that it is possible to reduce atheism to a series of statements concerning this signifier "god" is obvious: that individuals can take up these statements from a variety of angles, enunciate them with varying types of fervor, say, would mean only that it is possible to perform that type of operation upon/with those statements. it says nothing--at all--about anything to do with a system of beliefs/non-beliefs behind the statements. to think otherwise is to confuse the flexibility (in terms of usage) of a particular sequence of statements with an analysis of a social configuration/system of beliefs/practices. which is a pretty goofy slide to allow oneself to make. so i think the premise of this thread is at the very best elaborated on superficial understanding,

the thread is then about an assertion on the part of tspike concerning the usage of particular types of statements. insofar as it goes, there is nothing remakrable, interesting or thoguht-provoking about it. that he chose to move from there to an attempt to conflate atheism with a religion is simply a mistake--that the thread then moved into a typical christian evangelical parlor game, in whcih sophomoric logic tricks are deployed in order to "demonstrate" the untenability of the belief system "atheism" shows that the thread was never really about its purported topic.

the "history" of atheism thrown about here is also wrong: it is absurd to equate darwin with atheism in a cause-effect manner--in europe, atheism as a cultural option emerged gradually from within nominalism, across the 17th and 18th century--it is a consequence of the assumption that god is radically transcendant, not accessible to human understanding at any level--one way-station that you can look at is the wager in pascal's pensees: from this position, it is but a small step to non-belief (either agnostic or athiest)....

I don't know if you're talking about what I said earlier, but I'm not trying to say Darwin caused atheism... Rather, that before Darwin no one could get past the cosmological argument (although there are definitely those who were not convinced). It seemed unarguable that intelligence had to create complex life.

Bingle

bingle: i am not sure if it was your post(s) or not that i ws referring to.
as to your comment, i am not sure about that-----i am not sure where you find implications of intelligent design in folk like linneas or buffon--on in much 18th century philosophies of nature, which seem to be more about the rationality of classification systems than about the conditions of possiblilty for either the classifications or the world being classified---but this might be a function of not having read them for a long time on my part. i guess what i would say is that darwin's work does not come out of the Vapor, that it leans on previous works, previous shifts in assumptions about the nature of science, that it does not stand at the origin of trending away from linking the perception of order in the world with the assumption of some Big Agent who did the ordering.

Just thought I'd put in my two cents on the logical proof topic.
Is it just me or does it seem a bit wrong to put a supposedly omnipotent being inside the boundaries of logic?

I would say that before mankind created gods there were no religious people.

I havn't had time to read the entire thread, so forgive me if this is off topic. I'm just jumping in here to throw out my new quote- it seemed like a good place.

"If aethism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Wheee!

Not just wrong but plain stupid, you cannot logically prove the existence of a god, those of you sitting back waiting for it to happen are in for a long wait. Faith is at the core of religous belief, faith does not require proof - that is why it is faith.
Science and rational thought have gone a long way to explain the nature of reality but we will always be bound by the laws of our universe, to say that there is no chance that there is something beyond that is a bit ignorant

exactly. which is why faith transcends the requirements of proof. Empiricism, by it's very nature has to operate within the boundaries of the universe. Or to re-word it, within the boundaries of that which has been created. Agnostics are therefore bound by the same limitations. People who employ faith (those that both believe in God, and believe that there is no God) suspend the requirement of proof. Those who do not employ faith wait. Until such a point as they obtain proof, they remain 'not knowing' (agnostic).

Hi! This is what I think I've been arguing against for the last few posts ;-) In fact, if you look at history, there is a long tradition of both religious and atheistic proof for or against the existence of God. YOU may believe that God requires no proof, and that in fact none can be given, but many people would disagree with you (including a number of saints).

Especially since we haven't been talking about empirical proof :-)

Bingle

Yes, that's definitely true. And you're right. In fact, I take back what I said - It was just a lot harder to be an atheist before Darwin, but they existed. The Cosmological argument can also be attacked from a "first cause" point of view, which isn't quite as strong as Darwin, but people did it anyway.

Bingle

However, that is done every day. In fact, it is what makes religion possible. Here's a quote from a religious site:

The entire foundation of religion is built upon logic, otherwise it would be entirely arbitrary. There would be no more reason to worship God than to worship the devil, and speaking of the will of God would be meaningless.

Regardless, logic is applied to the inifinite all the time. It's really the only thing that can be.

Bingle

not sure if i follow you, but yes, God has no requirement to be validated through proof. That's neither here nor there for God. It's people who either want proof, and therefore lacking it remain agnostic, or do not want proof, and accept God, or No God on the basis of faith. My point is that to be an Atheist, you must act from the same basis as one who is a Theist.

We are talking about empirical or scientific proof. Those saints etc who follow the long tradition of proof are operating on the basis of faith. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

Is that an original quote? If so, it's a good one. Of course, it's still a good quote even if you got it from someplace else, but if it's yours; mad props to your wit.

Not by our standards, but according to what most theists believe, it is for god to decide.

I'm an atheist toward god in the same way that I am an atheist toward Santa Claus. I've never seen either, and there's nothing to support the existence of either except for books written by dead people. I am confident that Santa Claus does not exist.

Now, I can't absolutely disprove the existence of Santa Claus, he could very well be hiding out under some glacier where I can't find him. My atheism is not fanatical because if Santa Claus were to show up I would certainly accept that he exists. Until that time, I will not act in a way that accepts Santa Claus exists, and I will treat people who believe that Santa Claus exists as the children they are.

Is there any firmer basis to believe in god than in Santa Claus?

But my point is exactly the opposite: A great number of theists and atheists depend on proof of the existence of God. That is what dragged me into this discussion in the first place, the mischaracterization of this point of view. I'll reiterate: There are four (or five) groups: Those who accept proof and believe, those who accept proof and thus do not believe, those who don't accept proof and believe, and those who don't accept proof and don't believe. You're putting all atheists under the last group, when in fact I've never met anyone who felt that way. So basically you're grossly miscategorizing and dismissing not only every Atheist in the world, but the entire religious intellectual position going back to Saint Augustine, and the basis for the Catholic Church; quite an arrogant act!

In fact, it's quite possible to be a rational Atheist or a rational Theist. That's not the position of fundamentalist churches, but it doesn't change the validity of the position.

Bingle

I'm pretty much a Kirkegaardian on the subject of proof, which means that while rational consideration can lead us towards believing in God (and some part of this is the arguments for his existence), it cannot actually get us there. We need a leap of faith.

This might be inaccurate, but one might characterize Janey's point as that any argument requires premises, the ones for the existence of God as well as the ones for his non-existence. And if you demand proof of the premises, you're eventually going to get an infinite regress.

OK, well, I didn't really get into this thread to attempt to argue the existence of God, really I joined in order to assert the existence of me. Unfortunately, there are still those who refuse to accept that I exist ;-P

Anyway, what you're arguing for is a sort of relativism for God. But consider this: if God can perform (what we see as) evil acts, what basis is there for worshipping God? Why is worshipping God superior to worshipping the Devil? For that matter, how do you know you're not worshipping an evil being, or at least a callous one?

Bingle

I really respect that way of looking at the world, and the idea that it takes a leap of faith to get there. It seems to make the most sense to me.

Your point (or hers, if that's what she was saying) is definitely true; however it's true of all knowledge (and thus meaningless). You might say it requires as much faith to believe in triangles as it does in God, or that it takes as much faith to believe in your existence as it does in his. It also removes the boundaries of truth: at that level it also takes as much faith to believe in Santa Claus or Leprechauns as it does in oranges and Dolly Parton.

However, we think we can distinguish levels of knowledge such that we're fairly sure oranges exist, but not so sure Santa Claus or Dolly Parton exist. There's some basic reality we accept (on faith, certainly) and then we can assert the further reality of some things.

