Agnosticism is goofy.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Well, you should count yourself lucky then. I know any number of atheists who have been rejeted by their familes, fiances, harassed on the job, threatened, etc.
[/QUOTE]

If this isn’t purely anecdotal do you have a cite for this massive persecution of atheists here in the US? As I said, from my own perspective I’m not seeing it myself.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The evidence for brain eating zombies is much better than the evidence for God.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose it depends on one’s definition of ‘evidence’. Afaik there is zero evidence of brain eating zombies outside of pure fiction. There is anecdotal evidence of god which is only slightly better. So, we can make no conclusion at all about either…but at least anecdotally we can say there is much more evidence of SOME kind of higher being (since this is a world wide, cross cultural phenomena) than of brain eating zombies (for which even anecdotal evidence is, afaik, sparse).

You just WANT it to be the way you do because your own belief system and worldview are distorting your analytical abilities on this subject.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As I said, we have corpses, we have brains;
[/QUOTE]

Your logic is faulty. Having corpses and brains doesn’t lead to even the most remote evidence of brain eating zombies. Conversely…

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
we have no evidence for any kind of spirits beyond the unsupported word of believers.
[/QUOTE]

We have no conclusive evidence of any kind. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that SOMETHING (even if its pure psychology and simply how humans are wired, which I suspect is the case) is going on wrt a deity or deities. We can draw no final conclusions because we don’t have enough evidence either way…but we can certainly conclude that there is more here than your brain eating zombies. What is interesting is the hoops you will go too in order to deny this because of your own belief system.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not to mention that most people’s version of God doesn’t even make internal logical sense.
[/QUOTE]

Too YOU it makes no logical sense. That doesn’t mean anything at all. There are probably a lot of things that wouldn’t make logical sense to you…but that doesn’t make them imaginary. I’m guessing that many aspects of quantum physics don’t make ‘logical’ sense to you or to most people. There could be any number of very read alien life forms out there that make no ‘logical’ sense to us here…hell, I remember when some of the deep ocean vents were explored that some of the species THERE didn’t make ‘logical’ sense on first inspection.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not anything that violate’s that universe’s laws, like God.
[/QUOTE]

And you claim to know all of the universe’s laws? Interesting. Fascinating really. And the singularity that was at the start of the universe? Know all about what was going on then too, ehe? You have a perfect understanding of not only all of the physical laws that are currently in place universe wide, but those that occurred in a singularity? That’s very…interesting.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Oh, and should I claim uncertainty about the existence of fairies and goblins as well ? Both of which are infinitely more plausible than God.
[/QUOTE]

How are they infinitely more plausible that a God? Perhaps they are because you want to BELIEVE they are? As to having to claim uncertainty…yeah, you do IMHO. Do you KNOW there aren’t fairies and goblins? If so…well, how?

Now, you can (and should) claim that its VERY improbable that fairies and goblins existed in the past or exist today. There is no physical evidence…only anecdotal evidence passed down through stories and legend.

But yeah…I’d say the correct answer is uncertainty tinged with skepticism. YMMV of course. But if it does you are asserting something as fact that you can’t possibly prove except by pointing to a lack of evidence.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
This is, yet again, the insistence that religion receive special treatment.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not cutting religion any breaks here. You are just trying to assert something as fact that you can’t possibly prove…which is kind of ironic since you are condemning religious types for doing the same thing.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The attitude that you and others are pushing is the religious-apologist version of the occasional poster who insists we should all be solipsists because we can’t “prove” the universe exists.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but you see I’m NOT saying that…that is just what you are hearing. Those are two different things. You are hearing ‘religious-apologist’ stuff because you are so fixated on your absolute belief that there is no god. Again…the irony here is fairly amusing.

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I was just making sure. From what you posted, you are an atheist. Welcome to the club.
[/QUOTE]

Well, from what you’ve posted I conclude you are a Vermicious Kinid…of probably a blue one with golden stripes.

Welcome to the club!

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Even the well loved dictionary definitions talk of belief, not knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

Quite. Which is why I’m not an atheist, see? I don’t BELIEVE that there is no god…I don’t think there is sufficient data to make a conclusion. What I BELIEVE is that its improbable but possible, however unlikely.

There is a difference there…quite a meaningful one I think. Besides, I don’t want to be in a club with Der Trihs. He’s a fine fellow and all, but he would make me a bit nervous at the club meetings. And he does tend to go on some times.

