. In fact, open displays of religion are generally considered a little weird. Most apatheists have no opinion on whether a God exists or not, because their life is not affected in any way by the question. God and religion are unimportant.

I completely agree.

The Man · 13th January 2009, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Presumably, you know it is unanswerable because you looked into the topic. Doesn't that mean the topic was important enough to look into?

Actually, it only means that one finds the topic interesting enough to look into. Certainly for me, the “I don’t care” option is the primary reason I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist. Which group others might ascribe me to also falls into that “I don’t care” category. I am interested in what people choose to believe and why they might choose to believe it, but that does not make that belief (or lack of it) important to me, just to them. Even if one were able to prove the existence of some “supreme being”, then the question comes who's god might it be and what is its nature. Given the many alternatives and possible interpretations, I do not feel that it is an answerable question. Fundamentally, I think any such “supreme being” would be so beyond our experience and limitations that the required parameters might be un-interpretable to us, leaving us to impose upon it our own interpretations. Indeed, just the supremacy of some being does not make them a god; generally that requires worship and sacrifice, at least in my limited understanding of gods. In a general sense, I have no problem with sacrifice, it is only when it gets to some specific case of what is required to be sacrificed that I start having problems. Respect, I have no problems with either, but worship, I just can’t seem to find the capacity for that within myself, thus leaving the nonexistence or existence and general nature of any god simply a personal interpretation, as it should be. Again such things do interest me but far more things are important to me. Although I have no problems with what one might choose to believe, I will address what they do, as actions are significantly more important then beliefs, at least for me.

Mister Agenda · 14th January 2009, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know.

~~ Paul

An agnostic who claimed there is no way to know in principle would be a strong agnostic, yes?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 14th January 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all.

I can certainly reject the claim. To say "I know" there is no god is going out on the limb a bit too far. But perhaps I'm picking nits.

Quote:

Sure they [agnostics] can. If god is the supernatural, and we can only detect the natural, then by very definition it is impossible to detect god.

So then the agnostic becomes an atheist of the sort you mentioned above. If you say we can't know in principle whether something exists, you are saying it does not exist.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 14th January 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stimpson

Gods are man-made fictional characters. They do not exist. The idea that we somehow cannot "know" that they do not really exist is no more reasonable than suggesting that we do not "know" that the events of Star Wars did not really happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's a story that somebody made up. We know this. We also know that the various religions are stories that people made up.

I'm not sure how we can know that the stories are made up with absolutely no basis in fact. However, if everyone agrees that god is a strictly supernatural concept, then I see no reason to argue with your statement.

Quote:

I think you are probably referring to rather vague philosophical notions of "god". Clearly if you make it vague enough, one cannot reasonably claim that one cannot know that it does not exist. But I think that you will find that if you do so, it is so vague that the issue of whether or not it exists is not really relevant. Indeed, you will probably find that if you make it that vague, the question of whether it exists or not is not even meaningful. One good example of this being Deism.

Fair enough. As the definition becomes more and more vague, the question of what it means to exist also becomes vague.

Quote:

In other words, in those cases where it makes any sense to talk about things like atheism and agnosticism, I am an atheist, and I think that I am quite justified in saying that I know that there are no gods.

I would say I was an atheist based on lack of evidence rather than some sort of knowing.

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi

Unless we agree that god is supernatural, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I know he doesn't exist, any more than I would feel comfortable saying I know UFOs aren't visitors from space. Perhaps I should feel more confident in my knowing.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 14th January 2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

An agnostic who claimed there is no way to know in principle would be a strong agnostic, yes?

Anyone who is saying there is no way to know in principle is saying he knows there is no god. He is an atheist. See the quote by Yahzi in my post above.

I'm not willing to say we can't know in principle, unless the definition of god is pretty specific. That is perhaps why I'm uncomfortable with the word know.

~~ Paul

Malerin · 14th January 2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know.