Bingle

for someone like kierkegaard, the extension of the argument for faith through all of knowledge is not possible--there is a difference in kind between god and objects of knowledge..the problem of thinking the infinite is the pivot. so you **could ** say that belief in god is like believing in a triangle--but that would mean that god is a comparable type of being: i traingle can be split into two halves--can god? so while you could say it, you would be wrong to do it. all you would show is that you have a compressed/limited understanding of the multiple possible meanings the notion of faith can have.

no matter how implausible i might find dolly parton to be--and i could go on at length about her hair alone--no matter how much difficulty i have getting my head around the existence of dolly parton, this fellow god is even more implausible. but when it gets down to it, i am more in line with kierkegaard and nietzsche on this: this god fellow you keep talking about seems to me but a name, a word, nothing more, nothing less. if the word refers to anything, how would you know? you could demonstrate the existence of the word. you could demonstrate the existence, for you, of a particular signified. but the referent? not a chance.

so far as debates like this one are concerned, i come across as atheist, simply because there is not a single argument for the existence of god that is to me compelling at all--but behind that is the fact that, for me at least, nominalists like pascal and kierkegaard have long been the most compelling variants on christianity--they care about the problem of god's existence and faith far more than i can imagine doing--and they dont know. but for them, the question of faith is paramount (a premise error from another viewpoint) so knowing does not matter.
but i do not care about the question of faith.
so i am ok with not knowing.

I don't want to belabour the point, but I think that you are incorrect in your definitions.

there are basically two:

1) Those who believe or disbelieve because of faith.
2) those who believe or disbelieve because of proof (which by the way, contains all four of your definitions)

and again I'll re-iterate: I am not dismissing any atheist. they believe what they do. Intellectual position notwithstanding, they are not accepting any proof that God doesn't exist. They are basing their position on faith. Just as the most august Roman Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church does, or Islam, or Judaism base there doctrines on faith.

furthermore, this act of faith is not irrational. It is quite rational from the perspective of their paradigm. Faith does not require proof. It just requires belief, thus it is sustainable, and inpugnable.

As d*d stated earlier, empirical proof must by definition adhere to the natural universe from which we can perform the observation (measurement) and is therefore limited to that which is created. If the creator is by definition extende to outside that which is created, all those who await empirical evidence of God, may go on waiting for eternity, and therefore have their belief remained unresolved. They remain unknowing, or Agnostic.

I hardly think that it is arrogant to think this. simply organized.

I wasn't entirely clear on this in my post, but I meant it to be two completely seperate points. In any case, it's not completely accurate to say that, for Kierkegaard, "knowing does not matter". He emphasizes the historical portion of Christianity so that, while it's possible to come to the thought "I need grace" through natural reason alone (and yes, I do believe that Kierkegaard believes this), the leap to Christian faith requires both the leap and a knowledge of at least a minimal amount of the historical content of that faith.

^ He speaks the truth.

Agree totally... I find very few christian/muslim/aethist fanatics if you compare the number to the actual group of people.

The example from the first post is a person that you find all over the globe... An idiot..

Hmm. My definitions meant to encompass both of these points, actually. I talked about those who don't accept proof, but believe (which would be believing through "faith")


I meant rational in the philosophical sense of the word - that is, accepting that human reason can solve this problem. The group of "rationals" are people who feel that reason can be applied to metaphysical questions.

However, once again, we're not talking about empirical proof. (Or at least I'm not). Empirical proof is very weak, and can't actually prove anything in a strong sense. Deductive reasoning can. At least within the bounds that asaris and I discussed.

Bingle

I missed this in my first reply, sorry.

There is a difference, though, in the amount of faith required to accept, say, the theory of gravity and the existence of God. Or, to use another poster's example, to accept the existence of Santa Claus. Do you say that people who believe in Santa Claus and those who do not are each using as much faith as the other? What about those who believe in oranges and those who do not?

If I postulate the existence of an invisible pink space unicorn, do you believe in it? Is it equally acceptable to be convinced of its existence as well as not? How do we then distinguish between reality and fantasy? What decision process can we go through to separate the two?

Bingle

But the idea that there is no rational proof does not mean that there is no evidence.

I see where you are going with this. But I think that faith is binary. It is either there or not, and one cannot have various degrees of faith. A sliding scale of faith would imply that that remainder is taken up by empirical proof. (by the way, I do speak of empirical, even though it is limited, that being part of d*d's arguement).

I can readily accept the existance of gravity because scientific proof exists to demonstrate its repeatable measurement, and predict it's behaviour. I cannot accept the existance of your unicorn, because so far there is no proof of its existance. You have not produced it. I cannot accept it on faith. Nor can I discount it's existance on faith. But I can postpone my acceptance (or lack ) of it until there is proof (empirical) and therefore remain agnostic to its existance.

Similarly, I can demonstrate the existance of oranges and so can you. I can do it repeatedly and yield the same result. If somebody doesn't believe in it , in them, then they have difference in interpretation. Regardless, the orange is there.

The crux is why do I accept the definitions of scientific proof? Do I have faith in Science? No. I have confidence, so far demonstrated, that the method of proof used by science is repeatable and dependable. As our sophistication in measurement develops, so shall our capablility to measure that which is currently out of our ken, and our accuracy.

I think that deductive reasoning is a very valuable tool, but falls short of the aims of faith. Faith implies acceptance without proof, regardless of its source (dedcutive reasoning or empirical evidence).

Faith allows one to accept that wich is not designed to be provable. When you talk about those who have faith as being the ones who discard the proof :

( I talked about those who don't accept proof, but believe which would be believing through "faith")

They are they are still utilizing faith regardless of the evidence.

Again I feel that I must defend my position from my own perspective. Atheism is not an entrenched position of faith. I recently had a person tell me that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a christian...

If a person does not see any evidence that there is a God, or diety, or dieties it does not imply that they have taken a position of "faith that there is no God"

It simply means that they cannot see God, "Therefore she does not appear to be there." After rereading all of your posts I get a sense that you feel it necessary to define atheism from a perspective of faith. Atheism by accepted definition is an non-theistic perspective on the world. That is to say that my world view does not currently have God in it.

Again... I would like there to be a God... I just can't see her yet. She doesn't speak to me, she seems not to exist. No tangible evidence, not even voices in my head, thoughts or dreams. No "presence of God" experiences exist for me!

If I were to take a position against God in light of the (possible) evidence listed above, it would take a form faith that says the experience can be exhaustively explained through science. EVEN SO... if I were to doubt a possible "presence of God" experience and look for an alternate and plausible scientific answer, atheism is not a religion! It is faith that calculable science inevitably answers the questions that arise. The same way that new and exciting revelations in molecular DNA analysis further prove evolution as the means of our actual creation. The hand of God isn't even necessary for us to be here!

One day, when God pokes her nose through the clouds (or whatever God might choose to do) and I see her with my senses, and touch her face I will beleive that she is there. Even so she will have to prove her character to me! Is she Omnipotent? Is she omniscient? Does she love us? Does she have an afterlife prepared for us? Are we eternal beings with a soul? Does she care that I hurt, laugh, cry etc.

To say that atheism is an entrenched position of faith is simply silly and defies logic. A-theism = Non-theism

Athiests still wonder if there is a god out there... there just isn't any proof yet. Just ask us, we'll tell you!

Shades of gray... shades of gray!

By the way.. the last post you made, right before this post one is truly great... this post is only clarification and is an attempt to further define how I see things. I love the way you express yourself!

does the notion of evidence mean that you have already decided on the question at hand (whether there is or is not a god)?

I'm curious. Why do you postpone faith-based acceptance of a pink unicorn when you embrace the notion of the conventional god? Neither entities have any more "proof" going for them- why one over the other?

Hmm... Maybe the way I state thoughts comes out unclearly, but I actually postpone my acceptance of both the pink unicorn and a conventional god. Both based on the same line of reasoning.

RCALyra, I may be off base here myself, but I define theists as being those who believe in god (they may do so because of pure faith - and people say blind faith for a reason, blind being the operative term for not requiring to see the proof for their faith, or they may do so because thay have actual proof, some sort of divine rapture - yes I did see the Simpsons last night).

I define atheists as those who do not believe in god, and they do not believe in god , based on faith, that is they do not have any proof for the lack of god.

somehow, i think that your definition of atheism:

maps to my definition of an agnostic. I see no evidence that there is a god, nor any evidence to the contrary. I therefore cannot accept either position, and must await the so called 'proof' for one of these positions.