I’ll get you your Vermicious Kinid membership card asap though…

-XT

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If this isn’t purely anecdotal do you have a cite for this massive persecution of atheists here in the US? As I said, from my own perspective I’m not seeing it myself.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s a start:

Atheists “are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public,” according to a study by Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota.

in a 1999 Gallup poll–which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18583754_ITM

theists are America’s least trusted group, according to a national survey conducted by University sociology researchers.

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as “sharing their vision of American society.” Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Quite. Which is why I’m not an atheist, see? I don’t BELIEVE that there is no god…I don’t think there is sufficient data to make a conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the dictionary definition Voyager is speaking of and what it says about belief? It doesn’t say you have to believe there is no god. Being without belief in gods is good enough. If you haven’t come to the conclusion that any gods exist, you are without belief. Going by that definition, which is as far as I can see the most commonly given definition, you’re an atheist.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Here’s a start:
[/QUOTE]
It is also pretty much the end.

While there is a real animus agaist the idea of atheism among a large segment of the population–one that translates into a general inability of atheists to successfully run for president (or for less powerful offices in certain states), there is no serious effort to hunt down atheists, deprive them of jobs or homes, prevent them from marrying, or taking away their drivers’ licenses.

If one wishes to claim persecution, one should be able to point to something a bit harsher than exclusion from the White House, (something that is also denied to women, (so far), blacks, Jews, and a number of other groups of people who suffer rather more discrimination in the day-to-day world than do atheists).

[XT]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Did you read the dictionary definition Voyager is speaking of and what it says about belief? It doesn’t say you have to believe there is no god. Being without belief in gods is good enough. If you haven’t come to the conclusion that any gods exist, you are without belief. Going by that definition, which is as far as I can see the most commonly given definition, you’re an atheist.
[/QUOTE]

Well, did you read the definition(s) I gave? In short, I disagree with your conclusions…as I disagree with the assertions of the OP. I think atheists and agnostics are two separate groups, and I don’t think agnostics are the way they are or hold the positions they hold because they are cowardly rat bastards who simply don’t have the strength of their convictions in the face of such stiff and concerted subjugation by the American people…a subjugation that rivals that of minorities and persecuted peoples throughout history!

-XT

[Mosier]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, did you read the definition(s) I gave? In short, I disagree with your conclusions…as I disagree with the assertions of the OP. I think atheists and agnostics are two separate groups, and I don’t think agnostics are the way they are or hold the positions they hold because they are cowardly rat bastards who simply don’t have the strength of their convictions in the face of such stiff and concerted subjugation by the American people…a subjugation that rivals that of minorities and persecuted peoples throughout history!

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re strongly implying that I called agnostics cowardly rat bastards without the strength of their convictions in the face of etc. etc. which just isn’t true.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
there is no serious effort to hunt down atheists, deprive them of jobs or homes, prevent them from marrying, or taking away their drivers’ licenses.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read what Der Trihs wrote? He wasn’t making claims about anyone hunting atheists down, taking away their drivers’ licenses or anything of that sort.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, did you read the definition(s) I gave?
[/QUOTE]

This one?:

Atheist (dictionary.com again): A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I see nothing wrong with it. Going by that definition- you are an atheist.

From dictionary.com
disbelieve: 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in
–verb (used without object)
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I disagree with your conclusions
[/QUOTE]

Which ones?

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I think atheists and agnostics are two separate groups
[/QUOTE]

Do you mean that there is a different definition for each or that agnostics can’t be atheists?

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I don’t think agnostics are the way they are or hold the positions they hold because they are cowardly rat bastards…
[/quote]

Me neither.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re strongly implying that I called agnostics cowardly rat bastards without the strength of their convictions in the face of etc. etc. which just isn’t true.
[/QUOTE]

Well, leaving aside the hyperbole I injected for some humor I think this is a pretty accurate description of what you and several others have implied. That agnostics don’t want to admit they are atheists because of the perceived flack they would get, so they waffle.

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
This one?:

Atheist (dictionary.com again): A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you need to put it with this one for the full effect:

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You see? The definitions are different…which was the point I was making.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Which ones?
[/QUOTE]

The ones related to how agnostics and atheists are the same if only the agnostics would admit it I suppose.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Do you mean that there is a different definition for each or that agnostics can’t be atheists?
[/QUOTE]

Er…well, I’d say that if an agnostic was an atheist, then they would be an atheist…and not an agnostic. Or vice versa. However, people can self define with whatever symbols or terms they want to use. More power too em I say. You can call yourself a crumple horned snorkaxe and I will fight for your right to do so!

