# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/621 "2014-02-01T07:18:06Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I suppose in your mind it must be. But for all a deist claims, a being might have created the universe the same way we created the internet, or computers in general. Our minds simply do not have the capacity to understand how such a thing might occur. Deistic claims about universe creation by deities go beyond the act of just creating a universe. I can imagine a grad student with control of gravity creating a universe. Deists typically also claim that this creation involves a purpose. A universe created by someone which exists on the other side of an event horizon can be just as random as a universe popping up by itself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/622 "2014-02-01T11:09:54Z")
> [@arielburns](#): > > For something to be inherited through evolution, it must have a purpose - like all thoughts and contemplations. This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. A trait may actually arise that does not bestow a benefit and be carried through many generations as long as it does not hinder the life form or reduce the life form’s chances for reproduction. ---
**Author:** ![arielburns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6de8d8/32.png) [@arielburns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/arielburns)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/623 "2014-02-01T18:49:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. A trait may actually arise that does not bestow a benefit and be carried through many generations as long as it does not hinder the life form or reduce the life form’s chances for reproduction. Agreed. But the whole point of natural selection is to glean the traits that are useful and have some kind of benefit. Here’s an article that supports some kind of genetic involvement - why certain genes turn on, we don’t know though. Still so many questions. > **[What Twins Reveal About The Science Of Faith](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene/)** > > Studies of twins suggest that faith is influenced by genes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/624 "2014-02-01T23:13:23Z")
> [@arielburns](#): > > Agreed. But the whole point of natural selection is to glean the traits that are useful and have some kind of benefit. > > Here’s an article that supports some kind of genetic involvement - why certain genes turn on, we don’t know though. Still so many questions. > > [What Twins Reveal About The Science Of Faith](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene) Useful only in the sense of providing a reproductive advantage. There are tons of cases (peacock feathers, for instance) where a trait doing this for mating purposes might have other disadvantages. Not to mention that the male praying mantis probably wouldn’t find the mating behavior that evolved in the female all that useful. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/625 "2014-02-02T15:46:15Z")
> [@](#): > > x-ray vision > You then said you can see examples of it in this thread. If that’s your “only objection”, then back it up. Show examples in this thread so we can discuss them. From earlier in this thread, “No, because being a believer is in itself mentally unhealthy, and causes immense harm to the world directly and indirectly. It’s not “audacious”, it’s pointing out the obvious. You just need to read the news or a little history to see religion causing harm everywhere. Nor did I say or care if it applies to “every believer”; what matters is the overall effect of religion, which is one of overwhelming evil. There is simply no way that religion could ever do enough good to make up for all the evil it does.” I assumed anyone who posted regularly in GD had seen this kind of thing repeatedly > [@](#): > > BTW, you skipped over one of the questions I asked you: No I didn’t. the answer was What seemed to be happening earlier was god belief is catagorized as irrational and delusional rather casually, by comparisons to IPU or whatever The point I’ve been trying to make, the one I’m interested in far more than continued unnecessary semantic sidetracks, is judging human belief systems equally to see if god belief is irrational , or any more irrational than how most human belief systems are formed. > [@](#): > > WTF? Please tell me what context you meant “not a theist” in? Good lord man. You’re about to quote it. It was IMMEDIATELY followed with “I’M AN AGNOSTIC” a rather clear declaration. The reason was that you had just mischaracterized my post as some old theist argument. I thought it might be helpful to let you know I am an agnostic. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Me earlier > You claimed I implied atheism and being an agnostic were mutually exclusive when I implied nothingof the sort. > [@](#): > > You > Yes you did. I’ll go over it again. You can go over it a hundred times and you’ll still be wrong. I DIDN”T MENTION ATHEISM AT ALL!!! So for you to assume something about my attitude toward atheism from a sentence that doesn’t mention it AT ALL, means YOU READ THAT INTO IT. Rather than simply ask a question for clarification you responded as if you incorrect assumption was correct. That’s on you. I implied nothing about atheism. > [@](#): > > If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m a Russian…” no one would have an issue with my statement. It’s clear I’m claiming I’m one and not the other as those are mutually exclusive states of being. > > If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m Catholic”, everyone would wonder if I was under the impression that those two conditions are mutually exclusive. That’s what your quote above sounds like. This analogy fails for several reasons. 1. Irish and Catholic are two very different categories that answer different questions. Nationality , religion. Theism, agnosticism , and atheism, are three terms often used to describe various positions on one category. God belief. 2ndly, if someone responded to “I’m not Irish , I’m Catholic” with “I don’t know what definition of Irish you’re using that is mutually exclusive from Baptist” {that’s what you did} then the response might be “Who the hell said anything about Baptist.?” Now, if it made you wonder about how I looked at things, that’s understandable and the proper form IMO is to ask for clarification rather than assume and then respond to your own incorrect assumption. Since then I have tried to explain my view and that I also understand other views. You think it’s impossible to be agnostic without being a theist or atheist correct? That’s fine if YOU think that , but clearly I DO NOT, so please refrain from telling me I’m an atheist when I’ve repeatedly said I’m not. > [@](#): > > Hell, you did it again post 578: > > “I doubt we can say whether a believer, agnostic or atheist is more likley to be kind to others…” Once again , that sentence says NOTHING to indicate I think agnostic is mutually exclusive from atheism or theism. I understand they overlap and the details of belief vs, what we can know. I simply reject the notion that I can’t be just agnostic, or an agnostic. > [@](#): > > I know that. You were defining an agnostic in regards to what one can know. It says nothing regarding what you believe. No, that’s how you’re defining it. I’m defining it as my personal position when it comes to god belief. I haven’t decided one way or the other. It’s still an open question for me, and frankly, I can’t imagine people claiming that’s impossible. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/626 "2014-02-02T18:14:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > From earlier in this thread, > “No, because being a believer is in itself mentally unhealthy, and causes immense harm to the world directly and indirectly. > > It’s not “audacious”, it’s pointing out the obvious. You just need to read the news or a little history to see religion causing harm everywhere. Nor did I say or care if it applies to “every believer”; what matters is the overall effect of religion, which is one of overwhelming evil. There is simply no way that religion could ever do enough good to make up for all the evil it does.” You didn’t show an example in this thread of what I asked for. Again, 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.”_ The first quote doesn’t even mention being irrational or delusional. The second quote specifically mentions that he didn’t say his claim applied to every believer, but that “religion” could never make up for all the evil it does. Moving on from there, you said “because there’s no objective proof” and “exhibiting their own tendency to insist things are factual that they can’t prove.” You aren’t even close to showing examples of what you claim exist in this thread. > [@](#): > > No I didn’t. the answer was > What seemed to be happening earlier was god belief is catagorized as irrational and delusional rather casually, by comparisons to IPU or whatever Yes, you did. That does not answer my question. > [@](#): > > Good lord man. You’re about to quote it. It was IMMEDIATELY followed with “I’M AN AGNOSTIC” a rather clear declaration. The reason was that you had just mischaracterized my post as some old theist argument. I thought it might be helpful to let you know I am an agnostic. I never mischaracterized anything! “I’m an agnostic” says nothing about what you believe, according to the definitions of “agnostic” you supplied several times. What does say something about your belief, is the following statements: \*“I’m not a theist” “I’m not a believer” “If they answer with ‘No I don’t believe in God or gods’ they are atheist.”\* > [@](#): > > I implied nothing about atheism. Yes, you did. I’ve shown you several times. > [@](#): > > This analogy fails for several reasons. 