You are correct (in my view) when you say that if I do not see any evidence, it doesn't imply that I have to take a position of faith that there is no god. In my view, I do not. I have to take one of three positions:

1) faith that there is a god
2) faith that there is no god
3) Not knowing either way (agnostic)

while in any of these three positions, if I am presented with actual proof, I can translate to one of two more positions:

a) Knowledge that god exists
b) knowledge that god does not exist

In which case it is impossible for me to hold tenure on position 3), but 1) & a) or 2) & b) can co-exist.

klugey reply, but I am trying to work this out myself...

My position is that there is a God.

The difference, Robbagio, between pink unicorns and God is that we have reasons (or, at least, can come up with them) for thinking that the existence of God might not be completely obvious. But if there are pink unicorns, why hasn't anyone seen them yet?

asaris:

so that means arguments can be advanced without agreement as to premise. which means that arguments for/against this god fellow operate in different registers up front.

which goes back to the basic objection that i had to this thread (not to your posts on it)....which is simply that the premise of the thread is already a move within an argument, an attempt to put those who do and do not believe on a common ground by de facto imposing belief understood in terms particular to a system like protestant christianity on everyone. round it goes.

everything else i might say should follow in a straight line from the above: what for you might be evidence for me might be a random collection of facts. even the Big Ones.

Indeed. I think the problem is that people are confusing assumptions with faith. Everyone makes assumptions, and it's impossible to avoid making them. But faith seems to me to be a different thing altogether. People can have faith in God (clearly), faith in public leaders (as in "I have faith in Martin Luther King" which means about the same as "I believe in Martin Luther King") or in their friends and family ("I have faith my wife won't cheat on me"). Faith is being used in all of these cases in a roughly similar way. But saying "I don't believe that there is a God" is something different. Of course it's based on assumptions, some of which you undoubtedly share with Christians (such as the belief in the general reliability of science). But that doesn't mean it's a faith, or faith-based, or however you want to put it.

If we could see the unicorns, then we wouldn't need faith in their existence, because we'd have proof. Now, if you're trying to say that you have proof god exists, I'm sure everyone would like to hear it.

Why do people who have faith in god believe that pink unicorns don't exist? Because there's no proof of pink unicorns? Well, there's no proof of god either. People don't have to believe in pink unicorns, but if they believe in god, they cannot disbelieve them.

You miss my point. God is the being than which none greater can be conceived, right? Well, if that's the case, and he exists, it at least makes sense to think that he's beyond our perception. There's no reason to think that pink unicorns are beyond our perception. Plus, see what I said above about evidence. There's evidence that God exists; you might not think it to be very good, but there's evidence. There's no evidence that pink unicorns exist. Keep in mind that evidence does not equal proof.

You are correct, there is no reason to think that pink unicorns are beyond our perception. However, there is no reason to think that they arn't either. There is nothing for or against pink unicorns. Therefore, like god, they are an article of faith.

The distinction I was trying to make is that people are somehow able to remain agnostic towards god, and yet, are able to come to a conclution about pink unicorns. How this conclution is made without any evidence is beyond me. If you're agnostic towards god, then you have to be agnostic towards pink unicorns- neither entity has any proof going left or right about them.

Also, I'm confused as to how evidence is different than proof. Could you elaborate?

Proof looks like this:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That's a proof. It "proves" that Socrates is mortal. Evidence, on the other hand, is such that it tends to lead one towards a conclusion. If I'm investigating a murder, I might discover that the victim had a very jealous ex-husband. That leads me to suspect that it was the ex-husband who killed the victim. It's not proof, but it's evidence.

Now, there is no proof like the one above for God's existence. With the possible exception of the Ontological Argument, none of the traditional arguments for God's existence are valid on their faces. But, at least in my opinion, these arguments provide evidence for God's existence. The idea that the universe should have a cause might not proove that there's a God, but it gives one reason to believe that there is a God.

Can somebody tell me what god is?

in what context, that of the bible, egyptian gods, norse gods, greek gods, creator, your god, my god - It's a semantic mess, a reply to that question will open up any number of further questions critisicisms

Unless of course, that Socrates was really a woman, in which case she would be immortal. It comes down to definitions.

No, that's a false inference. The fact that all men are mortal does not entail that everything that is not a man is not mortal.

God is love
love is blind
I am blind
I am God

Hmm...

rats. you run rings around me logically...

It seems as though Bingle has a pretty good grasp on what the main problem is. The problem is the question and evidence given. The question is posed objectively. Yes, there is generally a normal distribution of people in the poll for opinions and actions. Therefore there will always be extremists and so forth. However, this does not imply that all atheists are zealots, on the contrary it argues against it. This goes both ways though. Those that are zealots are often in the lime-light so it is their opinion which is yelled the loudest over the crowd of individuals.
For evidence, we can not prove that god exists or does not exist at the moment. So, logically we can not say there is definitely no god, also we can not say there is definitely a god. This is why there is faith. The things we can assume from this is that for the moment there is no significant support beyond imposed thoughts and ideas for or against god, and therefore god or not god is somewhat irrelevant for the moment. If he has a hand in things, we won't notice, if he doesn't we obviously wouldn't notice. You could assume that you always have a goblin following you and he hides behind you head without effecting you and is quite indetectable to others. It would be insignificant for everything and everyone but those effected by your actions and your own perception.
As a side note I don't know if anyone has noticed anyone neglecting to say the pledge. I personally don't, I feel it is outdated and has lost meaning. I also don't agree with it. Many people however did not seem to take a fondness toward this. This is in relation with school prayer. How is it possible to allow for mass prayer of every religion, specifically when some don't involve "prayers" this si why there are public and private schools. Private schools allow for individuals to find a place which matches their preferences.

The Constitution does protect the individual right to freedom of/free exercise of religion. I'd say that this would cover school prayer as long as it was completely voluntary.

Well there you go,

Janey, You and I seem to agree for the most part. I really could care less whether we classify ourselves as atheist or agnostic... because we both see that there is a lack of evidence that any god actually exists. I take the humanist approach in that I beleive that the Bible is actually a book full of myths.

no one walked on water
no one healed the blind
no one was taken away up to heaven
no one was born of a virgin birth
etc etc

I beleive that world is a natural place where the laws of physics prevail...

I'm honestly surprised that no one, as of yet, has brought up the principle of Occam's Razor. Heard and often misused in philosophical arguments, Occam's Razor is simply "that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."

My personal extension of this belief is that any derivation from this principle necessitates a level of "faith" -- for the less concrete your assumptions, the more that must be taken on faith. The principle can be applied to nearly every temporal or spatial assumption I (or we) make. An easy example would be: A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.Perhaps the best formulation of Occam's Razor is the one which states that, of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts.

How does this relate to fanatacism? Simply put, atheism (and certainly agnosticism) requires the fewest assumptions. For me, a person who makes many assumptions ignores the most vital aspects of life: reality. A person who assumes that everyone is happy and that the government is perfect and that everything works out in the end (or their linear opposites) ignores the reality of the situation. In doing so, they breed ignorance. Any creationist who can dispute evolution on the basis that the earth is only 6000 years old assumes too much.

Although these may be disputable, I believe the indisputable aspect of Occam's Razor is that theism requires far more assumption.

For Christianity to be true: Assume there is a higher being. Assume the higher being is named God. Assume that being is omniscient. Assume this being is omnipotent, Assume this being is omnipresent. Assume this being created the Universe. Assume this being created Earth. Assume this being created Humans. Assume this being requires belief in itself. Assume there is a Heaven.

For Atheism: Assume there is no higher being. (YES, ASSUME). Because the rest of the assumptions regard the being itself, they are no longer necessary.

For Agnosticism: Assume nothing -- empiricism may or may not reveal the answer in the future.

-JiNN

wow, JiNN...that was...deep. Seriously, well done. Good use of arguement. Way to jump in there. Fabulous, and I look forward to stuff in the future.