~~ Paul

Not at all. The agnostic can claim that they have looked at a lot of evidence for theism and can't determine if the anecdotal accounts are genuine or the evidence is God-based or neurochemically-based. They would then base their agnostic belief about God on the evidence they've sifted through.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 14th January 2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

Not at all. The agnostic can claim that they have looked at a lot of evidence for theism and can't determine if the anecdotal accounts are genuine or the evidence is God-based or neurochemically-based. They would then base their agnostic belief about God on the evidence they've sifted through.

And so the agnostic would say that he doesn't have any further ideas about how to reach a conclusion. That is what I meant. What he would not say is that he can't reach a conclusion in principle.

Now, someone might ask him how he would differentiate god-based vs. neurochemically-based evidence. If he says he can't answer that in principle, then I would say there is no god-based evidence.

~~ Paul

arthwollipot · 14th January 2009, 08:35 PM

Okay, so now we've got:

Strong atheism: There is no God
Weak atheism: I do not believe in God
Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know
Weak agnosticism: I don't know
Militant agnosticism: I don't know and neither do you!

DeusPhasmatis · 14th January 2009, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, so now we've got:

Strong atheism: There is no God
Weak atheism: I do not believe in God
Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know
Weak agnosticism: I don't know
Militant agnosticism: I don't know and neither do you!

Militant Atheism: STOP SAYING THERE'S A GOD
Weak Theism: I believe in God
Strong Theism: God is
Militant Theism: REPENT ALL YE SINNERS!

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2009, 09:48 PM

Sorry but the limited results make the site just an echo chamber for your less than unanimous opinion. Not useful unless you define useful as an echo chamber for your opinion.

temporalillusion · 14th January 2009, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Sorry but the limited results make the site just an echo chamber for your less than unanimous opinion. Not useful unless you define useful as an echo chamber for your opinion.

I don't know I think it would be useful. The basic definitions he's using are right and it's point is to illustrate that atheism and agnosticism are positions on totally different questions.

Seems to me that many many people are confused and think agnosticism is "in between" theism and atheism, so this at least is a starting point for discussion.

Miss_Kitt · 14th January 2009, 10:28 PM

KingMerv: Don't know if you're still looking at this thread, but in my personal case, I did a lot of looking at religion; in fact, I practiced several in succession. Then I ditched formal religions and just started trying to Understand It All.

I eventually reached a place where I knew that there was no evidence of the existance of god(s), merely evidence that people believed in god(s). Further, because I had done a lot of reading, taken classes, and had lots of discussions and arguments in philosophy, I had concluded that I could derive a reasonable, coherent, and consistent morality without ever turning to the Divine for guidance. So, I had no use for Faith; and I had no personal need for a god in my life. That led to being able to no longer care about whether god existed or not.

BTW, my position on Pascal's wager is that, if there is a deity, it's either not going to care what I think about it; or, if the Judeo-Christian view is correct, and He's going to be mad at me for using the very rules of evidence He made work for the rest of existance on Him, then he's a tinpot dictator, emotional needy, and abusive. What would you think of a father that beat his kids for using the very methods he had taught them to get answers he considered wrong? What a twerp!

I then slid, over time, into the perspective that since there's no evidence for god(s), and ample evidence for the natural world being adequate to explain all known phenomena--Occam's Razor applies, and there is no god. So now I'm a "strong" atheist.

Just my thoughts, MK

Damien Evans · 15th January 2009, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, so now we've got:

Strong atheism: There is no God
Weak atheism: I do not believe in God
Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know
Weak agnosticism: I don't know
Militant agnosticism: I don't know and neither do you!

Apatheism: I don't care.
Militant Apatheism: I don't care and neither should you!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 15th January 2009, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know

This is equivalent to strong atheism. I think it should be more like "I can't imagine how we could know."

~~ Paul

Damien Evans · 15th January 2009, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This is equivalent to strong atheism. I think it should be more like "I can't imagine how we could know."

~~ Paul

No it isn't. You can think it impossible to know and still believe.

charles brough · 15th January 2009, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Because a creator God can exist, but still have nothing to do with our everyday lives. And sure, maybe he makes rules, but I would still follow my conscience.

