Hah. You’re just jealous because atheists have the best booze and the hottest chicks. Nyeah.
Yeah, I was just kidding about that. (I have known a few people who fit this mold, but they’re definitely not representative of much of anything.)
And who are you calling a “soft” atheist? I’m all man, baby!
I was trying to figure out a good example to show how I came to my beliefs. This is a poor one so please don’t call me on it too much.
OJ Simpson. I didn’t follow this that close so I don’t have a strong personal opinion on the verdict. BUT, a LOT of people believe OJ is guilty. They do not have definitive evidence, that’s why he was not convicted, yet they believe. For me I look around and think , “If there were a God (or a mythical being or whatever), there should be strong evidence in many places.” I look in the likely places and find no evidence. So I conclude, “There is no God.” This is enough for me to believe. Now an omnipotent God could be intentionally hiding, but to what end? The only God you might have a chance at convincing me of would be very powerful but not all-“good” and a little on the stupid side. No one is pressing upon me their beliefs in the mongoloid god (“and he wears a hat, and he…”). I’ll just go on as I have been.
Hey, if you’ll refrain from tearing apart my metaphors in the Trinity thread (Gaudere does a good job on that all by herself!), the least I can do is not pick on your analogies here! 
I see the logic of your position now – and I’ve always wondered how someone could convince themselves of a universal negative of that sort, so this helps a lot!
One point, which I think is worth questioning you about, is the “mysterious ways” argument – the idea that there is a God, Who, for whatever reasons, chooses not to reveal Himself – generally the reasons given being to allow for the exercise of free will, which the direct and obvious presence of an overt God would tend to supervene. I make my choices in faith, based on what I understand Him to want, because I choose to adhere to Him and do His will as I understand it. If He were obvious, sitting on Mount Sinai and holding daily press conferences on how mankind should live, I would not be able to choose in faith. While, as Gaudere pointed out, I would have some degree of choice to reject Him, my prudential option – the thing any intelligent man would do faced with an overt omnipotent God whose will is readily ascertainable by secular means – would be to do what He says. What would your argument say regarding this sort of mercifully-hiding God?
God can’t reveal him/her/itself without removing our free will? Hunh? I don’t get it. When I was a child my parents were not hidden and seemed pretty omnipotent to me and yet I still chose to misbehave sometimes - usually resulting in punishment. I think if the Catholic God were sitting on Mt. Sinai I’d probably misbehave MORE, knowing that forgivness was a given and that if I really screwed up God would be there to make it all right. I really don’t understand why people think proof of God’s presence would remove freedom of choice. According to the story, Satan and his buddies rebelled against God knowing Him more fully than any human could ever hope to. With our limited underwstanding could we not rebel? Some people seem to rebel against all authority on general principle and the suicidal nature of that rebellion would not be prohibitive for some.
I think that mentally stable, intelligent, thoughtful people will act for the greater benefit of humanity in most instances without motivation from God.
God’s presence was known to Adam and yet he disobeyed. Was Moses without sin after his talk with God? Noah? JUDAH!? The rest of the Apostles? Paul? Others who witnessed miracles?
I rest my case.
Polycarp, any thoughts on how the “mysterious ways” argument fits in with the “send unbelievers to hell to suffer for all eternity” idea?
You give humans a brain and free will. You give them no direct evidence of your existence for at least 2000 years, so their decision to believe is truly a matter of faith. You torture people who don’t make the right decision for eternity. Yeah, that makes sense.
To me, the concept of hell is so childish and arbitrary that it is completely incompatible with the concept of omniscience.
I believe! I mean I believe that there is no such thing as god. Maybe this thread is a little off track. The big question is:
Should Athiests and Agnostics be lumped into one category for statistical purposes?
Answer: Yes, maybe. No. I don’t know.
Honestly, it is not like having a Buddhist/Islam option. There are distinctions between Athiest and Agnostic, but they are both essentially a single statistical unit of non-religious people.
I am sure there is a difference between a Church of Christ and a Church of God, but they are both lumped in to Protestant. They get over it.
So should the Athiest/Agnostics.
The problem with being agnostic is that everyone wants to “define” you into their camp.
I count myself agnostic, not atheist. Don’t confuse things with “hard” and “soft” atheism. Agnosticism is not a wishy-washy “wussy” position. It is a considered opinion on the un-knowability of the existence of God. Someone who asserts the non-existence of God with the firmness with which a Catholic asserts the existence of God better have a reason to back it up. I suppose you can have Faith in non-existence, but it seems perverse.
Most atheists I’ve known have an almost missionary zeal in promoting the non-existence of God. I like the fact that the label “agnostic” distances me intellectually from such folk.
I think that there is enough crossover between atheists and agnostics that they could be loosely considered part of the same group. I call myself an atheist, but I’ve met people who believe the exact same things that I do who refer to themselves as agnostics. I’ve also met people who call themselves atheists who I think give a bad name to atheists everywhere because I disagree with their stance so strongly, but I can’t control what they call themselves, and, well, given that there isn’t a uniform code of atheist ethics, I can’t even get all high and mighty about it.