I guess us agnostics are the smart ones then. ;)

Of course, Jinn ignores the complaint that most of us theists would make -- that Atheism doesn't explain everything. But I'm sure he's aware of that.

They would assume coincidence, I would think?

No, I'm talking more about things like consciousness and certain features of morality. I understand that it's open to debate whether or not these things require God. But I just wanted to make the point that it IS open to debate.

Well, everything is open to debate. This whole topic is just one big debate. :p

asaris: i put my face close to teh screen when i was reading no. 153 and could swear that i caught a whiff of kant floating about...

why would anything about consciousness require a god to explain it?
morality? what qualifies as morality for you in the first place (you have a nietzsche quote as your sig--i assume this is fair game), and what elements of it would lead you to work a god into it?

Well, Nietzsche and Kant are more closely related than most people give them credit for, but, granted, that's mostly on epistemology than ethics. And my former advisor is a big Kant guy, so I supposed I've picked up a bit.

Insofar as you think consciousness cannot be explained by evolution alone, you might think you need God to explain it. Mind you, even I'm not really convinced by this; I think you need more than a bare materialism to account for consciousness, but do you need God? Maybe, but probably not, at least as far as we know. I just mentioned it as a possibility.

Morality's a bit harder. When I'm being careful, by morality I mean that set of directives that are necessary towards leading the most flourishing sort of human life, and the Nietzschean dictum, "Never act in such a way that you are acting out of weakness rather than out of strength" is not the worst general moral dictum I've heard. But I think that at the end of the day, to explain the existence of categories such as "good" and "evil", "justice" and "injustice", you need God. My reasoning is, well, to be generous, complicated (if you're feeling less generous, you'd call it confused), but I've tried to explain some of my reasoning here before.

For the agnostics and their assumptions - JINNKAI
 

I find it interesting that you... JinnKai would first clearly identify the meaning of Occam's Razor and then begin to make a bunch of assumptions.

You said:

Occam's Razor is simply "that one should make no more assumptions than needed"

This indeed appears correct to me.

Later on in your argument you state: "My personal extension of this belief is that any derivation from this principle necessitates a level of "faith" -- for the less concrete your assumptions, the more that must be taken on faith."

You also go on to say, "For Atheism: Assume there is no higher being. (YES, ASSUME). Because the rest of the assumptions regard the being itself, they are no longer necessary"

OK JinnKai, lets be really clear about what an atheist is. "Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. Atheism is not necessarily an entrenched position against a deity, but it can be. Atheism is often described as "not seeing any evidence for" any deities."

I am an atheist who sees no evidence of a God... therefore I make no assumptions about God. I do not include any "Gods" in my plans or my thoughts or assumptions, no extra legwork, no extra assumptions.

It seems to me that an agnostic starts with the assumption that there "could" be a GOD. They assume that the existence of a God is plausible without any evidence for the necessity of a god.

Lets be clear... there is no evidence that there is a God, therefore agnosticism starts out with a false assumption.

If you don't agree then try this on for size:

My friend says that she has a big green dragon in her garage. You look into the garage where she says it is but cannot see the dragon or hear the dragon or touch the dragon. Reasonable use of Occam's Razor logic says that the lack of evidence indicates that my friend is incorrect. She could also be lying or deluded.

You can be agnostic about my friend being a liar, or agnostic about her being deluded. But if you are agnostic about the big green dragons existence you have just bought into the "assumption" that it could exist in the first place.

What’s worse is that you did it without any evidence at all.

Therefore: I see no evidence of God so I don't just assume that a god is needed for the world to exist and "work". Instead I try to find out what does really exist. I find out why "Life" seems to work and I try to understand how life could have come into existence based on the Physical laws that I know are true. (Provable Physical Laws!)

Agnosticism seems kind of "weasely" to me. It's full of weasel words and seems to be based on an unwillingness to define what we really know to be true about nature and the universe.

Again: If god were to show up I'd gladly admit her existence, until then there is no proof and I am unwilling to make any extra assumptions about her.

If you define my last two statements as requiring a form of "Faith based assumption" you have truly missed the point of Occam's Razor.

Respectfully submitted

RCA LYRA

RCA Lyra, you seem to be a bit confused. More specifically, you seem to be confusing the claims (1) "It's possible that God exists" (by which I simply mean "There is no logical contradiction involved in God's existence), (2) "For all we know, God might exist" (which is the agnostics claim), and (3) "God exists" (which is, of course, the theist's claim). (1) seems to be something that, in the absence of an argument against it, is simply reasonable to assume, whatever your position on his actual existence. There might well be something weasely about (2), but given (1), I don't see that it involves any unwarranted assumptions, or, indeed, any assumptions at all. The difference, as I've pointed out before, between God and big green dragons, is that, for one, we can explain why we don't see God (or try to explain it, for you skeptics out there). There's no similar chain of reasoning for why we don't see the big green dragon. And, of course, most if not all Christians are going to claim that there is, in fact, evidence of God's existence. There are reports of miracles which God is supposed to have done, people who testify to experience God's activity in their lives, etc. You might not think this is very good evidence, for one reason or another, but it is evidence, and at the very least, better evidence than your friend saying there's a big green dragon in her garage.

I am an atheist and I would like to say that atheists can't be fanatics, but I can't. Personally, I think most atheists are assholes. Then again, I think that most evangelists are assholes too.

Like most Christian literalists, most atheists think that evolution = atheism.

Like most Christian evangelicals, most atheists think that 'choose your battles' means 'choose every battle'.

A lot of atheists, maybe not most, think that 'fuck your god' is an adequate argument against the claims of theism.

Most atheists think that it is the job of atheists to argue against the claims of theism.

I used to think that atheists were necessarily smarter than theists, but I have since met too many dumb damned atheists to maintain that belief.

Just my $.02

McD

[in response to the first post] I wouldn't call those people fanatics, but atheist fundamenalists. And when one completely eschews either religion or science (presuming that those are the two prevailing, if not only, modes of thought in current society), then the one which they embrace replaces the functions of the other, and could be described as such. ie. If someone explains everything in their life and belief through religion, then religion becomes their science; if someone explains everything in their life and belief through science, then science becomes their religion.

*Footnote: I'm using atheist to describe those who revoke all religion, rather than what I believe is the dictionary definition of one who does not believe in a god, or many gods.

It's been a long time since I argued religion, I do miss it so.
This is my main problem with religious morality, it sounds too much like people are saying "Yeah, I'll be good, because if I'm not some big guy with a pitchfork is going to torture me for eternity"
Acting "morally" only because you feel you have to is almost as bad as having no morals at all.

Ignoring the whole "moral subjectivity" mess, the simple fact is that there are millions of people who act in what most would call a moral fashion, without the intervention of any religious teaching, simply because they use common sense and the empathy that most human beings have developed.

I don't know why you'd call moral subjectivity a mess. It's very real, and very important. Well, I'd call it moral relativity more than subjectivity. If one doesn't realise the relativity of morals and other patterns of thought, it leads to intolerance of other societies and cultures.

Well now we can finally have at it.

Asaris, many people claim that there is a God! Most people claim he is something other than your Christian God. Do you pick and choose who you’ll listen to? How do you choose? What makes you think you are correct?

And…many people claim to have been abducted by aliens,(hundreds of thousands in North American alone, some of which are doctors and Lawyers and highly educated people) But they say it happened so it must be true….

And ….Some people claim that they have a personal relationship with their God. Yet no one has seen God.

You dismiss my freind with the green dragon in her garage.... on what basis? You are the one who says god must be there because people "testify to experience God's activity in their lives" (ok there isn't any dragon, will you admit the same about god please!)

Just because people "say so" does not in any way prove that there are any aliens, or that there is a God. Human fallibility and vulnerability are too great. People want to beleive and to find a sense of purpose to the point where they misattribute neurological stimulus and incorrectly claim that it is the moving of the spirit, or a religious experience.

Face it, you are involved in a religion in which you cannot prove God's existence for fear of "testing him". The only way that you can justify your beliefs as a Christian is by faith alone. If you try to tell me that it's not that way I'd be forced to call you a liar. I likely know your bible better than you do.

