How could the universe be God ? It sounds poetic, but makes no sense to call an inanimate collection of stars and debris “God”.
Why are people “crusading” against, say, psychics? What if psychics had a significant influence in politics, in social issues, in wars? What if people around you, on TV, etc…were talking all the time about elves and how to befriend them?
Pick something you really don’t believe in and try to imagine a world where not only the wide majority of the population believe in it, but also where this belief influence politics and laws, where it starts wars, where people are so proud of believing in it and so on…
And actually, there aren’t many crusading atheist. The overwhelming majority of them couldn’t care less.
And what does this mean? That the universe is sentient, for instance? If you don’t define it all, it’s meaningless. If you begin to define, it falls in the same acategory as an usual god : completely arbitrary statement I’ve zero reason to believe in.
I’m roughly of the same opinion. But in what way does this support your argument? If we actually can’t understand this issue, then why would we even try to mention an “explanation” (god) that makes sense to us? It just adds another infinity of posibilities that we can’t understand or can’t even conceive or suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpatro
As far as there not being anyway to prove the existence of a god or gods, well I don’t follow that tenet of agnosticism. There may or may not be, I don’t know. Just haven’t been presented with it yet.
rfgdxm
This is what I was talking about:
Diogenes the Cynic
I don’t believe it is not possible to know whether God exists.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Does this make me not agnostic?
To answer the OP in the strictest sense, I must ask: necessary for whom, or for what?
I’m tempted to say that there are a great many people who Believe that do not know or care what the distinction is between non-believers. Some non-believers in my God believe something else, or believe nothing, or believe in… who cares? They’re all of the Wrong Faith. I don’t mean every Believer thinks this, but some do.
By the same token, is it necessary to distinguish between Christians and Jews and Catholics and Protestants? They all just believe in God, right?
The obvious answer is that it’s of tremendous importance to those who follow those faiths. Me, I don’t need much of a distinction between them other than what I had to learn in school (Luther Vandross nailed somebody to a cross with the initials OYVEY, or something :D), and as I don’t deal with the distinction daily, of what use is it to me to know more than that a distinction exists? I’m happy to be educated on the subject if ever I enter into a discussion of the topic, of course, but does that make it necessary to make the distinction?
Diogenes has it right.
What I don’t get is why people think atheists are always certain. That word often comes up. People seem to think that if an atheist isn’t completely certain that there isn’t a god, then he or she really isn’t an atheist at all. Why?
I believe that George W. Bush is the president of the United States of America. But, y’know, it could be a giant conspiracy to fool me, or I could be insane, or I could be dreaming. None of those are impossible. Am I certain that he really is the president? Using the casual meaning of “certain”, of course I am. Using the more rigorous meaning, then no. It’s similar with my beliefs about gods. Am I certain there are no gods? No. Am I fairly sure that there probably aren’t any (as they are usually defined)? Yup.
Mods, could we get a sticky on this subject please? This seems to come up every two weeks or so, and I am sick and tired of people posting insulting definitions of atheism. A theism - lack of theism, lack of belief in any god. How much simpler can it be?
Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Atheism and theism is a statement about belief. Few theists claim they can prove god exists. Fewer atheists claim to prove that no god anywhere exists. (There are a lot of possible gods.)
We have to have some reasonableness in the definition of god also. I can say that this rock over here is god - since you must admit that it exists, can I say that you are not an atheist? Of course not, and defining the universe as god is about as plausible as defining the rock as god. A god who is not sentient and who is without purpose is not worth the name of god, and does not fulfil the role of any god in human theology. Even the deistic god has more to it than this.
I also have never met a militant atheist. There do seem to be some people who want to uphold the constitution. I guess there are some who won’t blindly accept theistic beliefs. How militant!
I also have observed that while there are some people who are truly agnostic, most are actually atheists, with no belief in any god, but who call themselves agnostic both to avoid suffering the hatred of some theists against atheists (I had a JW literally run from my door when I nicely said my house was atheistic) and because they’ve been fed the strawman position that atheists claim they know there is no god.