1. Irish and Catholic are two very different categories that answer different questions. Nationality , religion. Theism, agnosticism , and atheism, are three terms often used to describe various positions on one category. God belief. Wrong. Agnosticism says nothing about whether or one not believes in any gods **according to the very definitions you provided**. I’ll remind you of your statements regarding agnosticism again: _“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.”_ _“An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will.”_ According to you, agnosticism is regarding knowledge and theism and atheism is regarding belief. You have acknowledged this several times. I can post more of your quotes if you like. According to you, they’re not mutually exclusive. Which is why my analogy works just fine. > [@](#): > > 2ndly, if someone responded to “I’m not Irish , I’m Catholic” with > “I don’t know what definition of Irish you’re using that is mutually exclusive from Baptist” {that’s what you did} then the response might be “Who the hell said anything about Baptist.?” You defined atheism as one without belief. > [@](#): > > Once again , that sentence says NOTHING to indicate I think agnostic is mutually exclusive from atheism or theism. I understand they overlap and the details of belief vs, what we can know. Yes, it does. So do more of your statements which I went over in my last post. > [@](#): > > I simply reject the notion that I can’t be just agnostic, or an agnostic. According to your definitions and statements, one can’t be. Again: \*“I’m not a theist” “I’m not a believer” “If they answer with ‘No I don’t believe in God or gods’ they are atheist.” “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.” “An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will.”\* > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I know that. You were defining an agnostic in regards to what one can know. It says nothing regarding what you believe. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > No, that’s how you’re defining it. Unreal! I’ve quoted you defining it that way several times! > [@](#): > > You think it’s impossible to be agnostic without being a theist or atheist correct? That’s fine if YOU think that , but clearly I DO NOT Clearly? Yes, it’s clear depending on which post you’re talking about. You use the terms as if they’re mutually exclusive when it suits you and then flip flop. Is it clear that an agnostic can’t be a theist or atheist in this new set of descriptors you provide (bolding mine)?: > [@](#): > > But let’s look at it another way. **A sliding scale of degrees of belief** > > Th\<-------------------------------Ag-------------------At--------------------\> > > On one end the most ardent believer, on the other , the most ardent nonbeliever. **Somewhere in the middle , a group who are agniostic. Who decline to choose belief or non belief.** Right **next to the agnostic** , a hairs breadth away in degrees of belief, is the Theist who may have some doubts and acknowledges the problems with belief , but still identifies as someone who believes in god in some form, perhaps the mysterious undefined other. > **The agnostic next to him has many similarities, the difference being he cannot in good conscience identify as a believer.** He has one too many doubts to say “I believe” but finds enough unanswered questions to not choose" I don’t believe" > Further down the line is the agnostic who is a hairs breadth away from Atheism. He more skeptical than his fellow agnostic, but **still unwilling to declare "I don’t believe**. Nerxt to him, someone who has **made the decision to declare themsleves an atheist**. znd so on. > [@](#): > > I’m defining it as my personal position when it comes to god belief. That’s not a definition. > [@](#): > > I haven’t decided one way or the other. It’s still an open question for me, and frankly, I can’t imagine people claiming that’s impossible. Making a decision is not relevant to the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism **you provided** , until you flip-flopped and gave ridiculous, mutually exclusive definitions of agnosticism to atheism and theism in post 609. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/627 "2014-02-03T02:07:45Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Right, that’s your stance regarding what can be known. You made this evident in your earlier posts . I hope what is evident at this point is that I consider myself an agnostic period. I hope it’s evident that I think it’s quite possile to be just an agnostic when it comes to the question of god belief. > [@](#): > > You already said you weren’t using a definition of _agnosticism_ that is mutually exclusive of atheism or theism , I don’t believe I said any such thing. Show me specifically where I said this. > [@](#): > > . You seem to be doing it again here, where you say “for me the proper stance is agnostic” as if that says anything about what you do or don’t have a belief in. My postion when it comes to god belief , and only god belief , is agnostic. I am uncommitted to either theism or atheism. What I do and don’t believe involves a lot more than just god belief. > [@](#): > > Lots, if not most, of us atheists do. Personally I think theres a difference