Face it…You are a person of Faith…. Not a person of logic or science. (Paul said, “I am a fool for Christ”)

As for me, I am simply a person who does not "buy in" to the myth that there is a God who will offer me eternal life just for believing in him (john 3:16) or eternal damnation (and much suffering) for not believing. I just don’t believe your story, I have been lied to by Christians before, many times.

To call ME confused is simply incorrect. I am the one who does not accept that there is any God without seeing physical evidence. I won't make any assumption about there being a God for the same reason I won't make the assumption that there is a Green dragon in the garage. It's just too easy to make it up!

Why would you buy in to such a belief? Why would a just God throw away those who merely need “see” in order to believe?

Did your Christ really show doubting Thomas the scars in his hands and feet? Why didn’t God put Thomas in hell for his unbelief? Christians say I am headed there because I won’t accept their “good news”.

All I ASK FOR IS TO SEE THE SAME SCARS THOMAS SAW!

Imagine if your God would simply "show up" and tell people not to kill each other!
Imagine if your God were to simply “show up” and sort out the mess between the many religions in the world.
Imagine if your God were to show up and simply say " I am GOD and you should appreciate the lives that I have given you in my creation”, and “by the way there is more for you after death, so be good”.

Imagine....

And yet this God of yours remains silent while the world continues on. (27,000 “real” children will die from starvation tonight…and he could fix it, I can't)

The Anglican Church of Canada articles of religion, Canon Number 10 states:

(Of free will) The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working in us, when we have that good will. (page 702, Common Prayer Canada)

So there you have it. According to Christian religion, even free will has to be given to us by God.

You are a member of a religion that won’t let you see what you are supposed to believe in for fear of death. And if you start to doubt you will go to hell…

I wish you well... you pushed me to say this

OK, yes, moral relativity. The fact that you believe intolerance to be a bad thing is only dictated by your relative moral code.

So if I dont accept that other people have differing opinions on what is good and bad I could do something which might be good, or bad, depending on the morals of the observer.

On the other point, both theism and atheism are beliefs in an absolute. As we all know, only a Sith deals in absolutes...
But seriously, any true believer in science is a believer in finding the truth through observation of the world, and as such is agnostic by definition. Any outright atheists are as nutty as the religious people they detest so much.

Here we go again...
 

Well here we go again... You say that an atheist is a nut! I suggest that you are not able to satisfactorily define the atheism that you purport to be "nutty".

There are a number of levels on which you are terribly wrong.

1.That atheism is an absolute
Most atheists beleive in what they can see, touch and feel. Most Atheists beleive in the uniformity of physical and scientific Laws that govern the universe.

Let me explain this a little further:

We all live on a planet that orbits the sun. The same physical laws that govern this planet and this universe have allowed life to spring up on this rock. Modern scientific evidence (molecular) in support of the theory of evolution is stronger today than it ever has been.

Most atheists beleive we have evolved. There is nothing Nutty about this.

The main point here is this: It is simpler to explain evolution using physics and reproducible chemistry experimentation than it is to explain the idea of a God who suspends all physical laws in order to intervene in YOUR life from time to time.

Who's the Nut?

Could there be a GOD... of course!

Has anyone ever seen this God? I doubt it.

I'll beleive in this God you speak of when I see Her myself... I am the open minded one here. I am willing to beleive when I see the first shred of tangible evidence. Please Bring it on! .... I am still waiting

2.You see atheism as an entrenched (arms crossed with a frown on my face) position.

Atheism is Bloody Logical! It is truly open minded

So many people have been shackled by religious beleif and I fear that this will go on for millenia to come. (for instance the Pilots of the planes that wrecked the World Trade centre beleive they we going to have great treasures and many wives when they got to "heaven")

It is NOT fanatical to beleive in reproducable scientific experimentation that shows how life could have sprung up.

THE PROBLEM WITH AGNOSTICISM IS THAT IT IS WEASELY... "Well there could be a God.... But I'll never know" (weasel words)

I simply prefer to cut the bullsh*t and say I can't see any evidence yet.

If a God shows up I'll gladly measure the length of her nose to let you know if she is real.

until then ... she is just a figment of your imagination, an empty philosophy.

Be careful how you wear your shackels, they tend to bind and cut.

Well yes, but let's put it this way: intolerance leads to hatred, and hatred leads to the dark side... or war, death, et cetera. The vast majority of moral codes and value sets believe in death and war being bad, and therefore intolerance is bad by association.

I rather resent the implication that Agnosticism is "weasely" -- I personally think it the more scientific and rational belief than Atheism. I understand that this may ruffle feathers, but I am not trying to claim Atheism ignores physical laws, as some have claimed about Agnosticism.

There is absolutely nothing about an Agnostic philosophy thats says that we dont

.

As a matter of fact, this is exactly what I try to do as an Agnostic. I honestly favor the idea that there isn't a God above there being one, but I do not take the poor scientists' approach that Atheism would purpose. No one can dispute that without a supernatural extension of our scientific abilities, there will always be a possibility that God exists. Rather than say "well it cannot be proven with current Science, he must not exist" as Atheism would say, I can be the true skeptic: there is a possibility of his existence! They can abstain from making a conclusion until better concrete evidence is presented. Theism and Atheism both seem a bit fanatical, then, because they seek to reach a concrete conclusion in the absense of finite evidence.

This would be akin to a scientist seeing a new microbe under the microscope. The Theistic scientist could claim that it was a supernatural microbe capable of ruling the universe (irrational, I know).. and the Atheist could claim that it looks like X, it moves like X, it must be X. After expending all their energy doing scientific study and analysis the Atheist could "conclusively" decide and defend that it was X, undoubtedly. However, the Agnostic would be able to say that "given what we know now, it's probably X." In order for Atheists to be correct, it HAS to be X (the non-existance of God) or they are without doubt incorrect.

IN short: everything is relative. For a Theistic person, the relativism does not matter because God exists in spite of natural laws. For an Atheistic person, a God does not exist, because of natural laws. For an Agnostic -- both assumptions can be correct, dependant on the relative viewpoint of the observer.

Sorry for the double post, but I noticed a post specifically pointed at me.

As per RCAlyra2004:

Quite honestly, we make no assumptions. That is why I believe the Agnostic belief to me the most in line with Occam's Razor. I do not assume there is a Purple Dragon. I do not assume there isn't a Purple Dragon. By doing so, I am more open for alternate assumptions. A holographic portrayal of the dragon, therefore. Turned off, the Atheist could assume that a purple dragon cannot exist in the garage. Turned on, they would be incorrect.

I think the major blockade in this somewhat-offtopic discourse on Atheism vs. Agnosticism is a poor definition of terms.

This is a contradictory explanation, and it is incorrect. This is an Agnostic viewpoint. Atheism, per American Heritage Dictionary 2000:

This means: there is no God or Gods. Period. Scientific reasoning or however we chose to prove it, there isn't one.

I am skeptical, but I am not convinced. THIS is Agnosticism.

To Suave:
Still just a matter of opinion. There is no absolute good and evil, regardless of how many people share similar opinions. People of other religions regularly undertake acts which you might consider immoral, and vice versa.

To RCAlyra2004:
OK, JinnKai beat me to it.

There was no need for the explanation, I know what an atheist is. It most definitely has nothing directly to do with science, although you're right in saying that most atheists have a scientific outlook on life.
Atheism simply says there is no god or gods. Absolutely not. None. Ignore evolution and giggling at the Flat Earth society... above is the definition of atheism, in JinnKai's post. It is a belief, just like Christianity, with no evidence to support it (OK yeah, proving a negative is a tricky business).
I believe you are agnostic, but just got the definitions mixed up.

Not necessarily. Atheism simply says 'I do not believe in gods'. It goes no farther than that. It certainly does not go so far as to say there are no gods, though some atheists (about half, according to a poll at www.iidb.org) do say that there are no gods. Atheism is not the denial or rejection of gods. It is the inabiltiy to believe in gods.

the prefix 'a-' means 'without'

the word 'theism' means 'belief in god(s)'

Also, there seems to be the belief here that agnosticism is an 'in-between' position between theism and atheism. It's not. Agnosticism only refers to knowledge: it makes no statement whatsoever about belief. Atheism only refers to belief: it makes no statement whatsoever about knowledge.