I HAVE NO FAITH! I don’t ‘believe in the nonexistence’ of anything. In fact, I don’t believe in anything. I just accept facts and form conclusions based on those facts. So far, there has not been any real evidence of any deity’s existence. That’s why I’m an atheist.
I’ve always learned and considered atheist to mean “one who lacks a belief in God”. I’ve always thought of an agnostic as “one who either thinks God’s existential status is unknowable, or one who doesn’t know enough to know whether it is knowable”.
I personally have nothing against the grouping of atheists and agnotstics, at least in some cases. Agnostics, really, are a subgroup of atheists. If someone refered to me as an agnostic, instead of as an atheist, I wouldn’t be offended; I would merely tell them that atheist is probably a better word to describe me.
Considering how similar agnosticism and atheism are, I have nothing against them being grouped together so long as people realize that there are subtle differences between the two.
Gaudere said:
Oh yeah? Prove it! 
BlackKnight said:
No, they’re not. You could describe them both as subgroups of the irreligious or of non-theists, but agnosticism is not a subgroub of atheism or vice-versa.
Atheists are those who do not have a belief that God exists. Agnostics do not have a belief that God exists. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
No, BlackKnight, you are wrong, even by my standards. An agnostic believes that you cannot know if there is a deity of any kind. An atheist simply has no beliefs and does not think the evidence is in favor of the existence of a deity. There is a distinction, and it’s by no means subtle.
An atheist is anyone who does not believe that God exists.
Agnostics do not believe that God exists. This is because they believe it is impossible to know whether God exists. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
(Unless, of course, you mean to say that it’s possible to believe something while believing that you do not know that same thing, but to me that is just a semantic quibble.)
Um, Derleth, I believe that you haven’t quite grasped what BlackKnight said. He said:
- All those that do not believe in God are atheists.
- Agnostics do not believe in God.
- Therefore, Agnostists are Atheists.
This is a syllogism, and therefore if you want to challenge the conclusion, you must challenge one or both of the premises. Simply adding more premises such as “an agnostics believes that one can’t know” does not invalidate the conclusion.
More information= fewer choices?
Why did you emphasize the word “choose” instead of “faith”? While you would not be able to choose in faith, it would be the faith that would be missing, not the choice. Your statement makes about as much sense to me as saying “If pot were legalized, I would not be able to smoke illegally. Therefore, pot legalization would take away my ability to smoke.”
Hmmm. My definition of free will is something like “The ability to evaluate all of one’s options, and choose the one that benefits one the most”. Yours seems to be something like “The state of having several choices which are equally attractive”. This strikes as a very strange definition. You also seem to be confusing determinism with lack of free will. If I go around offering people a choice between two boxes, one which contains $10,000, and the other contains dog excrement, very few people indeed would choose the second. Therefore, this is a very well-determined event, and yet people are perfectly free to choose the second box. Do you think that if I simply offered people a choice between the two boxes, without allowing them any information as to their contents, that would increase their free will?
“Mercifully”? Hiding information from us to make our decisions more unpredictable is “merciful”? I’d find the term “cruel” to be more appropiate.
Consider the following range:
I know that there is no God.
I believe that there is no God.
I do not believe that there is a God.
I do not believe one can know if there is a God.
I do not know if one can know if there is a God.
I do not know if there is a God.
I do not know, or care if there could be a God.
I believe there might be a God.
I believe there might be proof that there is a God.
I believe there is a God.
I know there is a God.
I know God.
That just covers atheists, theists, and agnostics.
It is possible, and could be consistent that more than one could apply.
People don’t fit in boxes.
Tris
The Ryan:
I challenged the second point in my post. Agnostics believe that we cannot know if there is a deity, something far different from simple disbelief. Since his second point falls, it all falls, and agnostics aren’t atheists.
Triskadecamus:
You’re right, people don’t fit in boxes, but it gets annoying to be lumped with people who don’t share your worldview. Like if somebody lumped Jews and Hindus. That hypothetical group would be impossible to discuss as a whole coherently as their philosophies and behaviors don’t match. It would be hard to enter into a philosophical conversation with a member of that group because many of your base assumptions would be wrong. Grouping people might not always work perfectly, but it will be done. It had better be done right.
I think it’s The Ryan’s point number one that is lacking. (i.e. All those who do not believe in God are atheists) That is only part of the definition. To be an atheist, you must also believe that it is possible to know. To be a hard atheist, you must believe that you DO know.
However, by dictionary definition, BlackKnight and Ryan are right. The dictionary definition is not in line with current philosophical discussion. I think that BlackKnight has not read the old thread where this was ironed out. Before that thread I would have agreed with him.
Meta-agnostic - One who believes they can never know if they are an agnostic or not.