between being open to and just acknowledging intellectualy that it’s possible, but that’s a hair we don’t need to split. Your words (the second from [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=690956) ) thread: > [@](#): > > Of course you can’t “just be agnostic” if you’re defining it in regards to knowledge and the other two words regarding belief. You’re making this far to complicated by nitpicking and pulling phrases out of context. > [@](#): > > When you said “I’m not a theist” and “I’m not a believer”, was anyone able to determine if you were an agnostic based on the definitions you provided? Were they able to tell if you were a theist or atheist based on those two statements and the definition of “atheist” you provided? I think most people would know I was an agnostic when I said I’M AN AGNOSTIC! but that obviously wasn’t clear enough for you. I attempted to explain that while I understand the how and where atheism and theism can overlap with agnosticism, my definition has to do with how a person identifies themselves, in simple terms. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/628 "2014-02-03T02:38:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This is a measure of a mental state, not a decision. At any moment you either believe or you lack belief. I’ll accept that an undecided person can oscillate between these positions. At the moment of decision this can be very high frequency, but for some it is very low frequency - the moments of doubt we hear about. And in our society you often try to convince yourself you are on one side, when you actually are on the other. I did that, until reading about how the Bible was written kicked me over the line. > > Perhaps agnosticism in your view is the state of the frequency of oscillation being above some level. Or perhaps it is a case of Schrodinger’s Agnostic - open the box to determine whether you believe or not. > > What you declare yourself as is immaterial. We have tons of declared theists who turn out to be atheists, and I’m sure that in the Soviet Union there were lots of declared atheists who were actually theists. It is an internal state, not an external one. > > Anyone with any sense realizes that we can’t prove anything universal in this matter. > > And you just oscillated. > > That’s progress at least - you used to be a devout deist. I know people who are comfortable believing that there is a reason for it all, but who reject all earth religions and know that there isn’t any evidence for their reason, That is pure belief, and really can’t be argued with. > Lack of belief isn’t something that needs to be supported - it just is. Believing in no gods doesn’t really need support either, but since it is a stronger position it needs some support - but hardly proof. Weak atheism is like presumption of innocence in a criminal trial - it is where you start, and where you stay until the prosecution > provides evidence to change your mind. > > ETA: The problem of suffering only concerns that subset of gods who give a crap. It is an argument against certain varieties of the Christian god, but not a lot else. As usual my friend your input is appreciated and thought provoking. I know it varies from person to person but for me it’s a conscious choice to decide how to declare and define my position as either theist, agnostic , or atheist. I’m sure day to day my position and leanings may vary but agnostic is the way I’ve chosen to identify myself for very specific reasons that I put some thought into so it’s not immaterial to me. btw; I don’t think I’ve ever been a devout deist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/629 "2014-02-03T06:20:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > As usual my friend your input is appreciated and thought provoking. > > I know it varies from person to person but for me it’s a conscious choice to decide how to declare and define my position as either theist, agnostic , or atheist. I’m sure day to day my position and leanings may vary but agnostic is the way I’ve chosen to identify myself for very specific reasons that I put some thought into so it’s not immaterial to me. > > btw; I don’t think I’ve ever been a devout deist. Maybe devout was too strong - and really a joke, since I have no idea of what a devout theist would look like. But you did seem to be into god as the universe. What you declare yourself is up to you - and what you really are at any given moment only you know. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/630 "2014-02-03T12:43:28Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Really? Because that’s not what you said regarding how you define the word earlier. You continuously change the definition. MAybe the things I said are not mutually exclusive. You remember mutually exclusive right? > [@](#): > > Another flip flop. You said that using the definitions you prefer, one can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. Now you’re using a definitions where that can’t be so and being agnostic is about whether or not one “chooses” to believe or not and is a middle ground between theism and atheism. You’re not being one bit consistent. Nonsense, You have a habit of pulling a sentence or phrase out of a post an asigning some meaning to the exclusion of all others when it was never intended that way. In doing so you fail to see a larger picture, a broader meaning. I said I understand the terms agnostic atheist and agnostic theist but I don’t find them nessecary or useful so I don’t use them. It’s that simple. There’s nothing inconsistent about it. > [@](#): > > I’ve never met an theist that has claimed to have “chosen” to not believe. The choice is choosing how to declare oneself when asked? That’s a choice for all three correct? > [@](#): > > And now you’re defining agnosticism as not making a conviction and claiming that atheists and theists necessarily have? One couldn’t be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist this way either, could one? I don’t know many atheists that have a strong conviction they are right about anything as making a claim that any gods don’t exist isn’t necessary. They just need to be without belief. You acknowledged this before but your definitions keep changing. See above reference concerning semantic hair splitting. > [@](#): > > Your definitions have changed repeatedly throughout this thread. Nope You’re pulling out sentences and phrases and reading them as stand alone and exclusive of other posts. That’s your thing for some reason, and your problem. I get the feeling that if I said “fire is hot” in one post and “fire lights the dark” in another you’d claim I was changing the definition and being inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/631 "2014-02-03T12:55:15Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > . > > I don’t believe I said any such thing. Show me specifically where I said this. scratch this part, I misread and this is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/632 "2014-02-03T13:12:27Z")
> [@arielburns](#): > > For something to be inherited through evolution, it must have a purpose - like all thoughts and contemplations. > > It is definitely protection as an aspect, but ultimately serves as a purpose. We see myriad beauty around us, it speaks to us through emotion, it fuels our ambition, it provides a canvas for meaning. It emphasizes the importance of our being here. Belief is the way to provide for us when we suffer, the spirit of all complex reality and the antidote for ambiguity. When facing death, we face life. It happens to all of us - never met a soul who didn’t search when they knew they were facing the end. If it were nature, and an ultimate truth, we would die without a question. What’s with all the questions? To me, the purpose of life is to live as well and treat others with as much kindness as they can. ---
**Author:** ![rustyrunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed8c4c/32.png) [@rustyrunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rustyrunner)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/633 "2014-02-03T13:36:36Z")
Why is it so unacceptable to be an agnostic? (I’m speaking generally here). My dictionary defines an agnostic as someone who neither believes or disbelieves in a deity or deities, yet commonly we hear of agnostic atheists and even agnostic theists. I would suggest the word is being corrupted. I would have thought agnosticism was firmly planted midfield. The agnostic surely can have as much belief as the theist and atheist. Lets not malign that position with prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/634 "2014-02-03T13:38:41Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You aren’t even close to showing examples of what you claim exist in this thread. Really? Then you should have no problem showing those quotes are factual. Please proceed. Yes, you did. That does not answer my question. > [@](#): > > I never mischaracterized anything! You’re looking at the wrong post. On page 10 you said > [@](#): > > It seems you just used the old “atheists have one type of faith, so they’re just as irrational as theists” type of nonsense I’ve read several times before from theists which was not my argument, and why I pointed out I’m not a theist. > [@](#): > > Which is why my analogy works just fine. > You defined atheism as one without belief. Semantic wrangling fail. Nope it doesn’t work. You ignored or purposely avoided the point that in the sentence you quted I didn’t mention atheism AT ALL. > [@](#): > > Making a decision is not relevant to the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism **you provided** , until you flip-flopped and gave ridiculous, mutually exclusive definitions of agnosticism to atheism and theism in post 609. Again, the decision comes in making some sort of public declaration. My definitions are not mutually exclusive when taken as a whole rather than your appraoch of rigidly parsing then as if each definition must exclude the others. When I have a little more time I’ll demonstrate what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/635 "2014-02-03T14:27:06Z")