Personally, I am an agnostic-atheist. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I am an atheist because I am an agnostic. Because I do not know if there are such things as gods (agnosticism), I cannot possibly harbour a positive belief in gods (atheism).

JinnKai,

I think we agree much more than we disagree except for two points.

1. You need a much better dictionary. I am not American and therefore find the religious Bias of your American Heritage dictionary a little Off-base. I strongly suggest you check out the definition of atheism in the Wikipedia from Google. It is a good online starting place

You said:
a·the·ism
n.

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (this statement defines Atheistic thought from the majority prespective of "pro-religion".)

The idea that there could be a god IS a Genus 1 assumption. Just like the Green Dragon in the Garage, assumed by my friend. Further assumtions like the complicated (nonexistent) holographic equipment goes directly against Occams Razor: Make no more assumptions than necessary AND choose the simplest explanation.

Had I actually seen the Dragon I would then begin to look for the Holographic equipment.

A person who never ever considered that a God could exist is "a-theistic" in their thinking. Although I was once religious I am An atheist now.

I am a person who, having seen the newest Genetic evidence (molecular, 2004) sees that a God is not necessary for life to have sprung up. I am A-theistic in my thoughts.

b) Atheism is not a doctrine per se. Although American religious leaders would love you to think so. In fact it is the abscence of a theistic perspective. Which is quite different.

2. You continue to try to tell ME what I beleive. I have no problem with your version of agnosticism. What frosts me is that you continue to tell me what an atheist is.

I'm not going to argue the dictionary definition of the word with you.

I already said that atheism is a belief, and that in that belief there are no gods. I'm not even sure what the last two sentences are actually meant to mean. I dont mean to be rude, but the phrase "inability to believe in gods" sounds like bollocks to me, and possibly contradictory to the statement immediately prior to it.

About this poll though... I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I'm curious to know what the other half of the responders said... That they dont believe in gods, but there are some?

There is no mix up here. What is mixed up is that many people cannot tolerate the shades of Grey that exist in Atheistic thought. It is not as absolute as one would think. Imagine a Circle with Theism and Agnosticism in it and now another circle with Atheism and Agnosticsim in it. Agnosticism is where the two circles overlap.

To have considered that there "may be a god" is a theoretical leap away from natural science. Most Atheists come to their conclusion by examining evidence! If you have a hard time swallowing this you may want to check out the beliefs of the American Humanist Association. They are also linked to the International Humanist Association.

Declaration of Humanist Principles: (check out Number 10 as a good example of what I am getting at.)

(1) Humanism aims at the full development of every human being.

(2) Humanists uphold the broadest application of democratic principles in all human relationships.

(3) Humanists advocate the use of the scientific method, both as a guide to distinguish fact from fiction and to help develop beneficial and creative uses of science and technology.

(4) Humanists affirm the dignity of every person and the right of the individual to maximum possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.

(6) Humanists call for the continued improvement of society so that no one may be deprived of the basic necessities of life, and for institutions and conditions to provide every person with opportunities for developing their full potential.

(7) Humanists support the development and extension of fundamental human freedoms, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supplemented by UN International Covenants comprising the United Nations Bill of Human Rights.

(8) Humanists advocate peaceful resolution of conflicts between individuals, groups, and nations.

(9) The humanist ethic encourages development of the positive potentialities in human nature, and approves conduct based on a sense of responsibility to oneself and to all other persons.

(10) A fundamental principle of humanism is the rejection of beliefs held in absence of verifiable evidence, such as beliefs based solely on dogma, revelation, mysticism or appeals to the supernatural.

(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings.

(12) Humanists affirm that human beings are completely a part of nature, and that our survival is dependent upon a healthy planet which provides us and all other forms of life with a life-supporting environment.


Both of these organizations are Huge and many of the top scientists are in the ranks of their membership.

You say that Atheism takes Faith... the point is that it is faith in a system of science that is proveable and reproducable. A place where the math actually adds up.

Perhaps you could let me in on the secret... pray tell, what evidence is there that a god does not exist?

Nice try... nice open minded try.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I beleive it is up to you to prove that the Green dragon in your garage is real. YOU SHOW ME WHERE GOD IS... I am willing to beleive in it when I see it. Untill then my standards for truth, and the need to avoid manipulation by dogmatic individuals necessitates an atheistic view on the matter.

I'll be the first to measure her nose to see is she is real once you show her to me.

But as I promised ... I have updated my last post ...with the humanist principles. Of particular note is principles 3,10 and 12 .

The ball is in your court

JinnKai,
Below is what I was chatting about in my Earlier post: This definition is from the online Wikipedia encyclopedia

"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists ("60 percent of general scientists and a staggering 93 percent of top scientists", quoting (http://psy.ucsd.edu/~eebbesen/Psych110/SciRelig.htm) Dr. Massimo Pigliucci).

RCALyra

You're still trying to force your own definition of the word. What you're describing is acually agnosticism, not atheism.
There is no overlap, atheism is a firm belief (note belief) that there is no god. Regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. Theism is the belief that there is a god, again regardless of anything else.
Agnosticism is following the evidence... if today the (lack of) evidence lends itself to the case that there probably isnt a god, then you can say "the current evidence leads me to the conclusion there isnt a god".
There is no such thing as an atheist who follows the evidence, their conviction comes from belief there is no god, or disbelief in a god.
This is not a matter of my opinion, it is how the word is defined, not by me, but the english language, so there is no point in arguing it any further.

Dictionaries are just high-fallutin' cheat sheets. Atheists do not write the dictionary's definitions for the word atheist. The dictionary companies define words as the common man defines them. If the common man started using the word 'poop' to mean 'love', before too long, it would be in the dictionary. The common man does not understand etymology. The etymology of the word 'atheism' proves that 'my' definition was the original and is the primary definition of the word.

And if you do not accept that dictionaries are simply high-fallutin' cheat sheets and insist on their authority, then the Oxford English Dictionary is the dictionary of the english language and it includes both your definition and mine... except that yours is regarded as an inferior, alternate definition.

Yes, and you were incorrect.
Perhaps a class in remedial english comprehension will help?

What it sounds like to you doesn't matter in the least. I am unable to believe in gods. I tried for years, in fact for nearly two decades. It didn't work. One cannot force oneself to believe something.

Are you able to believe in Zeus or Quetzelcoatl? Would you describe yourself as unable to believe in those gods? Me too. I am unable to believe in those gods and I am unable to believe in the god of the Bible as well.

Please show why you think it contradicts and I will show you why you are wrong.

The poll I am referring to indicated that about exactly half of all atheists (of about 300 polled) believe that there are no gods (gnostic atheism) and the other half indicate that they simply harbour no positive belief in gods (agnostic atheism).

I don't understand what you're arguing. I'm saying that morals codes are relative, but certain ones are very much shared almost world-wide. As such, in regard to intolerance, there is good reason to avoid it whether or not one holds it as directly morally abhorrent.

If you want to be facetious and continue into the realm of ludicrosity, assuming that there are no shared morals, then there is always the pragmatic aspect of tolerance as well. As social beings, our standard of living is improved by the cooperation of others. Hence, it is generally better for one to be understanding when it comes to the beliefs of others.

RCAlyra2004:
I wholeheartedly apologize if I gave you the impression I was tell you what to believe, as I was just trying to clarify an ambiguity of language that I thought was causing your misunderstanding.

While I value your opinion, I think that you may be overstepping your boundaries by criticising a dictionary whose sole purpose is to clarify the meanings of words. While you might be very intelligent, I doubt you've spent as much time researching the etymology or meaning behind any word than a company who publishes a dictionary with "over 90,000 entries feature 10,000 new words and senses, 70,000 audio word pronunciations, 900 full-page color illustrations, language notes and word-root appendixes."

Furthermore, Wikipedia, your own source -- while valuable, is hardly a definitive source. I doubt you'll find "Pwn" in the dictionary. Wikipedia, however -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn.