ABSOLUTELY! Why should we take issue with deists when they only believe in a "God" who just sits up there doing nothing?" As long as he leaves natural cause and effect alone, who cares? What is important here is science: does the belief conflict with scientific inquiry or not . . .

However, I do believe a person should take a stand on principle. Hedging with agnosticism is to me being affeminite.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 15th January 2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

No it isn't. You can think it impossible to know and still believe.

Still believe what? We're talking about agnostics: people who are not committed to either a belief or disbelief in god.

If a person says he thinks it's impossible to know whether god exists but believes he does exist, then that person is being irrational. He has to say that it must be possible to know, but isn't sure how.

~~ Paul

12th January 2009, 03:33 PM	#1
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257	The Atheism Test I built this little site tonight, to help to appease some of the semantic arguments regarding atheism vs. agnosticism. www.atheismtest.com I hope you might find it of some use.
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257

12th January 2009, 03:39 PM	#2
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	That was great! I loved it!
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

12th January 2009, 04:40 PM	#3
GodMark2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 1,043	You forgot the option for "Do you care?" to allow for an "apathetic, agnostic atheist". (does that mean the polar opposite is the "pathetic, gnostic theist"?)
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know. Last edited by GodMark2; 12th January 2009 at 04:41 PM. Reason: added size tags

12th January 2009, 04:53 PM	#5
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

12th January 2009, 05:11 PM	#6
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,926	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious. Because a creator God can exist, but still have nothing to do with our everyday lives. And sure, maybe he makes rules, but I would still follow my conscience.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

12th January 2009, 04:46 PM	#4
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by GodMark2 You forgot the option for "Do you care?" to allow for an "apathetic, agnostic atheist". (does that mean the polar opposite is the "pathetic, gnostic theist"?) I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious.

12th January 2009, 05:22 PM	#7
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Because a creator God can exist, but still have nothing to do with our everyday lives. And sure, maybe he makes rules, but I would still follow my conscience. You would still rather know the truth right?

12th January 2009, 05:29 PM	#8
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious. In my experience, most Australians are apatheists. They don't go to church, and religion has very little effect on their lives. In fact, open displays of religion are generally considered a little weird. Most apatheists have no opinion on whether a God exists or not, because their life is not affected in any way by the question. God and religion are unimportant.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

12th January 2009, 05:35 PM	#9
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious. Well I have mentioned before, King Mervoo: I don't care. The question is not answerable, so why would I ?
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

12th January 2009, 05:41 PM	#10
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Fiona Well I have mentioned before, King Mervoo: I don't care. The question is not answerable, so why would I ? Presumably, you know it is unanswerable because you looked into the topic. Doesn't that mean the topic was important enough to look into?

12th January 2009, 05:50 PM	#11
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Like a lot of other things which are important to large numbers of people, I think it was worthy of some thought and debate. My conclusion was it is not possible to answer it. That does not mean I do not find it interesting: I find almost any subject which other people care about interesting (with the notable exception of sport) because any person who is truly engaged in a subject can teach me something. I have also mentioned before that I have learned a lot about ethics and stuff from the religious. But care about god's actual existence? Not one whit
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

12th January 2009, 05:52 PM	#12
DeusPhasmatis Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 293	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all. Quote: And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. Sure they can. If god is the supernatural, and we can only detect the natural, then by very definition it is impossible to detect god.
	__________________ "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." -John Maynard Keynes I'm an evangelical empiricist and rationalist.

13th January 2009, 01:06 AM	#13
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all. I know that the miraculous claims in the bible are false. I strongly suspect that many or most of the mundane claims in the bible are also false. The bible is very specific though. I don't claim to know whether all possible gods, broadly defined, are nonexistent.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