> [@rustyrunner](#): > > Why is it so unacceptable to be an agnostic? (I’m speaking generally here). My dictionary defines an agnostic as someone who neither believes or disbelieves in a deity or deities, yet commonly we hear of agnostic atheists and even agnostic theists. I would suggest the word is being corrupted. I would have thought agnosticism was firmly planted midfield. The agnostic surely can have as much belief as the theist and atheist. Lets not malign that position with prejudices. It’s not “unacceptable” to be an agnostic - the problem, as this thread shows, is that the overwhelming majority of people that claim to be ‘agnostic’ aren’t truly agnostic - they have a belief one way or the other. Its virtually impossible these days in our culture not to have a belief with regards to the existence of god(s) - and folks stumble all over themselves trying to finesse what agnostic means. As stated above “agnostic” speaks to teh knowledge - not the belief - that is why you can have “agnostic (a)theists” - they believe/don’t believe - and then the knowledge aspect is a ‘qualifier’ to that belief. The true agnostic stops at “neither believes or disbelieves” and further states that the knowledge is unknown/unknowable to qualify that belief… ---
**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:** [February 3, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/636 "2014-02-03T15:27:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > . > My postion when it comes to god belief , and only god belief , is agnostic. Yet you have already stated that the definition of agnostic you prefer is not regarding belief (until you flip-flop). I have demonstrated this to you multiple times. > [@](#): > > I am uncommitted to either theism or atheism. What I do and don’t believe involves a lot more than just god belief. Not having a particular belief is not a commitment. I went over this with you several times. Atheists don’t “commit” to being atheists. I have also shown you your definition of atheist many times and what you said about you not being a theist and not believing. > [@](#): > > You’re making this far to complicated by nitpicking and pulling phrases out of context. Nonsense. I’ve made it very simple and I asked you to show me how it could be out of context. You said you are not a believer. You said you’re not a theist. You said “If they answer with ‘No I don’t believe in God or gods’ they are atheist.” > [@](#): > > MAybe the things I said are not mutually exclusive. You remember mutually exclusive right? I went over this in post 626. > [@](#): > > Really? Then you should have no problem showing those quotes are factual. Please proceed. That makes no sense whatsoever. You made this statement: \*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. \* You have still failed to provide evidence of that happening in this thread. It’s not up to me to show that any quotes are factual regarding this. > [@](#): > > Semantic wrangling fail. Nope it doesn’t work. You ignored or purposely avoided the point that in the sentence you quted I didn’t mention atheism AT ALL. I have no clue what you’re talking about. I didn’t purposely ignore anything at all. > [@](#): > > Again, the decision comes in making some sort of public declaration. > > My definitions are not mutually exclusive when taken as a whole rather than your appraoch of rigidly parsing then as if each definition must exclude the others. They are. Again I went over this in post 626. Except of course when you chose to define them differently. Example (but I’m sure I somehow took something out of context): > [@](#): > > Here’s my take , > > I believe in god, but I recognize that god’s existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. There is no objective evidence to establish God’s existence. = > > Theist , one who is a little more open minded and less defensive about their belief. > > I don’t believe in god. because there is no objective evidence that any such things exist, I acknowledge that this can’t be known in an absolute or scientific sense. An athiest, > > I have no opinion on the existence of god. An apathetic. Someone who is uninterested in the question, or chooses not to be drawn into it. > I don’t know if god exists. Maybe yes , maybe no. There isn’t anything conclusive one way otr the other. I suspect this is something we can’t really know. An agnostic. You clearly are defining agnosticism based on what one “knows” and/or what can be known. (You are also defining “theist” with odd qualifiers I’ve never seen before and “atheist” with odd qualifiers that contradict earlier statements, but that’s besides the point.) More: > [@](#): > > 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. Continues to make that clear. > [@](#): > > An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will. Which is another way of saying that an atheist will acknowledge also being agnostic (according to your definitions). Vs: > [@](#): > > Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments. and > [@](#): > > But let’s look at it another way. A sliding scale of degrees of belief > > Th\<-------------------------------Ag-------------------At--------------------\> > > On one end the most ardent believer, on the other , the most ardent nonbeliever. Somewhere in the middle , **a group who are agniostic. Who decline to choose belief or non belief.