Even so, Wikipedia clarifies our reason for disagreement in the text itself:

So, unfortunately -- we were both incorrect and correct. While the position can be termed weak atheism, it can also be termed agnosticism.

Beyond the semantics of my definition, I return to the grandparent's topic:

I personally believe that strong Atheists and Theists are capable of fanaticism , while Agnostics (weak Atheists) are not. "A fanatic is a person filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause..." (Wikipedia). Because a strong Atheist is commited to the strict non-existance of a God, they cannot be critical of their own beliefs. In critically analyzing strong Atheism, any rational person will admit that they are turning a blind-eye to the possibility of a God or gods. This, in itself, is zealotry and fanaticism. Similarly, a strong Theist turns a blind eye to the possibilty of a non-existance of a God or gods. Agnostics (weak atheists), however, accept both possibilities. This is achieved through being critical of their own beliefs - therefore breaking the above-stated criterion of fanaticism.

I don't know, there could be some people who are so adamant on their moderate viewpoint that everyone else is just plain wrong in their opinion, and should be burned for being so extreme in their beliefs. :P You never can tell until you see it happen.

Philosophy is not a democracy, but as long as we're voting, how many people believe in a God as opposed to people who don't? I'm allowed to say that most people have gotten some things more or less right in their religion, but the atheist has to claim that all the religious people for all of human civilization are just dead wrong about the most important part of their belief.

I never said that, just because some people claim to have had a personal experience of God, that means that they therefore have had that experience. All I've said is that this constitutes evidence. And I've never made any claims about the quality of that evidence.

No, I'm not going to admit the same about God. I've never said "God must be there because people testify, etc." All I've said is that this is evidence, evidence that should be considered with all the other available evidence.

There aren't many people who know the Bible better than I do. Your first sentence, I think, misunderstands the prohibition against testing God. We have to trust him, yes. But we're also allowed to struggle with questions of doubt and belief. When Jacob wrestled with the Angel of the LORD, he was not condemned for his wrangling, but he was rewarded. You say that "the only way that you can justify your beliefs as a Christian is by faith alone". This isn't quite right. As I've been saying, the notion that you can't proove God's existence doesn't mean that there's no evidence for that claim. I tend to view it as follows: Imagine that coming to belief in God is like a journey. Reason is not a bad guide, in fact, she's a very good guide, for most of the journey. But, as Kant and many other philosophers have recognized, reason has her limits. Eventually, reason leads you to a chasm, across which you have to leap in faith. That's not to say that the whole journey, or even the leap of faith, is just a leap in the dark. It's just to say that reason can only take you so far.

I'm all of the above (though probably less a man of science than a man of logic or faith.) I don't believe that faith is opposed to either logic or science. All three come from God.

I'm sorry that you've been lied to by Christians. None of us is perfect. But the fact that someone who claims to believe certain things acts in a certain way isn't a very good argument against the truth or falsity of their claims.

If I said you were confused, I apologize. What I meant was that your post was confused.

The last thing I would ever do is to make any claims about who God chooses to save or who He chooses to condemn. I can't say much about why God chooses to reveal himself to some and hide himself from others. This is, in part, what I meant when I spoke of trusting him earlier. There's another story, other than Thomas's, to consider here. At the end of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man asks if Abraham can go and appear to his sons, so that they don't end up in hell like him. We have enough evidence to believe in God; it's not his responsibility to force himself on us. Thomas might well be a special case; he was undoubtedly very upset at the death of his rabbi, and so perhaps his rabbi choose to be gracious to Thomas, just as I am sure he exhibits his grace to everyone. But often the demand for more evidence is less intellectual honesty and more a deep desire not to believe.

Imagine if we already knew all this, and did it anyway! I doubt that any appearance of God, short of one which would shear away our free will, would suffice to end any of this suffering.

When you're quoting very specific religious documents, you should be aware that there's a good deal of disagreement among Christians about these sort of things. The doctrine you're alluding to here is the doctrine of Total Depravity. All Christians believe that one cannot simply earn salvation by doing 'good deeds'. They disagree on what can be inferred from this. Some say that this means that none of our deeds are really good, and there's of course some truth to this, since everything we do is corrupted by pride and egoism. But it seems to me that there's value in being able to say that a certain deed is good, even if it isn't rigorously pure. So I tend towards the less strict interpretation, that even if our deeds are 'good', they cannot earn us salvation.

Suave:
Sorry, I kind of lost track of my point... Someone previously said that there is no morality without god, I was basically disagreeing, but obviously not very well.

McDuffie:
Inability to believe. This would mean that there is no conceivable situation were I could bring myself to believe. Some people suggest that our gods are visitations by aliens who have 'other worldly' technology and power and left the locals in awe. This isnt an entirely implausible situation. Shit, if I could go back to the biblical era with a handful of modern bits and pieces, it would be a statue of me at the front of church, clutching my mobile phone. (Yeah ok, reception would be pretty poor at bethlehem in 1AD, but you know what i mean).
In short, I do not have an inability to believe, it's just that I dont believe under the current circumstances.

On the definitions point, JinnKai seems to have done me over again.

From The Atheism Web
----------------------
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".
----------------------
Yeah JinnKai already posted similar, but I just wanted to keep all my ideas in one place.
Agnosticism has no overlap with theism and "strong" atheism, and when I say atheist I tend to mean the strong variant. So under your definition, you would be a weak atheist, or agnostic leaning to an atheistic outcome and I would probably be the same, but I just call it agnostic.
I would say that any disbelief of god that comes about due to underlying uncertainty should probably come under the heading agnosticism, but that's just my opinion.

Inability means something different to you than it does to others, I suppose. I am unable to deadlift 550 lbs. I have the inability to lift that much pig iron. I am working on it. Despite the fact that I am unable to lift that much weight, there is a situation that I can conceive of in which I will be able to lift that much weight.

I don't know if I can continue engaging people who have a proclivity for making up new definitions for words as they go.

Exactly. Most people do not understand that. However, you seem to miss the point that the two are not mutually exclusive either. It's like: what if you said there is no overlap between capitalism and philanthropy. I would agree with you. The two have nothing at all in common, yet I can be a capitalist and a philanthropist at the same time. Or I can be one and not the other. You danced around this fact with your own words, but somehow missed that point:

'Weak' atheism is less commonly known as agnostic-atheism.

'Strong' atheism is less commonly known as gnostic-atheism.

I am a weak, or agnostic atheist. Agnosticsm and atheism are the answers to to entirely different questions. Witness:

Q: Are there such things as gods?

A: I don't know

That is agnosticism. Agnosticism only addresses knowledge. It never, ever addresses belief.

Q: Do you believe in gods?

A: No

That is atheism. Atheism only addresses belief. It never, ever addresses knowledge.

I am not an agnostic leaning towards atheism: I am an agnostic-atheist. I am an atheist because I am agnostic. I am a weak atheist, which ironically, is the strongest position for an unbeliever, much like fideism is the stronest position for a believer.

An interesting point, but I'm not sure it is exactly analogous to the one I mentioned.
Why not just say that you don't believe? When you say unable, it makes it sound like it would be impossible for you to believe in any circumstances.
I currently do not believe in god, but I do have the capacity to believe, ie. I am able.
That would require a change in the situation (eg Zeus pops in for a coffee).
You cannot lift 550lb, basically because you are placing limits on the situation. You cannot lift 550lbs in your garage at home, because that would require a change in yourself. If we ship you and your kit to the moon, you wont have a problem.
Dude, I actually said this myself a few posts ago.

I don't believe. Why? Because I am unable to believe.
Yes, but you seem to be missing the nuances of your own own posts.

You have the mental capacity to believe such a thing, you are able.
And you're still ignoring the fact that all this is simply to do with how you and I define agnostic. We are both right because our opinions on the definition of the "weak atheist" position differ.

I'm sorry: I broke my own rule against debating sophists.

See ya

Just to clear things up...and don't give me "but Webster's says"
 

Belief is a positive assertion or affirmation of something. Lack of belief is not a belief. Agnosticism is not a functionally valid position with respect to the EoG debate.