13th January 2009, 02:21 AM	#14
Stimpson J. Cat Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 1,833	Paul, Quote: There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know. I disagree. Gods are man-made fictional characters. They do not exist. The idea that we somehow cannot "know" that they do not really exist is no more reasonable than suggesting that we do not "know" that the events of Star Wars did not really happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's a story that somebody made up. We know this. We also know that the various religions are stories that people made up. I think you are probably referring to rather vague philosophical notions of "god". Clearly if you make it vague enough, one cannot reasonably claim that one cannot know that it does not exist. But I think that you will find that if you do so, it is so vague that the issue of whether or not it exists is not really relevant. Indeed, you will probably find that if you make it that vague, the question of whether it exists or not is not even meaningful. One good example of this being Deism. In any event, with the exception of deeply philosophical discussions about epistemology and metaphysics, the person inquiring about whether you believe in god, whether you claim to know that there is no god, whether you a theist, atheist, agnostic, and so forth, probably has in mind some rather specific religious notions of "god" anyway. And in philosophical discussions where this is not the case, trying to specify one's position in terms of labels like "theist", "atheist", or "agnostic", would be completely pointless. In other words, in those cases where it makes any sense to talk about things like atheism and agnosticism, I am an atheist, and I think that I am quite justified in saying that I know that there are no gods. DM
	__________________ A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. Last edited by Stimpson J. Cat; 13th January 2009 at 02:25 AM.

13th January 2009, 02:52 AM	#15
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,314	I agree. Enough with the semantics already. If it walks like a cat, meows like a cat, purrs like a cat, behaves like a cat and looks like a cat, then it is not a dog. There is no God.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

13th January 2009, 04:25 AM	#16
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	I would simplify the test: Do you believe in God? Yes : you are a theist No: you are an atheist Full stop.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

13th January 2009, 04:58 AM	#17
Apathia Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Tempe, AZ Posts: 2,937	Ah, bless my departed mother! A woman so irreligious that she wasn't even an atheist.
	__________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown

13th January 2009, 05:25 AM	#18
TX50 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,556	Is there a proper word for people like Fiona, El Greco, Apathia's mother and myself. "apatheist" is a nonce word. "rationalist"? "rational materialist"?
TX50 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,556

13th January 2009, 05:30 AM	#19
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	A true apatheist would not bother taking the test. Or posting on this forum.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178

13th January 2009, 10:18 AM	#20
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257	Thanks for your feedback everyone. This 'test' was simply in response to people using "agnostic" as a replacement for "atheist" because they didn't want the connotations that come along with it. As we know, the two are not mutually exclusive. One refers to knowledge, and the other to belief. Of course it could be expanded to include many variations, but it's not supposed to be that serious. It's a pretty light hearted utility that I hope you might be able to make some use of at some point. This is an issue that annoys me greatly. Even Bill Maher says, "I'm not an atheist, because it mirrors the certainty of theists" - this isn't true in the least. He also says, "The thing about me is, I don't know!" If he doesn't know, then he cannot truly believe, therefore he is an atheist. Or, if he likes, an agnostic atheist. Well, the purpose of this is to try and appease the semantic arguments, so I'm not going to get into all of that. But there is an email address on the page, so should you have any questions or criticisms or whathaveyou, feel free to pop me an email. Thanks!
skeen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 257

13th January 2009, 05:19 PM	#21
GodMark2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 1,043	Originally Posted by Robin I would simplify the test: Do you believe in God? Yes : you are a theist No: you are an atheist Full stop. Which "God"? Thor? YHVH? Brahma? Nyarlothep? One could believe in any one of these, but none the others, and still be a theist.
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

13th January 2009, 06:13 PM	#22
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,310	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I've heard this from time to time. Why would someone not care if God existed or not? Maybe I'm just too damn curious. I don't care. Why should I? After all, it's not like a gods existence or lack thereof actually affects us in any way, shape or form.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

13th January 2009, 06:18 PM	#23
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,310	Originally Posted by arthwollipot In my experience, most Australians are apatheists. They don't go to church, and religion has very little effect on their lives. In fact, open displays of religion are generally considered a little weird. Most apatheists have no opinion on whether a God exists or not, because their life is not affected in any way by the question. God and religion are unimportant. I completely agree.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