** Right **next to the agnostic , a hairs breadth away in degrees of belief, is the Theist** who may have some doubts and acknowledges the problems with belief , but still identifies as someone who believes in god in some form, perhaps the mysterious undefined other. > **The agnostic next to him has many similarities, the difference being he cannot in good conscience identify as a believer. He has one too many doubts to say “I believe”** but finds enough unanswered questions to not choose" I don’t believe" > **Further down the line is the agnostic who is a hairs breadth away from Atheism.** He more skeptical than his fellow agnostic, but still unwilling to declare "I don’t believe. **Nerxt to him, someone who has made the decision to declare themsleves an atheist**. znd so on. The reader can decide if you flip-flopped definitions and have made multiple statements doing more than just inferring that agnosticism is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism. ---
**Author:** ![rustyrunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed8c4c/32.png) [@rustyrunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rustyrunner)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/637 "2014-02-04T13:23:10Z")
> [@simster](#): > > It’s not “unacceptable” to be an agnostic - the problem, as this thread shows, is that the overwhelming majority of people that claim to be ‘agnostic’ aren’t truly agnostic - they have a belief one way or the other. > > Its virtually impossible these days in our culture not to have a belief with regards to the existence of god(s) - and folks stumble all over themselves trying to finesse what agnostic means. > > As stated above “agnostic” speaks to teh knowledge - not the belief - that is why you can have “agnostic (a)theists” - they believe/don’t believe - and then the knowledge aspect is a ‘qualifier’ to that belief. The true agnostic stops at “neither believes or disbelieves” and further states that the knowledge is unknown/unknowable to qualify that belief… Should your description of agnostics not also apply to theists and atheists in as much as the unknown is still just that for both? ---
**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:** [February 4, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/638 "2014-02-04T13:26:07Z")
^ No. Theism and atheism are in regards to what belief one holds or doesn’t hold. What is unknown is irrelevant to be either. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/639 "2014-02-05T13:03:20Z")
> [@arielburns](#): > > For something to be inherited through evolution, it must have a purpose - like all thoughts and contemplations. > > It is definitely protection as an aspect, but ultimately serves as a purpose. We see myriad beauty around us, it speaks to us through emotion, it fuels our ambition, it provides a canvas for meaning. It emphasizes the importance of our being here. Belief is the way to provide for us when we suffer, the spirit of all complex reality and the antidote for ambiguity. When facing death, we face life. It happens to all of us - never met a soul who didn’t search when they knew they were facing the end. If it were nature, and an ultimate truth, we would die without a question. What’s with all the questions? I do not believe there is a Heaven or a Hell I doubt that our end is no different than a plant or an animal. We just return to the state we were in before we were conceived. I once had my heart stop while having a test in the hospital. I didn’t know this until I came to in the room after the test, and was told to see my heart doctor as soon as possible because I had to be resuscitated. I find a lot of meaning in Life just by living as well as I can. Because my parents had a child I am here. My purpose is just to live the best I can. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/640 "2014-02-05T18:59:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Deistic claims about universe creation by deities go beyond the act of just creating a universe. I can imagine a grad student with control of gravity creating a universe. Deists typically also claim that this creation involves a purpose. A universe created by someone which exists on the other side of an event horizon can be just as random as a universe popping up by itself. I’m assuming by “purpose,” you mean a benevolent purpose. Otherwise the point still stands. Anywho, I doubt a deist would argue if you proposed the idea that a deity created the universe with a benevolent intent for life, and also a secondary motive such as: intellectual creativity, or an unknown practical purpose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=33)