Just as an aside, I want to reassure the theists out there that as an atheist:
I do not believe there is a God (and thus I disagreeing on a matter of Faith).
I do not hold that I believe there is no God. To hold such a positive belief, I would have to offer evidence in its favor, and I cannot do so.
The difference is subtle, but important to me.
Part of why I label my beliefs atheistic rather than agnostic (which, in its pure semantic denotation is more accurate) is “agnostic” has too many connotations of waffling uncertainty. When I labelled myself as an agnostic, certain elements of the Christian persuasion seemed to think that I could be pushed off the fence with a little nudge, and wouldn’t hesitate to apply that nudge. It got tiresome, I changed the label, and the nudging dried up nicely.
Note that if someone makes empirical claims for his God, hey would have to offer phenomological evidence, and I would debate that evidence as a matter of Science.
This thread should probably be moved to MPSIMS, where it can expire in peace.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
You do not believe God does not exist. You have no opinion one way or the other. Yet you tell people you are an atheist. It’s just a matter of semantics, you reason. Just a convenient label. It helps you get what you want from people, or at least avoid what you don’t want. Never mind whether it’s accurate, or whether it reflects reality, if there even is anything we can think of as reality. Who knows?
Science is a method of overlaying one’s values onto one’s perceptions in an attempt to escape some nameless discomfort. Science has nothing to do with truth in the way most people think of truth.
Faith is the practice of taking one’s perceptions seriously. A person who rejects his own perceptions will experience a lack of faith.
Foolishness is that place where we have fun, that frontier between divinity and baseness where anything is possible, and we laugh, and others laugh at us, or with us. Unless they are people of science, in which case they want to run away from the laughter.
Unfortunately, you can’t just redefine words to suit your own purposes (even if those purposes are to get away from Christians preaching to you). The word “agnostic” means what it means, and “atheist” means what it means. Trust me, we’ve gone around on this plenty of times here. If you properly call yourself an “agnostic” here, most people will know what you mean – and those who don’t will be told.
No quibble with your quibble, David, but in what way does SingleDad’s definition of his stance differ from your own, Gaudere’s, Phil’s, and slythe’s? I was under the distinct impression that your approach to the issue was that under reasonable skepticism, there was inadequate proof to suggest that there was such a thing as God, a god, or gods, and that therefore in the absence of such proof, you had formed the conclusion that there was none. Not held this as an article of belief, as a straw-man dogmatic atheist would, but identified it as a pragmatic conclusion from the evidence at hand. This to me sounds almost precisely what SingleDad was saying.
In that thread, tracer posted a link to The Atheism Web which notes the distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism as the difference between “I don’t believe there is a God” and “No God(s) exist(s).”
I understand the difference in connotation to which SingleDad refers, and have experienced it myself. I, too, call myself an atheist though I do not deny the possibility of the existence of God. I don’t think it’s a bastardization of the word; it denotes a lack of belief, not necessarily a denial in toto of “that which has not (yet) been proven.”
Agnosticism carries with it a connotation of uncertainty which smells suspiciously like “waffling.” Either you have faith in the existence of God, or you don’t. If you don’t have faith, you don’t believe. To further qualify that lack of belief with “I don’t think we can know” is semantic wrangling.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Booger: An amusing redefinition of my original terms, especially foolishness. You remind us not to take ourselves too seriously and that significant understanding can occur through playfulness.
However, am I correct in my understanding that you take your perceptions seriously in the practice of overlying your own values onto your perceptions in an attempt to escape some nameless discomfort? Or are you just being Foolish?
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
There are few things more pointless than declaring one’s self to be agnostic. The man who is agnostic is also the man who states that he does not necessarily believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but has made three appointments and a dinner date anyway.
There are no gods. To me that statement is akin to me saying that I strongly believe there are other human beings on the planet.
Other human beings directly effect my daily activities and my lack of belief in them will not cause them to vanish into thin air, but will cause me to run headfirst into them on the street. Divine beings do not effect me and my lack of belief changes nothing.
