# Faith, religion, and the afterlife: A form of denial **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713 "2014-01-02T16:57:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/521 "2014-01-26T05:30:36Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Okay, I hate to beat a dead horse here, but why would the term agnostic even exist if it wasn’t mutually exclusive from both theism and atheism on some level? It exists primarily to avoid using the word “atheist”. If we were speaking of some _other_ belief that people aren’t so determined to pretend is true, the great majority of the same people who call themselves “agnostic” would just so “no, there’s obviously no such thing.” ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/522 "2014-01-26T05:55:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It doesn’t matter. There’s never been enough of such people to really matter (and such beliefs are _self_ destructive, anyway). And the aggressive and tyrannical behavior that has been exhibited by Christians throughout history is a direct result of the Christian worldview as I said; if someone actually takes such ideas as unbelievers going to Hell seriously then conversion by the sword and slaughtering heretics not only make perfect logical sense, they are _moral imperatives._ Oi :smack:, if Christians were the way that you describe them, I feel like we would already be living in some nuclear wasteland. Majority of Americans are Christian, about 75%, I’m pretty sure that _most_ of them are the “turn your cheek” type. I’m not saying that there’s no bible literalists out there who are freakin nutjobs, but they make up a relatively insignificant proportion. They do however, stand out like a sore thumb. So, with you being from Cali and all I think you see and here a lot more anti-gay holy wooster BS. As far as the “self destructive” part, I think your just overkilling it. It may feel like you would be splitting your mind apart trying to believe in some paradox such as religion, but for most, they go long their merry way and never have to endure something like that. I think it’s actually pretty easy for most to accept it without being forced into a mental breakdown. I think your just part of a revolutionary “new” way to view life/the world. It is still pretty easy for many to remain blissfully ignorant, and therefore psychologically unscathed. I think there will come a time (soon) where most people are either atheist or agnostic due to all of the reasons you have stated, but you’re just gonna have to wait for education levels to increase before that happens. > [@](#): > > Tolerance, freedom and moderation are in the long run poisonous to Christianity, among other reasons because they require a rejection of its basic view of the world. They are an implicit admission that Christianity is _wrong._ I’m pretty sure that if Christians want to keep their religion around in the future, they will find a way to adapt it to the modern world. If they don’t, it will inevitably lose out to science and fact. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/523 "2014-01-26T06:00:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It exists primarily to avoid using the word “atheist”. If we were speaking of some _other_ belief that people aren’t so determined to pretend is true, the great majority of the same people who call themselves “agnostic” would just so “no, there’s obviously no such thing.” I can never tell if your just making a joke. You make agnostic sound like it’s just an excuse to not be atheist when that’s really not what it is. Some may use it for that purpose, but it is “primarily” used to identify the philosophical stance that there could possibly be deities with or without religion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/524 "2014-01-26T06:17:04Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Oi :smack:, if Christians were the way that you describe them, I feel like we would already be living in some nuclear wasteland. They are restrained by the government; otherwise you’d see people slaughtered right and left for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That’s exactly what happens in countries where the government can’t or won’t restrain the believers, after all. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > I’m not saying that there’s no bible literalists out there who are freakin nutjobs, but they make up a relatively insignificant proportion. No; there are enormous numbers of them, many tens of millions at the least. And they are the dominant force in American Christianity. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > As far as the “self destructive” part, I think your just overkilling it. It may feel like you would be splitting your mind apart trying to believe in some paradox such as religion, but for most, they go long their merry way and never have to endure something like that. Because they don’t actually try to follow it. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > You make agnostic sound like it’s just an excuse to not be atheist when that’s really not what it is. Yes, that’s exactly what it is most of the time. It is a position that has little other reason to exist; people aren’t “agnostic” about other things, especially other things that are anywhere near as obviously nonsense as religion. Someone who claimed to be agnostic about Santa Claus would be laughed at, despite Santa Claus if anything being much more plausible than God. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/525 "2014-01-26T06:29:12Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . Majority of Americans are Christian, about 75%, I’m pretty sure that _most_ of them are the “turn your cheek” type. . . . I’m afraid I’m not so sure. I’m almost certain that a majority of them are not “Give them also your cloak” types or “Walk with them two miles” types. I’ll never forget the Christian (nominally) who was vowing violent revenge on someone who had slighted him. “I said, ‘Turn the other cheek.’” He said, “I’ll turn the other cheek…and then I’m gonna deck the sonofabitch.” I’m afraid that that mind-set is painfully pervasive in American Christianity. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that there’s no bible literalists out there who are freakin nutjobs, but they make up a relatively insignificant proportion. They do however, stand out like a sore thumb. So, with you being from Cali and all I think you see and here a lot more anti-gay holy wooster BS. I hope you’re right. As I mentioned earlier, the right-wing hate-filled variety absolutely dominate Christian broadcasting, and that is the most obvious “public face” of the church. > [@](#): > > As far as the “self destructive” part, I think your just overkilling it. . . . I am a member of the **Der Trihs** fan club – I like him a lot – but, well, he does sometimes seem as if his “1 to 10” dial goes to 15. On the other hand, he’s right that a moderate, tolerant, open-minded, ecumenical way of thought would not have served to catapult Christianity to world dominance. A Christian Church that followed those precepts would be smaller, today, possibly comparable to Judaism in overall numbers. Healthier by far, but less powerful. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . You make agnostic sound like it’s just an excuse to not be atheist when that’s really not what it is. Some may use it for that purpose, but it is “primarily” used to identify the philosophical stance that there could possibly be deities with or without religion. True, but I think he’s right: a lot of people use it as a defensive posture, a faint-hearted way of saying, “Now, I don’t actually disagree with you…” It’s necessary because of the massive power and dominance of the Christian church. As **Der Trihs** notes, nobody goes around saying they’re “agnostic” about Kali, or Isis, or White Buffalo Woman. Those religions are so small in the U.S. that no one feels any need to take the protective coloration of agnosticism. The number of agnostics with respect to Christianity is artificially large, because of Christianity’s massive social domination. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/526 "2014-01-26T06:39:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They are restrained by the government; otherwise you’d see people slaughtered right and left for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That’s exactly what happens in countries where the government can’t or won’t restrain the believers, after all. So? there are over 11,000 annual gun deaths in the US with the next leading country being Germany with 381. Zero correlation with religion, and a much bigger problem than religion. It sounds like those other countries have a problem with government, not religion. People would do a lot of messed up shit if the government wasn’t in place to adequately stop them. > [@](#): > > No; there are enormous numbers of them, many tens of millions at the least. And they are the dominant force in American Christianity. No ones denying that there are a lot of them. 30% of the US believes the bible to be literally true, so even less than that actually have a voice about it. There are probably just as many gang members as these extremists in the country. The only reason they seem dominant to you is because they are the ones speaking out. Of course they are “the dominant force” compared to the passive “turn your cheek” Christians, but that doesn’t make them proportionately significant. Tens of millions in a country made up of hundreds of millions? So what? > [@](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly what it is most of the time. It is a position that has little other reason to exist; people aren’t “agnostic” about other things, especially other things that are anywhere near as obviously nonsense as religion. Someone who claimed to be agnostic about Santa Claus would be laughed at, despite Santa Claus if anything being much more plausible than God. It’s still not the “primary” use of the term. Regardless of religion, agnosticism is the stance that deities _could_ exist. Not necessarily religious deities, but any deity. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/527 "2014-01-26T06:44:38Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > So? there are over 11,000 annual gun deaths in the US with the next leading country being Germany with 381. Zero correlation with religion, and a much bigger problem than religion. > > It sounds like those other countries have a problem with government, not religion. I was obviously referring to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Burma, where there is a lot of religious violence. Not gun violence. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > It’s still not the “primary” use of the term. Regardless of religion, agnosticism is the stance that deities _could_ exist. Not necessarily religious deities, but any deity. There’s no other kind of deity than a “religious deity”; it’s a religious concept. And it is the primary use of the term. As has been pointed out again and again, people aren’t “agnostic” about other things. Just religion. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/528 "2014-01-26T12:58:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > You used an argument to claim that God didn’t exist, which works equally well to claim that the universe didn’t exist. Your argument wasn’t sufficiently nuanced to exclude God yet permit the universe. I made no claim that God doesn’t or does exist, but if God is a being as some believe, he needs a place in which to exist. And that had to be there before he could exist. I just do not believe that anyone knows anything about a supreme being just believes other people or has it in his/her own mind. The way many describe the God of Abraham doesn’t add up! The stories about it are not the same as what humans would call a good, just, loving being or Father. A good father doesn’t pick out one set of his children and have them kill other children for land, He doesn’t favor one child over the other, he doesn’t play unnecessary games to impress his enemy like in the case of Job, He can’t be all knowing if he knows evil will come from one of his creations so it can destroy his other. He doesn’t kill a man’s family so he can prove something to an enemy and the fact that he knew ahead of time what a person would do,isn’t fair or killing a lot of innocent babies because their parents were not good! ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/529 "2014-01-26T15:16:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m afraid I’m not so sure. I’m almost certain that a majority of them are not “Give them also your cloak” types or “Walk with them two miles” types. Well maybe not, but I still think most of them are not going to put their noses where it doesn’t belong very often or at least not nearly as much as **Der Trihs** makes it sound like they do. I mean if I was Chinese (where atheism is most prevalent) and I was listening to **Der Trihs** I would be scared to come to the US (or anywhere) because of religion. There are much bigger reasons to be afraid of travel, or the world for that matter, other than religion. 75% of the US is Christian, so I think if they were all nutjobs, ignorant bastards, or delusional hypocrites, then we would have a much bigger problem than we already do. 49% believe the bible to be “God inspired.” These are the more reasonable “turn your cheek” type that I am referring to. > [@](#): > > I am a member of the **Der Trihs** fan club – I like him a lot – but, well, he does sometimes seem as if his “1 to 10” dial goes to 15. Haha, no kidding. > [@](#): > > True, but I think he’s right: a lot of people use it as a defensive posture, a faint-hearted way of saying, “Now, I don’t actually disagree with you…” It’s necessary because of the massive power and dominance of the Christian church. > > As **Der Trihs** notes, nobody goes around saying they’re “agnostic” about Kali, or Isis, or White Buffalo Woman. Those religions are so small in the U.S. that no one feels any need to take the protective coloration of agnosticism. The number of agnostics with respect to Christianity is artificially large, because of Christianity’s massive social domination. See, I never viewed it this way. I’m not agnostic to any religion’s specific points of view, I think they’re mostly false, but I do have concepts of deities that could exist that I have never associated with religion. That is where _my_ agnosticism comes from. I’m not holding out so I can claim Jesus Christ as my savior some day, I’m making a point that their could be deities out there regardless of any religious strings that have been attached to the notion. I can only assume I’m not alone in this stance, and I wouldn’t be surprised if more people held this view than the view of atheism. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/530 "2014-01-26T15:21:03Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Well your not most people then. I would venture to say that you probably have a higher IQ than most people which allows you to rationalize better. No. Others behave quite similarly to me in similar situations as the example I gave. They just give God belief a special pass as also being rational. > [@](#): > > Cosmodan has a point that the average person probably isn’t going to be too concerned with verifying religion, or most things, on the level that a lot of us do. Is that irrational/delusional? No I don’t think so, it’s probably just conducive to that particular persons lifestyle. “Not being too concerned” isn’t what is being called irrational. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty well assumed in the OP. In fact, it’s a prerequisite to the entire main topic. _Whether or not the delusion of god belief is just as unhealthy as other delusions_ The fact that it’s a point of topic is exactly what makes it not assumed. > [@](#): > > Okay, I hate to beat a dead horse here, but why would the term agnostic even exist if it wasn’t mutually exclusive from both theism and atheism on some level? Because sometimes you can be two things at the same time and other times you can’t. > [@](#): > > There are hybrid forms that I mentioned that are more specific in belief, but if you just say _agnostic_, as opposed to just saying _atheist_, it can be pretty well assumed that the person just hasn’t dismissed the ideas of deities to the extent of an atheist. I’ve been an adult atheist for longer than you’ve been alive. I’ve known and know many atheists. I’ve been involved in debates like this on and off the internet for decades. You’re wrong. I know many atheists that don’t dismiss the idea of deities. I know some that were recently Christians and still search to find if they were correct for giving it up. The **only** thing that makes them atheists is that they are without belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. They don’t need to have any level of dismissal. > [@](#): > > Atheists are considerably firm that there are no such things as deities You’re wrong. I don’t need to be sure that there are no gods to be an atheist. I am just without belief that any exist. That’s what makes me an atheist. The majority of atheists I encounter are not firm that there are no gods. > [@](#): > > You make agnostic sound like it’s just an excuse to not be atheist when that’s really not what it is. Some may use it for that purpose, but it is “primarily” used to identify the philosophical stance that there could possibly be deities with or without religion. Do you now get why the word exists and how it’s not mutually exclusive from atheism and theism? An atheist can think the existence of deities is possible, or he can think they’re not. He’s just not with belief in any. > [@](#): > > It’s still not the “primary” use of the term. Your definition of an atheist as being one that is “considerably firm that there are no such things as deities” is not the primary use of the term. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/531 "2014-01-26T16:22:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I was obviously referring to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Burma, where there is a lot of religious violence. Not gun violence. And obviously i was pointing out that violence is due to human nature, not religion. Do you have any sources with empirical data showing that the religious murder(by US definition) rate is significantly higher than the non-religious murder rate in these countries? > [@](#): > > There’s no other kind of deity than a “religious deity”; it’s a religious concept. Incorrect, and I’ve already shown you how it’s incorrect in previous posts… What’s the point of discussing something if you are unable to take anything new away from the discussion? [God Without Religion](http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Religion-Questioning-Centuries/dp/1933771402) [Pantheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) > [@](#): > > And it is the primary use of the term. As has been pointed out again and again, people aren’t “agnostic” about other things. Just religion. [This should help you out with the term agnostic](http://www.pluralism.org/resources/tradition/atheism.php) I have only ever seen the term agnostic used in the real world (not message boards) as a term to describe someone who generally dismisses religion, but is open to the possibility of the existence of deities. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/532 "2014-01-26T16:36:56Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Because trust often is based on evidence. Religious type faith never is. Are we completely discounting the subjective personal experience? > [@](#): > > I don’t just accept things people tell me are true. Lots of people don’t accept the word of a passing stranger as true. That’s not what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > The more outrageous the claim, the less accepting I will be of it and will probably have zero belief in that claim. It’s much different than believing in God just because those around you do. I also don’t have beliefs in astrology, ghosts and other irrational, supernatural things. Keep in mind I’m speaking generally and I know that individuals vary. > [@](#): > > I can’t speak for other atheists, but I don’t do that. good for you, but we can see examples of it in this thread. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone has “assumed” that. Believing in supernatural claims without evidence is irrational. I don’t have beliefs that are irrational. Here’s an example. You’re putting God belief in a different catagory by default, which is the point I’m making. How about believing ANY claim without evidence is irrational? > [@](#): > > I don’t know what definition of agnosticism you’re using that is mutually exclusive from atheism, but it will probably sidetrack things into a semantics discussion. I suppose you’re not a theist or atheist? I don’t know how that’s possible. If you’re not a theist, you have no belief in the existence of any gods. That would make you an atheist. I have zero interest in a semantic discussion or the subcatagories of agnostic atheist etc. I did not say or imply that agnostiocism was mutually exclusive of atheism. I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/533 "2014-01-26T16:51:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not any who ran things based on what they thought their god was telling them. As for atheists, I don’t know how atheism could inform any political program. Atheism wouldn’t even cause anyone to oppress religion - just to keep religion from setting rules, which I know would probably be considered oppression. From that icon of irrational thought Abe Lincoln “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party – and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true – that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds” Although I share your general distrust and wariness of leaders who assume they are divinely guided, my point is that neither belief or non belief tells us much about a person’s overall character or whether they would be a good or bad leader. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/534 "2014-01-26T17:01:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I agree with you. But I think the problem is this. If a man says what an imaginary friend of voices tell him, we call him irrational and don’t give it a second thought. If that man, however, is the Pope or the President of the Mormon Church calling him irrational stirs up all kinds of trouble. It is not that atheists treat religion differently, it is that the reaction is different. > > Another example. If a man has faith in his wife despite the fact that she is out until 2 am and draining their bank account, he is considered sad and pitiful. If a man has faith in god despite great disasters - think Job - he is considered holy. > > You see, we are back to special pleading. It ain’t you, it’s the believers out there. Hmmmmm What I notice is that you are rather casually assuming that spiritual beliefs should be in the same catagory as a man with an imaginary friend. That’s kinda my point. So if a man remained positive and overcame great adversity because of his faith in God, he’s still a irrational, but if he overcame great adversity as an atheist , he’s our hero? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/535 "2014-01-26T17:32:20Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > [This should help you out with the term agnostic](http://www.pluralism.org/resources/tradition/atheism.php) From your cite: \*Atheism: “The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning “without,” and theos, meaning “deity”.” - The Atheist Empire "An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities…We are not a “religion.” The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists “Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.” - [Atheism.com](http://Atheism.com) \* > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Are we completely discounting the subjective personal experience? Not necessarily. > [@](#): > > Lots of people don’t accept the word of a passing stranger as true. That’s not what I’m talking about. Then give an example. > [@](#): > > good for you, but we can see examples of it in this thread. This is what you said: _My only objection is the wode blankets tossed by some atheists that all god belief is irrational and delusional because there’s no objecive proof, all the while exhibiting their own tendency to insist things are factual that they can’t prove._ Show the examples in this thread. > [@](#): > > Here’s an example. You’re putting God belief in a different catagory by default, which is the point I’m making. What you said: \*My point is that human belief systems share certain things in common, and if we’re going to put religious beliefs on equal footing with all other beliefs as Harris suggests, Religious beliefs don’t deserve any special respect or protected unchallengable status, and they also don’t deserve an assumed catagory of irrational and delusional. \* Religious beliefs don’t deserve any special respect or protected unchallengable status. The reason Sam Harris brought that up, is because it’s a very pervasive way of thinking in the U.S. You are claiming that they also don’t deserve an assumed category of being labelled irrational and delusional. I said that they’re not assumed. Religious claims needs to be examined before they’re deemed irrational and/or delusional. > [@](#): > > How about believing ANY claim without evidence is irrational? Did I infer otherwise? There are levels of belief and irrationality. Believing it’s going to snow tomorrow may have some degree of irrationality depending on how much evidence I have for it, but it won’t be as irrational as believing thunder is cause by Thor’s goat-driven chariot. > [@](#): > > I have zero interest in a semantic discussion or the subcatagories of agnostic atheist etc. I did not say or imply that agnostiocism was mutually exclusive of atheism. You absolutely did imply it when you said this: _Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic…_ > [@](#): > > I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. Okay, then we’re all agnostic and then the label is useless. You also called yourself “not a theist.” That’s what an atheist is- not a theist. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/536 "2014-01-26T18:45:48Z")
**cosmosdan** , do you have a primary research source for this quote you attribute to Lincoln? Lincoln occasionally used God in his politics, as do most politicians in this country, but their private beliefs told by others close to them–also which is the case for Lincoln–often are quite different than what people were led to believe. There is actually a whole book of quotes attributed to Lincoln, of things he never said; this happens to many famous people. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/537 "2014-01-26T18:56:37Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > No. Others behave quite similarly to me in similar situations as the example I gave. They just give God belief a special pass as also being rational. Yeah, I think I quoted the wrong statement for what I was commenting on. I meant in regards to the way you rationalize religion. A priest could be the pilot to somebody else and be viewed as an authority figure. Therefore, people will listen and receive adequate answers to their questions from him. How else would so many believers exist in the first place? They are content with the answers that their religion provides them with. If they aren’t content, then they end up like you or i as an atheist or an agnostic. > [@](#): > > “Not being too concerned” isn’t what is being called irrational. Okay, if the reason they accept religion is because they are not too concerned with the idea of it being false, and that’s not what you are saying is irrational, then what _is_ irrational about it?" > [@](#): > > The fact that it’s a point of topic is exactly what makes it not assumed. I think you misunderstand. It is assumed that religion and faith in general is a delusion in the topic, the question the topic poses is why is _this_ so called delusion not treated the same as any other delusion. > [@](#): > > Because sometimes you can be two things at the same time and other times you can’t. Yeah but they are designed to specify the difference of views in god belief, so not everybody who is agnostic is also an atheist and not every atheist is also an agnostic. > [@](#): > > I’ve been an adult atheist for longer than you’ve been alive. I’ve known and know many atheists. I’ve been involved in debates like this on and off the internet for decades. You’re wrong. I know many atheists that don’t dismiss the idea of deities. I know some that were recently Christians and still search to find if they were correct for giving it up. The **only** thing that makes them atheists is that they are without belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. They don’t need to have any level of dismissal. And do you know what those atheists you’re referring to would better be defined as? Agnostic atheists. Strong atheism generally asserts that there are NO GODS, weak atheism simply has a lack of belief in religion and is the most broad term you could possibly use. > [@](#): > > You’re wrong. I don’t need to be sure that there are no gods to be an atheist. I am just without belief that any exist. That’s what makes me an atheist. The majority of atheists I encounter are not firm that there are no gods. That’s not what I said and I’m certainly not wrong. I didn’t say you _had_ to be sure there were no gods to be an atheist, but if you are not sure then you are an agnostic atheist. “Atheist” is too broad a term for a discussion such as this. Let me be very clear