Atheism...

[GenghisTron]

I often hear people say that they're 'atheists'. Many atheists pride themselves on their intellectual accomplishment by claiming they're taking a 'rational' stance on the existence of a deity, but I disagree.

I feel that the most rational position is agnostic atheism.

There's no point in claiming you're on the intellectual high ground when taking a very much faith-based position, because by it's definition, atheism is the rejection of deities. Faith entails that you believe in something, contrary to there being sufficient evidence. We cannot prove OR disprove the existence of deities, so therefore, atheism is faith.

What is the difference? Agnostic atheism basically entails that, I'm going to err on the side of caution and not declare that there is no doubt in my mind that there's not a creator, while at the same time, rejecting conventional theism.

Because after all, isn't it faithful to be 100% sure in your mind that there is no 'creator' or deity, while at the same time criticizing theists for being 100% sure there is a 'creator' or deity? It certainly seems like a paradox to me.

I'm not saying atheism itself is irrational, I'm saying that atheism on it's own is irrational. I guess what I'm saying is, people misunderstand atheism, and if I had to wager, I'd bet a vast majority of those that claim they're 'atheists' are actually agnostic atheists.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I'd bet a vast majority of those that claim they're 'atheists' are actually agnostic atheists.

And you'd be right. Almost nobody would actually fall into the 100% atheist category.

[GenghisTron]

You'd be surprised how many 'atheists' I've come across on forums who were adamant about not being labeled an agnostic in any way, shape or form.

[squeek.]

Then they deserve to be labeled as strong atheists.

Atheism as a term is rather ambiguous, though. It can mean quite a few different things. I consider myself an atheist, but more accurately I'd be labeled a weak atheist or something similar. Agnostic atheism doesn't have much of a clear definition either, does it?

Here's Richard Dawkins' attempt to define the spectrum of belief:

1. Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

He places himself in the de facto atheist category, as would many other atheists.

I don't think claiming that atheism is believing 100% that there is no god or deities is very useful or accurate. Atheism is a broad term. A similar ambiguity applies to the term "Christian", given the number of sects.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Then they deserve to be labeled as strong atheists.

Atheism as a term is rather ambiguous, though. It can mean quite a few different things. I consider myself an atheist, but more accurately I'd be labeled a weak atheist or something similar. Agnostic atheism doesn't have much of a clear definition either, does it?

Sure it does. It is simply the notion that we can't know if there is a God, or not (and whatever else that entails). There isn't really any sects or anything like that, because a whole range of conclusions can be drawn from it.

Originally Posted by squeek.

Here's Richard Dawkins' attempt to define the spectrum of belief:

He places himself in the de facto atheist category, as would many other atheists.

I don't think claiming that atheism is believing 100% that there is no god or deities is very useful or accurate. Atheism is a broad term. A similar ambiguity applies to the term "Christian", given the number of sects.

The argument for/against atheism and agnosticism and this whole 'agnostic atheism' debate is purely epistemological. I myself am a pretty 'strong' atheist, but at the same time, I realize I don't have the capacity to truly know. Subjectively, I'm pretty positive there isn't a creator. Objectively, I'm an agnostic atheist, because I don't want to be faithful in my belief that there isn't a God.

And yea, I see what you're saying about how atheism is broad, but what I'm saying is, agnostic atheism is the means to the end, and not the end. Atheism, to me, seems more like an end.

[uBeR]

The onus is not on the person to prove a negative. The onus lies with those who argue in the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean one cannot argue in defense of the atheistic position, which is quite rational. I mean, look at your argument. Does it make any sense? Do you call yourself a flying-teapot agnostic? Who in their right mind takes that position? No one can be absolutely certain of any claim at all, if we accept the theories epistemological skepticism (which might not be a bad idea). But if we want to be practical about things, in the same way Dawkins does, then we are quite rational in being atheistic, just as you are being quite rational at the moment for not believing there is a flying teapot orbiting Neptune or an invisible unicorn sitting in your room.

[squeek.]

Genghis, all this is really about is definitions. As long as you define exactly what you mean, you can call it anything. Carrotfinancism is the belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not zero. I'm a carrotfinancist. It's only the definition that matters, not the term. If you want to talk about strong atheism, you have to say "strong atheism". Atheism itself doesn't have a strict definition (at least in the common usage of it).

If you define atheistic agnosticism as including "the notion that we can't know if there is a God, or not", then I would say I might fall outside of that definition. Hence, atheistic agnosticism is separate from weak atheism, which is separate from strong atheism. But, all three terms could easily fit under the wide umbrella of "atheism" (or some general definition of atheism).