Even if I choose to believe in a god, it is not possible to quantify or view this being. It would still have no effect. Nothing short of repeated one-on-one sessions with the Lord himself could convince me otherwise. Only fools and incurable romantics believe in god. I believed in the God once: I was a child.
Besides, at the core, everything is faith. There is no truth or reason. Reason is simply applied faith. Scientists are little more than priests. But that ‘little more’ is far more magical and full of faith than the whole of the Catholic Church!
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
I’m not sure I follow you. Correlation is nothing more than a shared relationship or a connection. If we say the Earth’s orbit is correlated to the mass of the moon that certainly doesn’t imply that the moon’s mass causes the Earth to orbit the sun.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
< sigh > In a recent thread (or two) I went over this again, quoting extensively from Michael Shermer’s new book. I just tried to do a search but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, and I hear a baby waking up, so I doubt I’ll have time to retype the whole thing. Suffice it to say the real meaning of agnostic, as defined by the man who created the word, Thomas Huxley, is one who thinks the whole God question is insoluble. I agree. Either you have faith or you don’t, but there is no way to rationally answer the question. Like Shermer, if I was forced to choose, I would say there is very likely no god. That is also the way I live my life. And, as Shermer notes, if the common usage of “atheism” was nothing more than “no belief in God,” then I’d agree. But it’s not. Atheism is typically used to mean “disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God.” Shermer does note that too many people take the stance already posted here, that “agnostic” is incorrectly taken to mean “wishy-washy.” This isn’t true, but to clarify, Shermer calls himself a “nonbeliever.” Perhaps that is what I shall start calling myself as well (I’ve recently heard others using the term also).
So, let it be known to one and all. I am an agnostic nonbeliever.
Did you know that 100% of serial killers breathe oxygen? Yup, it’s a fact. Does that mean oxygen causes serial killing? Nope. Correlation does not equal causation.
That’s just the most extreme example, and I don’t have time to go into it any more (so far, baby is still waking up, not crying yet, but I suspect by the time I finish this parenthetical remark, he’ll be more vocal).
I know that a lot has been said on this subject already, but in my opinion agnosticism and atheism are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.
My reason:
although there are subtleties of philosophy that separate agnosticism and atheism, it would take exactly the same thing to budge an adherent to either one from his stance, namely demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. Therefore, agnosticism and atheism are functionally the same–they separate believers from non (or un) believers along lines of logic. An agnostic cannot be convinced of atheism, or vice versa, but either could (conceivably) be convinced to believe with the proper evidence. The fact that none of us, atheists or agnostics, expects that evidence to appear is irrelevant.
“I don’t get any smarter as I get older–Just less stupid”
Ya know, I’ve read Shermer, I was aware of this quote, and I really appreciate the eloquence with which it sums up the actual agnostic viewpoint (with which I wholeheartedly agree). I didn’t mean to give it short shrift in my previous post; I was just trying to highlight the difference between Huxley’s intended meaning and the popular connotation. You see, the problem is, if we can’t get people to understand the subtle qualitative difference between “weak” atheism and “strong” atheism, how are we to expect understanding of Huxley’s eloquence, especially when the quote does not spring readily to mind? (Present company excluded of course )
One of the reasons I’ve usually identified myself as atheist has to do with acknowledment of my absence of faith. That is, when urged by people of faith like Poly, Tris, and Lib to seek within for the faith that resides not in my brain, but my heart, I find none. I simply cannot bring myself to have any faith in the unknowable.
And, yes, I’m aware the denial of God requires just as much faith as the belief in God. I’ve just used atheist to avoid mis-apprehension as “undecided” or, “ripe for conversion.” But, come to think of it, if I’m asked about my beliefs and can relate my position accurately and throw people off balance at the same time by using an atypical term, all the better. “Agnostic non-believer”
Ok, try this. I move the mouse around, causing the arrow on my computer screen to move similarly. I click on the mouse when the arrow points to the “Reply” button, causing a program to run that brings up a Reply screen on my computer. I tap my fingers on the computer keyboard, causing letters to appear on the computer screen. This is causation.
)