that atheism and agnosticism can be described in a venn diagram. There is a large overlap in the middle with mutually exclusive views on the outside. > [@](#): > > Do you now get why the word exists and how it’s not mutually exclusive from atheism and theism? An atheist can think the existence of deities is possible, or he can think they’re not. He’s just not with belief in any. I never said it was entirely mutually exclusive. I have simply been saying that there are versions where it is mutually exclusive that deserve to be recognized. And yes, an atheist can do what you’ve described, but that is only one type of atheism. There are strong atheists who assert that many gods and sometimes all gods in general are of non-existence. You are using the broadest term available for atheism in a discussion where specificity is important. > [@](#): > > Your definition of an atheist as being one that is “considerably firm that there are no such things as deities” is not the primary use of the term. Which is why agnostic atheist is reserved for what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/538 "2014-01-26T20:13:23Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > A priest could be the pilot to somebody else and be viewed as an authority figure. Therefore, people will listen and receive adequate answers to their questions from him. Sure, they can be knowledgeable on what’s claimed in the Bible. They also have a long history of changing what the meaning of the statements in the Bible are based on what science has demonstrated is or isn’t so. This is because to a priest, faith is more important than reason. They aren’t authority figures on whether claims in the Bible reflect truth. Pilots actually are authorities on how to fly and what causes turbulence in various situations. > [@](#): > > How else would so many believers exist in the first place? [http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/tp/WhyTheistsBelieveInGod.htm](http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/tp/WhyTheistsBelieveInGod.htm) > [@](#): > > Okay, if the reason they accept religion is because they are not too concerned with the idea of it being false It would be nice if you would stop twisting what others are saying. > [@](#): > > Yeah but they are designed to specify the difference of views in god belief That’s not what the word _agnosticism_ was designed for. It’s in regards to knowledge, not belief. See your own cite. > [@](#): > > so not everybody who is agnostic is also an atheist and not every atheist is also an agnostic. Correct. This is also explained in your own cite: _A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist."_ > [@](#): > > And do you know what those atheists you’re referring to would better be defined as? Agnostic atheists. It’s odd to see you making that claim as you said this just a little while ago: _Okay, I hate to beat a dead horse here, but why would the term agnostic even exist if it wasn’t mutually exclusive from both theism and atheism on some level?_ One couldn’t be an agnostic atheist if those terms were mutually exclusive, could one? > [@](#): > > weak atheism simply has a lack of belief in religion and is the most broad term you could possibly use. No. It’s the absence of belief in any gods without going as far as to deny the existence of any gods; it’s not lacking belief in religion. See your own cite again. > [@](#): > > That’s not what I said and I’m certainly not wrong. I didn’t say you _had_ to be sure there were no gods to be an atheist This is what you said: _Atheists are considerably firm that there are no such things as deities_ Are you really picking nits between “being sure” and “considerably firm”? Fine. I’ll amend my response slightly if you like: You’re wrong. I don’t need to be considerably firm that there are no such things as deities to be an atheist. I am just without belief that any exist. That’s what makes me an atheist. The majority of atheists I encounter are not considerably firm that there are no such things as deities. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Your definition of an atheist as being one that is “considerably firm that there are no such things as deities” is not the primary use of the term. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Which is why agnostic atheist is reserved for what you are talking about. More like: “Which is why I shouldn’t be defining _atheist_ as something it’s not.” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/539 "2014-01-26T20:22:21Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I made no claim that God doesn’t or does exist, but if God is a being as some believe, he needs a place in which to exist. And that had to be there before he could exist. . . . And I disagree with this, and consider it a weak, facile, circular, and absurd argument. I’ve shown that there are alternative interpretations, and that the reasoning extends to contradictions. When you bring it up, I will post this rebuttal. Call it a trope. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/540 "2014-01-26T20:28:33Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . I do have concepts of deities that could exist that I have never associated with religion. . . . It’s entirely possible that there are extremely powerful intelligent entities out there in the universe somewhere. Big, strong, smart aliens, so advanced as to appear “god-like” to us. Take a U.S. Marine in full battle kit and send him back in time to the Neanderthals. He would be as a god. He could quickly obtain their obeisance and worship. I think that “deity” is the wrong word for advanced aliens. And I believe that entities for whom the word “deity” is correct do not exist, as they would violate the laws of physics. **Der Trihs** is correct: the word “deity” is a religious term, not an anthropological or biological one. I do concede that if their technology is sufficiently hyper-advanced, we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=28)