[Etzell]

What's the point, really? It's all about how you define your beliefs or lack thereof in a deity. This is a highly personal matter as-is, attempting to get the collective people to agree to one label because you think it's slightly more accurate isn't going to happen.

For example, look at how many sects Christianity has. Go to any church. Grab 10 people. If you don't get at least 6 slightly different definitions of what Christianity means to them, I'll be stunned.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Genghis, all this is really about is definitions. As long as you define exactly what you mean, you can call it anything. Carrotfinancism is the belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not zero. I'm a carrotfinancist. It's only the definition that matters, not the term. If you want to talk about strong atheism, you have to say "strong atheism". Atheism itself doesn't have a strict definition (at least in the common usage of it).

If you define atheistic agnosticism as including "the notion that we can't know if there is a God, or not", then I would say I might fall outside of that definition. Hence, atheistic agnosticism is separate from weak atheism, which is separate from strong atheism. But, all three terms could easily fit under the wide umbrella of "atheism" (or some general definition of atheism).

Yea, I already said this was purely an epistemological argument. Agnostics and atheists and agnostic atheists are basically the same thing.

[squeek.]

Alright. I'm confused as to what you're arguing then.

Atheism doesn't have a strict definition. Your entire first post hinges on atheism having a strict definition (and it being separate from agnostic atheism).

Thread done?

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by uBeR

The onus is not on the person to prove a negative. The onus lies with those who argue in the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean one cannot argue in defense of the atheistic position, which is quite rational. I mean, look at your argument. Does it make any sense? Do you call yourself a flying-teapot agnostic? Who in their right mind takes that position? No one can be absolutely certain of any claim at all, if we accept the theories epistemological skepticism (which might not be a bad idea). But if we want to be practical about things, in the same way Dawkins does, then we are quite rational in being atheistic, just as you are being quite rational at the moment for not believing there is a flying teapot orbiting Neptune or an invisible unicorn sitting in your room.

I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying. I made this thread because on another forum I got in a heated debate with someone who INSISTED he wasn't an agnostic atheist, despite the fact that I got him to admit he wasn't entirely sure. I think it's important to say what you mean, and mean what you say, which is why I chose to argue that most atheists are not purely athiest, but are instead agnostic atheists. People call me a capitalist, but I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist and a voluntaryist than I am a capitalist. Narrowing down the definition of things is sometimes necessary, and sometimes it's harmful. In this case, I think it's worth it to be said that atheism and agnosticism are misunderstood. I mean, if you go on any site where there's a substantial religious and anti-religious debate going on, you'll often find agnostics and atheists trying their hardest to distance themselves from each other, and employ No True Scotsman fallacies to try and disassociate with each other.

It just bothers me, is all.

[Crazycarl]

If you have absolutely no evidence of something, I have no problem with you saying that, in all honesty, you disbelieve it 100%. For example, I have no evidence that I have not been abducted by aliens and been put back in my house, with my memory of it erased. As improbable as that may be, it's in the realm of possibility. But if you were to ask me if I've been abducted by aliens, I would unequivocally say, "no". Even though many people believe in UFOs and I have no special knowledge that proves they don't exist, I have no responsibility to entertain the notion.

I think in the case of God, there's more reason to doubt his existence, not less. Look at all the extraordinary claims that are intertwined with the theory of God: claims about divine intervention, history, morality, intelligent design, and many other claims deal with things in the real world that can be observed, and they all allow the doubter more reasons to declare the whole thing bunk.

[GenghisTron]

I disagree. It's easier to find disbelief in someone getting abducted by a UFO because the whole conspiracy theory around UFO's is half-baked and non-sensical. Why would aliens waste their resources to come to some ambiguous part of the Milky Way galaxy (We live in an empty corner of the Milky Way galaxy) and then they come here and play 'hard to get'. You'd think they'd actively try and communicate with us, but instead there's this conspiracy that they come here to run tests. It makes no sense.

On the other hand, we are not able to explain how we got here on this Earth. There's many theories out there about the big bang, etc. We can't explain our universe. There are still many scientific questions we are trying to answer. It's like Richard Feynman said, 'the inconceivable nature of nature'. There's so much we can't even comprehend, which is why it is an attractive alternative to instead accept the fairy-tale that the nice attractive man in the sky made everything in 7 days.

[Crazycarl]

You could say the same thing about God. Why would he create the whole world for our benefit, lay out laws for us to follow, create an eternal afterlife for us, and then only reveal himself in cryptic writings, long ago, to a select population of the Earth? In any case, if the belief resonates with that person and satisfies some need they have, it doesn't matter whether it makes sense.