13th January 2009, 07:24 PM	#24
The Man Scourge, of the supernatural Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 7,525	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Presumably, you know it is unanswerable because you looked into the topic. Doesn't that mean the topic was important enough to look into? Actually, it only means that one finds the topic interesting enough to look into. Certainly for me, the “I don’t care” option is the primary reason I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist. Which group others might ascribe me to also falls into that “I don’t care” category. I am interested in what people choose to believe and why they might choose to believe it, but that does not make that belief (or lack of it) important to me, just to them. Even if one were able to prove the existence of some “supreme being”, then the question comes who's god might it be and what is its nature. Given the many alternatives and possible interpretations, I do not feel that it is an answerable question. Fundamentally, I think any such “supreme being” would be so beyond our experience and limitations that the required parameters might be un-interpretable to us, leaving us to impose upon it our own interpretations. Indeed, just the supremacy of some being does not make them a god; generally that requires worship and sacrifice, at least in my limited understanding of gods. In a general sense, I have no problem with sacrifice, it is only when it gets to some specific case of what is required to be sacrificed that I start having problems. Respect, I have no problems with either, but worship, I just can’t seem to find the capacity for that within myself, thus leaving the nonexistence or existence and general nature of any god simply a personal interpretation, as it should be. Again such things do interest me but far more things are important to me. Although I have no problems with what one might choose to believe, I will address what they do, as actions are significantly more important then beliefs, at least for me.
	__________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius") Last edited by The Man; 13th January 2009 at 07:29 PM. Reason: typos

14th January 2009, 08:52 AM	#25
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know. ~~ Paul An agnostic who claimed there is no way to know in principle would be a strong agnostic, yes?

14th January 2009, 04:26 PM	#26
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis Strong athiesm is the rejection of the theistic claim. I know there is no elephant on my bed. That is all. I can certainly reject the claim. To say "I know" there is no god is going out on the limb a bit too far. But perhaps I'm picking nits. Quote: Sure they [agnostics] can. If god is the supernatural, and we can only detect the natural, then by very definition it is impossible to detect god. So then the agnostic becomes an atheist of the sort you mentioned above. If you say we can't know in principle whether something exists, you are saying it does not exist. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

14th January 2009, 04:36 PM	#27
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Originally Posted by Stimpson Gods are man-made fictional characters. They do not exist. The idea that we somehow cannot "know" that they do not really exist is no more reasonable than suggesting that we do not "know" that the events of Star Wars did not really happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's a story that somebody made up. We know this. We also know that the various religions are stories that people made up. I'm not sure how we can know that the stories are made up with absolutely no basis in fact. However, if everyone agrees that god is a strictly supernatural concept, then I see no reason to argue with your statement. Quote: I think you are probably referring to rather vague philosophical notions of "god". Clearly if you make it vague enough, one cannot reasonably claim that one cannot know that it does not exist. But I think that you will find that if you do so, it is so vague that the issue of whether or not it exists is not really relevant. Indeed, you will probably find that if you make it that vague, the question of whether it exists or not is not even meaningful. One good example of this being Deism. Fair enough. As the definition becomes more and more vague, the question of what it means to exist also becomes vague. Quote: In other words, in those cases where it makes any sense to talk about things like atheism and agnosticism, I am an atheist, and I think that I am quite justified in saying that I know that there are no gods. I would say I was an atheist based on lack of evidence rather than some sort of knowing. If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi Unless we agree that god is supernatural, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I know he doesn't exist, any more than I would feel comfortable saying I know UFOs aren't visitors from space. Perhaps I should feel more confident in my knowing. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

14th January 2009, 04:37 PM	#28
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda An agnostic who claimed there is no way to know in principle would be a strong agnostic, yes? Anyone who is saying there is no way to know in principle is saying he knows there is no god. He is an atheist. See the quote by Yahzi in my post above. I'm not willing to say we can't know in principle, unless the definition of god is pretty specific. That is perhaps why I'm uncomfortable with the word know. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny Last edited by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos; 14th January 2009 at 04:40 PM.