I have never really even understood the word “a-gnostic” (literally “cannot know”). Surely everybody, theist or not, is agnostic in that anybody who says that they know of God’s existence or nonexistence with 100% certainty is sadly deluded?
All we can do is point the needle of our Belief-o-Meter[sup]TM[/sup] this way or that based on evidence and sensory input. Anyone who puts it at 0 or 100 ought to have it checked by a professional philosopher.
Nothingness, like God, is an inevitable figment of human imagination. If there were no such thing as either God or nothingness, they would still have to be invented as concepts by thinking beings.
Hope this helps in making you less sure of what you think you’re sure of: Cosmology suggests that the universe has always existed (and has merely changed only in the last 13.7 Bn years), and thus requires no external cause or reason to ‘dispel the nothingness’.
And these, whatever they are, impugn the atheist position how, exactly? One can still consider that there is a natrual mode of explanation for everything even without knowing precisely what that detailed explanation is yet, surely?
No, this is a strawman. ‘Proofs’ continue from accepted premises. The whole point of this debate is that some people accept some premises and others don’t.
That ‘default’ is the principle of Ockham’s Razor (which is itself a remise you can reject if you like).
Yes. The universe was not created. It was always there.
Bounded but infinite, like the possible paths around the surface of a sphere - note that that’s a big distinction which effectively makes the universe a whole lot “less infinite”.
I think this point deserves repeating. There are different levels of faith that are not created equal. For example, if you have faith that if you jump out of a window that you will float. I have faith that you will fall with an acceleration equal to gravity minus wind resistance. Do I know with absolute certainty that you will fall down and die? No, its possible that despite our billions and billions of collective experiences with gravity that this time it will be different. I have faith though that you will indeed fall and go splat. However, it seems that all available evidence is on my side and no evidence is on yours. Your belief that you will float requires a much larger leap of faith than my belief that you will go splat.
If its an honest debate I don’t think there is any danger in admitting that all things are at some level based on faith. The problem is that often times these debates aren’t honest and those arguing for God seize on this agreement and declare that atheism is just a faith like religion. This ignores the fact that not all leaps of faith are the same. My belief that the sun will rise tommorow morning takes a good deal less faith than your belief that the sun is a flaming chariot in a race.
~ Issac Asimiov
I call myself an atheist but it kind of bugs me that there should even be a word for it. There isn’t a term for somebody who doesn’t believe in elves, Santa, fairies etc IMO religion is just a human invention. Just because lots of people have bought into it for a long time does not make it correct. People over the millennia have held all forms of religious beliefs which have evolved into the current crop.
There are valuable lessons to be learned from studying religious stories but there are also valuable lessons in Grimm’s fairy tales.
I kinda agree with the OP. A lot of agnostics I know I would describe as atheists(weak, if you want to go into the subsets of that term) but they will not accept even the term weak atheist as they feel the term atheist equals some firm knowledge as to the non-existence of god. They have no problems saying that fairies don’t exist however so I don’t see why they have a problem with god as they are quite happy to acknowledge that there is as much evidence for god as there is for fairies.
It may seem simple, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Again, I refer you to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both of which assert that atheism is the specific denial of God’s existence, rather than mere non-belief.
You can feel as insulted as you wish, but these are fairly authoritative sources, and that’s what they claim.
It’s fallacious to assert that “atheism” = “a-theism” = “lack of theism.” That’s not how the word is properly broken down. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “atheism” derives from the Greek word atheos, which means “godless” (i.e. a-theos, or “without god”). If you feel insulted by this, then take it up with Merriam-Webster.
What’s the difference betwee “lack of theism” and “without god”? Are we debating whether 49.99…% = 50%, or something (ie. whether ascribing a probability of greater than zero but less than 50.000…1 is the same as “denying” something)? That is just a silly semantic carousel, is it not?
It’s very simple. “Without god” would specifically imply that there is NO god. This goes far beyond merely an absence of any belief on that subject.