One could say that the aliens live near us, or homed in on our radio transmissions, and that they don't want to ruin their study by revealing themselves to us. It's the same hand-waving and explaining away that is done at the birth of any religion.

I'm just saying that the more claims made by a belief system--practical claims that intrude on your real life, the easier it is to find a reason to toss it away.

[Hammock]

Plus don't forget, Aliens don't have to come from billions of light years away. They could just be in our back yard. Hellooo... Martians?

But seriously, man kind is far closer to being able to prove whether or not Mars had/has alien life on/in it, than proving god does/doesn't exist, or alien's from a galaxy far far away have come to earth.

As far as being athiest/agnostic, it could be defined in many ways, it's all about what the meaning behind the definition means.


You could use numbers instead of words

-----------Athiest--------------Agnostic------------Thiest---------
(-5)---(-4)---(-3)---(-2)---(-1)---(0)---(1)---(2)---(3)---(4)---(5)

This chart would even allow for far greater variations that someone could make with using words and still make sense.

For example, I could fall somewhere between (-3) and (-4) and as long as people understand graphs and charts, most people would have a pretty good idea how I feel about god.

[BinaryLife]

Believing is often not about facts, but about faith and the more faith people have in god the more they drift towards saying that god's existence is fact. Ultimately, if you look at it from their perspective, only for a moment of course, if you were to believe stories from the bible were one hundred percent true, would you not be concerned with god's opinion of your thoughts and your behavior?

But more importantly, gengis is how you look to yourself. You don't need a book or a deity to tell you right from wrong. Humans are born with the ability to reason. Those stories help, but they aren't needed. And if you look into the mirror and are happy with how you define your beliefs then that's all you need.

[Bridget]

Agnosticism is not a middle-ground between Theism and Atheism. Agnosticism is a belief that the truth value for certain values can never be obtained, and this could be for various reasons. I am an Agnostic Atheist in that I believe while one could never prove or disprove God because testing God could probably never be done, I personally don't believe that there is a God. 'Agnostic' is more fitting as an adjective instead of a noun that declares ultimate belief. If I ask your stance on God, and you reply that you are simply an Agnostic, then you have told me nothing about your personal belief on God, just that you ultimately believe God can not be proven nor disproven. That's great, but do we believe in God or not?

People who wrongfully label themselves Agnostic often pleasure themselves in the idea that their position is more logical than that of Atheists or Theists, when they are not actually proclaiming a position of belief. They are advertising the lack of a belief or withholding their personal belief and offering us a self-evident fact of possibility. There's not much wrong for comparison when one half of the comparative is missing. You can't be running faster than me by standing still. This is equal to asking someone 'What type of job do you do?' and having them reply with something like 'part-time' when you were fishing for the occupation in particular.

You have to either believe in God or not believe in God. There is no exceptional middle. Either a rock is a rock or it is not. You could say that a specific object could or could not be a rock, and that's absolutely healthy to suggest, but do you believe it is a rock or do you believe it is not? If you wish to withhold your belief on what the object is, then don't fool yourself into believing your position is more logical for doing so. As said above, you can't hold a superior belief when you lack one or fail to offer it for comparison.

Either you are an Atheist or a Theist. I don't care about the self-evident fact that there could or could not be a God. Atheists believe the same thing. I believe there could or could not be a God, but I don't personally believe there is one. Everyone believes there could or could not be such, but they ultimately decide on the possibility with their personal beliefs. It isn't a conclusion. It's a personal belief. It's an opinion. People who wrongfully call themselves 'Agnostic' think Atheism is illogical because they presume it's a position of absolute conclusion. That's not necessarily true. I don't know a single person who would claim that they know 100% that there is no God. I know tons of theists, though, that claim to know with certainty that God does exist.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

I know tons of theists, though, that claim to know with certainty that God does exist.

Probably because they have seen and felt evidence you have not. There are plenty of facts in this world that have no physical tangible proof we can observe.

Scuzzy

[Bridget]

For example,

[uBeR]

Of course, those who claim to know God have no faith at all in God, because faith requires the absence of evidence, and they should perish in Hell for eternity for being faithless, according to their own scripture. Now, it could easily be said there are many things about the world and universe that we do not yet understand; there may be no tangible facts we can point to. However, that in no way suggests the existence of God or a god. It does not follow from our ignorance that there is a "supreme being." To suggest otherwise would be to commit a particularly egregious fallacy, which would require a complete suspension of logic or reason. That's not to say it never happens. It's the sort of "God of the gaps." Because there is a gap in knowledge here, God must be responsible for this. Because I cannot explain this, God must have done it. Again, totally void of logic and reason.