But water is not oil, despite the fact that they are both liquids.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Me neither.
[/QUOTE]

Well good…because I like to think of myself as a very brave rat bastard.

-XT

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, from what you’ve posted I conclude you are a Vermicious Kinid…of probably a blue one with golden stripes.

Welcome to the club!

[/quote]

Close. Purple stripes, actually. BTW, your anti-rapture helmet will be delivered by the black helicopter later today.

Quite. Which is why I’m not an atheist, see? I don’t BELIEVE that there is no god…I don’t think there is sufficient data to make a conclusion. What I BELIEVE is that its improbable but possible, however unlikely.

After you look at the definition of atheism at dictionary.com, look at the definition of disbelief.

There is a difference there…quite a meaningful one I think. Besides, I don’t want to be in a club with Der Trihs. He’s a fine fellow and all, but he would make me a bit nervous at the club meetings. And he does tend to go on some times.

That’s okay. He’s in the strong atheist wing, you’ll be in the weak atheist wing.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, you need to put it with this one for the full effect:

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You see? The definitions are different…which was the point I was making.

Er…well, I’d say that if an agnostic was an atheist, then they would be an atheist…and not an agnostic. Or vice versa. However, people can self define with whatever symbols or terms they want to use. More power too em I say. You can call yourself a crumple horned snorkaxe and I will fight for your right to do so!

-XT
[/QUOTE]

The definitions are different, but not mutually exclusive. I’ve said they are orthogonal back before the hijack. The set of agnostics can include both atheists and theists, and the set of atheists can include both agnostics and non-agnostics. When I say you’re an atheist, I am not saying that you are not an agnostic.

Now, some people claim to be agnostics while not following the definition posted above, and while lacking belief in any god. They are the “I don’t know for sure” rather than the “it is impossible to know for sure” variety. They may be avoiding the term atheist, or they may be confused about what the term actually means. They may even be rat bastards for all I know.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, you need to put it with this one for the full effect:

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
[/quote]

I don’t need the definition of ‘agnostic’ to get the full effect of what the definition you provided for ‘atheist’ means and I can’t see anyone else needing it either.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You see? The definitions are different…which was the point I was making.
[/quote]

Of course the definitions are different. I think the point you were making was that you’re not an atheist and that your definition confirmed it. You are and it doesn’t.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The ones related to how agnostics and atheists are the same if only the agnostics would admit it I suppose.
[/quote]

Those were my conclusions? Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Er…well, I’d say that if an agnostic was an atheist, then they would be an atheist…and not an agnostic. Or vice versa.
[/quote]

Read the definitions you provided again and tell me why atheists can’t both be without belief that gods exist while believing that the ultimate truth to whether gods exist or not can’t be known.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

But water is not oil, despite the fact that they are both liquids.
[/QUOTE]

And atheists can’t be theists- but they can be agnostic.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

If one wishes to claim persecution, one should be able to point to something a bit harsher than exclusion from the White House, (something that is also denied to women, (so far), blacks, Jews, and a number of other groups of people who suffer rather more discrimination in the day-to-day world than do atheists).
[/QUOTE]

It is hard to discriminate, since it is so easy to pass as someone who just doesn’t go to church very much. Adams and the Federalist called Jefferson an atheist in the election of 1800 (using the not Christian or Jewish = atheist definition.) (Source - recent New Yorker article on this election.) Lincoln’s religion was rather iffy. I believe Taft was a Unitarian. So, we might have had an undercover atheist in the White House already, passing. And Washington, though he was dragged to church, never took communion. It behooved all these people to use God in at least the way Einstein did.

[XT]

Last post as this seems to be turning into a see-saw match of ‘Yes you are!’ ‘No I’m not!’. Which is nearly as pointless as the last several pages of religious wrangling. Nearly.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
After you look at the definition of atheism at dictionary.com, look at the definition of disbelief.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly:

Disbelief: The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Seems clear to me…inability I’ll dismiss. Refusal to believe seems close to the mark. What was it you wanted me to get out of that? Lets review the definitions I was using for atheists vs agnostics:

Atheist: A person who denies or disbelieves (i.e. refuses to believe) the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

This seems pretty accurate a description of both groups…and they seem very different to me. I am not an atheists by the above definition. I am an agnostic. Period. Now, if you want to define your terms differently then sure…I could be an atheist if you want to define that in terms of being an agnostic.