I'm sure I'll get questions on this.

Best Regards,

SI

Missing the whole point about faith, it does not need proof (as I've argued earlier in this thread) your faith in Science to explain the universe for you means that you are closing of your mind to other possiblilities, science can not prove the exsistence of a god and I seriously doubt it ever will.

A genuine following of science is the ultimate in openmindedness, whereas religion is a pointless exercise in being stubborn.

ASARIS,

Thank you for your skillful and gracious debate, especially considering that I am basically atheistic in my views. I have great deal of respect for you because of this.

I spent 30 years as a Christian and had risen to a considerably high level of leadership before leaving it behind last year. My views about science changed when I began to read about the newest molecular evidence in support of evolution. Since then I have begun the treacherous task of backing away from this faith, only to discover who my real friends are. Thank you for your candor and honesty.

After what I have seen in science I wonder what is left in scripture that is actually true.

Again... a heartfelt thank you

RCA LYRA

Did your openeness to "God" close your mind to reproducible scientific evidence? Mine did, for 30 years.

I was a man of faith who "opened his mind" to listen to what science really had to say. Much of it is not popular with the Christian world, but it is basically proveable and can be reproduced again and again.

I find recent legal battles between creation scientists and schools teaching bonafide science in the U.S. very interesting. Have you tried to at least understand what each side says? After you see their information try the following, it will surely make you rethink who you are. The outcome is up to you!

You really should take the time to read:

A Demon Haunted World - Carl Sagan (the best)
The Selfish Gene - Richards Dawkins
Cosmos - Carl Sagan
A Devils Chaplin - Richard Dawkins
The Ancestors Tale - Richard Dawkins (The best evolution apologetic and explanation ever published, my own opinion....)
Broca's Brain - Carl Sagan
A Farewell to God - Charles Templeton (A former evangelist and close friend of Billy Graham)

RCALYRA

Welcome to the real world :cool:

(couldn't help myself :/ )

Sorry, I should've said i'm on the aethiest side of the fence, I just don't agree in the arguments that a faith in science and a belief in a higher form of power have to be mutually exclusive, and indeed that a lack of scientific proof for a God (I always allude to a God as opposed to any religious representations of a specific god) should never be the basis for an argument in a Gods non existence.
I don't have a religious beleif myself, but great respect for those who do have their faith.
Ironically it has been my study of science, the fact that we are reaching the limit of what we can view without affecting the outcome and the probability theories associated with quantum mechanics that make me realise that we may be limited to what we will be able to describe with science giving rise to notions of Gods out of reach of our understanding, possibly forever - the way it should be.

I think the teaching of creationist theory should be in religous studies not science. I disagree with many aspects of christianity -but I never proclaim that I am right whilst they are wrong

What a load of rubbish. Hey, I'll make up a story, and if you can't refute it then it must be true.

For thousands of years God has been just on the edge of human understanding, conventiently shifting to fill in the gaps in human understanding of the natural world. God caused lightning to strike our village because we didnt sacrifice a goat, God riddled a child with crippling disease because he stole an apple, God works in mysterious ways.
We don't have a complete grasp of the quantum world, but a hundred years ago the atom was, well... atomic, indivisible.

I doubt that that's what d*d is saying. The fact that modern science cannot prove the existence of God is not evidence for his non-existence. Science is very powerful when it is talking about what it is supposed to be talking about, and so some people (fortunately, not all that many) make the mistake of thinking that only the things science can talk about are real. But that's bullshit. Just as I don't try and use philosophy to disprove the existence of armadilloes, let's not try and use science to disprove the existence of God. God isn't the sort of thing science is equpped to deal with. Science is simply the wrong tool to use to try infer anything about God from, especially since D*D isn't here talking about science disproving God, but rather not providing a proof.

[QUOTE=JinnKai

So, unfortunately -- we were both incorrect and correct. While the position can be termed weak atheism, it can also be termed agnosticism.

of QUOTE]


wow, so much discussion since i last tuned in. it's wonderful. on the matter of position with respect to faith, however, i remain fairly binary in my opionion:

1) atheists & theists require faith to substantiate their positions

2) agnostics do not require faith to substantiate their positions.

I disregard the term weak atheist as meaningless, but agree that the position described is actually an agnostic. Agnostics suspend faith, and determine their acceptance based upon scientific proof. One could argue that this implies faith in the scientific method, but i disagree with that too. I merely maintain that it requires acceptance (and acceptance only) of paradigms which can be modified as observations continue. We do not have to have faith that an object will fall towards the centre of gravity, we only have to accept that repeated tests will 'prove' that an object will behave in that manner.

Theists do not require such proof that god(s) exists, they accept on faith that the god(s) exist. Atheists also do not require proof that god(s) do not exist. they accept on faith that god(s) do not exist. To state otherwise is to group them into the agnostic camp, because they are then basing their position on lack of proof.

[QUOTE=Janey]Weak atheist means agnostic atheist. Weak atheists are both agnostics and atheists. It is not that 'agnostic' is the correct term for a weak atheist, it's that weak atheist is another way of saying agnostic atheist.

It's not too difficult a concept. Agnosticism only addresses knowledge; atheism only addresses belief. It's not a choice of one or the other. It's a choice between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

McDuffie,

Once again you have summarized my views quite well. Thanks.

Janey,

I hear you saying that Atheism/theism/diesm requires "faith" where agnosticicsm does not. Please allow me to clarify from my own perspective as an atheist.

I do not have faith in any God.
I do not beleive that a God exists.
I don't think it likely that a God has ever existed.
I have faith in scientific methodology and scientific result so long as it is open, publicly available and allows external scrutiny. (the public part can come later after they make their money from new development, after all we all need an reason to "discover")

I am willing to listen to any theory as long as it is possible to disprove it, or prove it. I'll explain this part later...

Here is why I beleive all of this:
As Humans we have duped each other many times during our history. We have allowed doctrine to become Law which has resulted in the deaths of Millions upon Millions of innocent people.(Think of the Nazi Doctrines as an example) Today we continue to kill each other over small and insignificant differences in ideology.

Where public freedom of speach and public scrutiny are encouraged there is less lieing about scientific claims and more truth. Scientific results can be freely reproduced in isolation of the original discoverer. (We can do it in our own labs if the theory really works).

Finally, when we are free to show why something does not work we are most likely to succeed. Remember it does not mean that can always disprove the new science but without the freedom the try to dispove we will never know the real truth. We also need the freedom to ask if a hypothesis can be falsified, and to pursure an investigation into the possibility of that falsification for the sake of all involved.

An example of why we need to be able to prove falsification is possible:

Recently the stock holders of a Mining company were duped out of Billions of dollars as unscrupulous geologists salted the tailings of their newly drilled bore holes with shavings of gold (98 percent pure gold at that...snicker!). The company said they would not allow an independant consultant to examine the tailings citing that is was too costly to get them there quickly enough and that as there was competition for stake another claim site nearby. they told stockholders to invest "quickly". Many stockholders went ahead with their investments thinking they would make much money quickly... they lost everything.


Aside from such technical examples I offer this example:

Someone could claim that there is yet another God who can suspend Physical laws as we know them and intervene in our lives. If I am not allowed access to disprove this theory they cannot rightly prove the theory (about God) to me. I need to be able to find this God for myself and then prove I am not misattributing neurological stimulus when I have a similar experience to the original theorist. (I did this for 30 years before it dawned on me...)

A similar and excellent example of this is Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith, who in relatively modern times claimed to have been given special access to scriptures from God that only he could see. Today we cannot find these tablets (nor his looking glass) to disprove him. He has millions of followers who quite possibly have been duped by the "new" scriptures he has offered up as "holy".

While I don't in general agree with the christian faith, at least they make a tremendous effort to find the most ancient texts, and to check them for accuracy against each other. The Bible is at least as genuine as an old document can be!

I just don't happen to beleive what the orginal authors were saying in the first place. (another post... later)

I hope I haven't butchered my point.

Please accept my humble opinion

RCALYRA