14th January 2009, 05:05 PM	#29
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos There is a problem with your test. An atheist cannot claim to know there is no god. How could you know? And an agnostic cannot claim that there is no way to know in principle, because that is the same thing. The best the agnostic can do is say that he doesn't have any idea how to know. ~~ Paul Not at all. The agnostic can claim that they have looked at a lot of evidence for theism and can't determine if the anecdotal accounts are genuine or the evidence is God-based or neurochemically-based. They would then base their agnostic belief about God on the evidence they've sifted through.
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

14th January 2009, 05:21 PM	#30
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Originally Posted by Malerin Not at all. The agnostic can claim that they have looked at a lot of evidence for theism and can't determine if the anecdotal accounts are genuine or the evidence is God-based or neurochemically-based. They would then base their agnostic belief about God on the evidence they've sifted through. And so the agnostic would say that he doesn't have any further ideas about how to reach a conclusion. That is what I meant. What he would not say is that he can't reach a conclusion in principle. Now, someone might ask him how he would differentiate god-based vs. neurochemically-based evidence. If he says he can't answer that in principle, then I would say there is no god-based evidence. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

14th January 2009, 08:35 PM	#31
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Okay, so now we've got: Strong atheism: There is no God Weak atheism: I do not believe in God Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know Weak agnosticism: I don't know Militant agnosticism: I don't know and neither do you!
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

14th January 2009, 09:23 PM	#32
DeusPhasmatis Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 293	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Okay, so now we've got: Strong atheism: There is no God Weak atheism: I do not believe in God Strong agnosticism: It is impossible to know Weak agnosticism: I don't know Militant agnosticism: I don't know and neither do you! Militant Atheism: STOP SAYING THERE'S A GOD Weak Theism: I believe in God Strong Theism: God is Militant Theism: REPENT ALL YE SINNERS!
	__________________ "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." -John Maynard Keynes I'm an evangelical empiricist and rationalist.

14th January 2009, 09:48 PM	#33
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,633	Sorry but the limited results make the site just an echo chamber for your less than unanimous opinion. Not useful unless you define useful as an echo chamber for your opinion.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

14th January 2009, 10:05 PM	#34
temporalillusion Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada's Texas Posts: 1,163	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Sorry but the limited results make the site just an echo chamber for your less than unanimous opinion. Not useful unless you define useful as an echo chamber for your opinion. I don't know I think it would be useful. The basic definitions he's using are right and it's point is to illustrate that atheism and agnosticism are positions on totally different questions. Seems to me that many many people are confused and think agnosticism is "in between" theism and atheism, so this at least is a starting point for discussion.

14th January 2009, 10:28 PM	#35
Miss_Kitt Zombie Horse of Homeopathy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lesser Seattle Posts: 3,632	KingMerv: Don't know if you're still looking at this thread, but in my personal case, I did a lot of looking at religion; in fact, I practiced several in succession. Then I ditched formal religions and just started trying to Understand It All. I eventually reached a place where I knew that there was no evidence of the existance of god(s), merely evidence that people believed in god(s). Further, because I had done a lot of reading, taken classes, and had lots of discussions and arguments in philosophy, I had concluded that I could derive a reasonable, coherent, and consistent morality without ever turning to the Divine for guidance. So, I had no use for Faith; and I had no personal need for a god in my life. That led to being able to no longer care about whether god existed or not. BTW, my position on Pascal's wager is that, if there is a deity, it's either not going to care what I think about it; or, if the Judeo-Christian view is correct, and He's going to be mad at me for using the very rules of evidence He made work for the rest of existance on Him, then he's a tinpot dictator, emotional needy, and abusive. What would you think of a father that beat his kids for using the very methods he had taught them to get answers he considered wrong? What a twerp! I then slid, over time, into the perspective that since there's no evidence for god(s), and ample evidence for the natural world being adequate to explain all known phenomena--Occam's Razor applies, and there is no god. So now I'm a "strong" atheist. Just my thoughts, MK
	__________________ It's much better to live an honest life than a delusional one -- desertgal Magic thinking is a lead personal floatation device. It looks really reassuring, but it will drag you down--whatthebutlersaw