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s okay. He’s in the strong atheist wing, you’ll be in the weak atheist wing
[/QUOTE]

I just want a tin foil hat too. If I get that then I would be happy.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
I don’t need the definition of ‘agnostic’ to get the full effect of what the definition you provided for ‘atheist’ means and I can’t see anyone else needing it either.
[/QUOTE]

As with many things in this thread, we differ here as well. However, I’ve beaten this dead horse as much as I’m inclined at this point.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Of course the definitions are different. I think the point you were making was that you’re not an atheist and that your definition confirmed it. You are and it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]

Oh…is that the point I was making? Well, glad you cleared that up then. Guess that settles things.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Those were my conclusions? Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure…is someone else posting under your name? If they aren’t your conclusions (or whatever)…well, how does this differ from what ARE your conclusions (or whatever)?

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Read the definitions you provided again and tell me why atheists can’t both be without belief that gods exist while believing that the ultimate truth to whether gods exist or not can’t be known.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I suppose they could be I suppose. They would be sort of on the fence, believing that there is no god (without proof) while also acknowledging that they actually don’t know. It would be an interesting combination I guess.

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
And atheists can’t be theists- but they can be agnostic.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose they could be at that. But then they would be agnostics.

Anyway, I’m mostly just tongue in cheek at this point. I leave you guys too it. Good luck!

-XT

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Oh…is that the point I was making? Well, glad you cleared that up then. Guess that settles things.
[/quote]

Are you denying it? I’ll go over the conversation and point out to you how that was the point you were making if you like.

[QUOTE=xtisme]

I’m not sure…is someone else posting under your name?
[/quote]

No. So show me where my conclusions are “how agnostics and atheists are the same if only the agnostics would admit it”.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If they aren’t your conclusions (or whatever)…well, how does this differ from what ARE your conclusions (or whatever)?
[/quote]

You’ve got to be kidding? I’ve told you more than once that I agree with the definitions you pasted from dictionary.com and that agnostics can be atheists or theists and that this does not contradict one another.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, I suppose they could be I suppose. They would be sort of on the fence, believing that there is no god (without proof)
[/quote]

For crying out loud, what don’t you understand about the definition you posted? AN ATHEIST DOES NOT NEED TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD! Being without belief is all that is necessary to be an atheist. It’s not “on the fence” about anything.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
while also acknowledging that they actually don’t know. It would be an interesting combination I guess.
[/quote]

It’s not interesting at all; it’s rather common for atheists and theists.

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Disbelief: The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
[/quote]

Nice try. The first definition given is “to have no belief in”.

You’re an atheist by you own provided definitions.

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
That’s not true at all. If you think the existence of something is impossible, then you don’t believe in it. Not believing in something is not at all admitting that it’s possible for that thing to exist. I’m curious how you came to this conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

Why would it not be? People just don’t go around saying they don’t believe in something that couldn’t exist.

I don’t hear people saying they don’t believe in unicorns, save those who say they don’t believe in God.

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=x-ray vision]

For crying out loud, what don’t you understand about the definition you posted? AN ATHEIST DOES NOT NEED TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD! Being without belief is all that is necessary to be an atheist. It’s not “on the fence” about anything.

[/QUOTE]

Huh, does this mean you do believe in God, or is this some exoteric exercise in semantics?

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Don’t let yourself get excited about this. The “doctrine of science” is nothing more than a catchphrase that lekatt invented to throw out as a tu quoque any time the subject of science makes it into a thread where he is posting.

It has no meaning (and he has never even pretended to define it).
It has no relevance to the discussion.
It only exists on his posts, (not even in his mind: he does not believe there is such a thing as he refuses to define or demonstrate it).

It is the message board equivalent of “my mom said you’re just jealous.”
[/QUOTE]

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

[x-ray_vision]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Why would it not be? People just don’t go around saying they don’t believe in something that couldn’t exist.

I don’t hear people saying they don’t believe in unicorns, save those who say they don’t believe in God.
[/QUOTE]

Why would it not be? You said it; the question is “Why would it be?”

You said, “If one says He don’t believe in God, he is admitting the possibility of God”.

How is one admitting the possibility of the existence of something by not believing it exists?

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Huh, does this mean you do believe in God, or is this some exoteric exercise in semantics?
[/quote]

What part of what I said could possibly be interpreted to mean that I believe in God?