Agnosticism is goofy.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

Here’s a start:

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Which ones?

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

Me neither.

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

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.

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

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.

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

-XT

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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)?

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.

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

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

-XT

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

You’re an atheist by you own provided definitions.

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.

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

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

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?

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