In fact, since I mentioned Merriam-Webster, let’s see how this book describes atheism. It specifically cites the following modern definitions of that term:
[ol]
[li]a disbelief in the existence of deity[/li][li]the doctrine that there is no deity[/li][/ol]
Note that it doesn’t merely say non-belief. Rather, it maintains that atheism is specifically the disbelief in a deity. (And before you ask, that same reference describes “disbelief” as “mental rejection of something as untrue.”)
As I said, if you want to describe someone who’s not a theist, the word"non-theist" is perfectly adequate. There’s simply no reason to hijack a term with a much more specific meaning and etymology. That’s the Humpty Dumpty school of philology, and it leads to imprecise communication.
“Without” means “without.” It doesn’t mean “only 49.99% in existence.” Again, it’s just that simple.
You can’t fool me: it’s turtles all the way down. 
I think the fact that this debate about the definitions of atheism and agnostism has happened is ample answer to the original question in the OP. “Why do some people who seem to be atheists call themselves agnostics?” Different people are operating with different definitions, that’s all – no need to assume fear of social pressure, necessarily.
One of the problems with labels is that people keep trying t redefine you into their camps. I’ve had religious people say I was one of them, even with my beliefs (and lack of them), and I’ve had atheists say that I was really in their camp.
This is why you shouldn’t let anyone else define your position.
Besides, not veryone is using the same dedfinition , and they all come with significant emotional baggage attached. This is why you’re going to find people uneasy with any label you try to stick on the,m. Say to anyone o this Board, especially in this thread, that “You are really an X, whether you say so or not,” and they’ll more than likely bridle. And with good reason.
I’m agnostic, myself. In part, I call myself that to distance myself from many of the atheists I know who call themselves atheists and who are certain that God does not and cannot exist. Textbook definitions notwithstanding, that’s what most people think of when they imagine an athesi. Most of them were pretty arrogant about it, too. That was not what I was.
In addition, although my parochial school teachers asserted that the Proof of the Existence of God was obvious in the nature of the physical world, it certainly wasn’t clear to me, and none of the classical proofs for the existence of God was convincing. If God existed, He clearly didn’t want his existence self-evidently obvious. Moreover, had I the powers of God as advertised, I could certainly keep my existence a secret, or ambiguous. (Most people, I suspect, fit Shaw’s picture of imagining God as an easily fooled old gentleman in a nightshirt). I had no proof of His existence, nor of His nonexistence, and was unlikely to obtain either. Furthermore, I saw nothing that suggested the truth of miracles. If you have a God that is non-interventionist and keeps Himself obscure, everything is effectively the same as if you have no God, and natural laws determine the operation of everything. for practical purposes, there’s no difference.
I know there are folks who believe in an intervening God – i haven’t seen anythin to convince me of it. Some people claim to sense God within. I don’t. Some take comfort in the existence of a personal Deity. I don’t, and don’t see need or evidence.
What is the difference between believing in an absence of something and and an absence of a belief in something? I can’t help seeing it as the ‘difference’ between .99… and 1.
I believe Chelsea will win the Premiership this year. I believe Liverpool will not. I do not hold a belief that Liverpool will win the Premiership this year. Neither do I hold a belief that Chelsea will come second. Now, none of this is knowledge: I merely ascribe high or low probabilities to different outcomes.
In the same way, I ascribe a (very) low probability to the propositions that dinosaurs lived with humans, that I live in the Matrix, or that the Supreme Being exists. Am I an atheist, or a non-theist, or an agnostic, or all three, or none? If one has to ascribe zero probability to God in order to join the atheist club, I’d suggest that there are very few of them around at all. That still does not warrant mucking about with our dictionaries all for the seldom-if-ever used term “non-theist”.
Where?
The way I look at it, colloquially speaking, the various labels are related to a person’s Belief-o-Meter[sup]TM[/sup] in the following way:
Atheist: < 5
Agnostic: 5 <= x <= 95
Theist: > 95
We may debate the exact meanings (or even dictionary meanings) of these words, but most people, I believe, when hearing these labels, think of them somewhat in the way shown above.