—Theists believe that gods exist, at least one of them.—
All of them, by definition (theism = god belief), though “belief” can be an ambiguous term, as demonstrated by pantheists, who regard the belief in their god as a subjective relationship. Not all theists claim to have knowledge of god, however.
Apos-
I meant that theists believe that at least one god exists. Not all theists believe in all gods, I guess. My pronoun referent was unclear.
To me agnosticism implies, “withholding judgement”. When might such a stance be appropriate?
When the costs of delaying decision are low and the costs of a wrong decision are high, it may make sense to withhold judgement.
Alternatively, if you are averse to making the wrong call and you feel that you need more evidence, ditto. This is my situation.
G-d, as I understand that construct, possesses a form of consciousness. (If He does not, then I’m unclear on what we are discussing.) While I understand that the Big Bang is a decent model for the creation of the universe, I am not aware of any similarly powerful models of consciousness.
If we understood consciousness, we would know the specific conditions under which matter generates it (if indeed matter does generate it). If, at that point, it turns out that there is no reason to believe that consciousness would emerge from bee hives, social societies, gravitational systems, oceans, gaia or ether, then I would probably shift to soft atheism. But until our ignorance regarding consciousness is less overwhelming, I am inclined to withhold judgement concerning the existence of G-d.
The distinction between atheist and agnostic, though it comes up with annoying regularity, is really quite small. No atheist is completely sure of God’s non-existence; we just generally feel that the possibility is so low that it is practical to round up, as it were.
Most agnostics I know believe what they do because atheism makes them uncomfortable, and they have remnants of guilt about religion which makes them want to avoid any hard declarations of their lack of faith. It can function as a waypoint between theism and atheism, however, and is probably a more comfortable transition.
Agnosticism also doesn’t seem to ruffle anyone’s feathers quite as much, at least here in the southern US. For some reason, conservative religious people regard non-theism (and the squishy, liberal humanism that usually accompanies it) as far more threatening than completely different, and often opposing, religious views.
I second the previously stated idea that there is a difference between “believing that there is no God”, and “not believing that there is a God”. Most of the atheists you will run into on the internet (myself included) will tell you that we simply lack belief in God. Ferrous already explained it nicely: There are many things that we can’t necessarily DIS-prove, like his examples of leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, little green men, and the tooth fairy. (BTW, I wonder why Ferrous left out the biggie - Santa Claus). If, even though you see no rational reason to believe in God, you still feel you must assign some special status to this lack of belief, would it not follow that this same status must be assigned to ANYTHING that can be imagined? After all, most things are pretty difficult to disprove, provided you allow yourself to use any tortured reasoning you see fit. Maybe I have 3 arms, but one is invisible. Maybe I’m the President, but I’ve been kidnapped and brainwashed to think I am Blowero. Maybe China is only 5 miles away, but when you fly there they put you in an airplane that stays on the ground and they show a movie outside the windows that looks like you are flying over the ocean. There’s a million things you take on faith every day - that doesn’t change the fact that I have never encountered a rational reason to believe that God exists.
Empathy. I know what it feels like to be hurt, so I avoid doing things that hurt other people. That’s all morality is - it can all be distilled down to the Golden Rule.
Really? When I do something that I know is wrong, I feel bad about it, and not because I’m afraid of being punished, but because I think about how my actions have hurt other people. To me, that’s a much more compelling reason to be moral than “somebody (or something) told me to”.
Yeah, I put it pretty much that way the first time, but was asked to curb the “jargon”. Anyway, to nitpick your nitpick, it’s for any P-type system with finite axioms.
Wow, Blowero, we agree! That’s a quite libertarian attitude you have, the notion that “wrong” is hurting other people. With God, it’s the same. I feel bad when I hurt Him.
Continuing the hijack.
True, you did. But that doesn’t mean your jargon-free version is unnitpickable. 
Incidentally, are you sure of the restriction of finite axioms? That seems awfully restrictive - For example, peano arithmetic is not finitely axiomatisable (Unless you’re allowing quantifiers to range over logical propositions, which gets kind of messy and informal). It was my impression that the axioms only had to be recursively definable, or something like that. I must admit I have yet to fully wrap my head around Goedel’s various theorems.
As an “atheist”, it seems to me that most theists are almost as atheistic as I am, except for one particular god (theirs). It’s a hell of a lot of work going around denying all those gods. Zeus, Hermes, Ares, Hera, Dionysus, Minerva, Aphrodite, Thor, Odin, Loki, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesh, Allah, YHWH, Mithra, Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, Anahita, Osiris, Ra, Anubis, Moloch, Baal, Dagon, Marduk, Ishtar, Tammuz, Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, Izanagi, Inti
Ilyap’a, Viracocha, et al. It’s exhausting.
On to my take on the subject at hand. I am an atheist, who was raised fundamentalist baptist. (I actually wrote a very long essay about the formation of beliefs for this post, but decided it was too long and irrelevant, but I saved it for future use.) After rejecting the god hypothesis, I was obliged to come up with my own moral code, since one was not available by divine fiat. What I came up with was the following. I am a human being. I recognize other human beings as being my equals. They have the same feelings as I do. Therefore anything I don’t to be done to me, I shouldn’t do to them. I don’t want to be murdered, so I shouldn’t murder people, since they presumably feel the same. I don’t want my stuff stolen, so they presumable don’t want me to steal their stuff. It’s rather simple really. It’s not quite the Golden Rule (which considerably predates Jesus, by the way), it’s really more like “I treat others as I would like to be treated, unless they mistreat me, then I reciprocate.” So if someone attacked me, I’ll fight back, kindness begets kindness, and malice begets malice. I strongly believe in personal responsibility and accountability for actions. Their are many parts of the moral code laid out in the bible I agree with, and many parts I disagree with. For example, I don’t agree with it’s acceptance of slavery, promotion of genocide, subjugation of women, or condemnation of multiple sexual practices including homosexuality. I’m sure the average fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Jew would certainly condemn me as hopelessly immoral simply because I believe that what an adult chooses to do in the privacy of his own home is no one else’s business. Of course, many people, both atheist and theist feel the same way. I think my reasons for following a moral code are even better than a hardcore theist, who apparently follows the code hand down from on high for fear of eternal suffering should he err. Seems a bit odd, to me. Sort of like, “I’d like to murder people, but I don’t want to be put in prison.” Scary. I don’t want to murder people at all, and if it was made legal tomorrow, I wouldn’t go on a murdering spree. (In fact, I’d be damn scared to leave the house.)
Really, I could go on for hours about this, but I think that will do for now.
Well, they mean the same thing. From Godel himself — On Formally Unecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems:
It’s nice to see that even atheists have creeds and dogma too; just try googling “I believe in one less god” and see what you find.
Oh yes yes, I know; atheists repeat it and quote it because it’s true, whereas theists repeat and quote their sayings because they’re brainwashed.
oops, better throw in one or two of these : 
in that last post of mine.
Yes, I’m aware that my post above was rather poorly written. I’ll start previewing my posts in the near future.
Actually I repeat it, since some people never seem to get it. Every time one of these debates comes up, someone has to say, “Disbelieving in God takes as much faith as believing in him.” and someone has to say “I only disbelieve in one more god than you.” It’s some sort of law.
FTR, I googled “I believe in one less god” and got three hits.
Also FTR
Ah
believe “one less god” returns 262 results
believe “one fewer god” returns 563
Neither of which is a particularly massive number, I suppose
Not nearly as many as “hot donkey sex”, I’ll wager.
[sub]No, I didn’t test it.[/sub]
—Not all theists believe in all gods, I guess.—
They don’t know what they’re mssing!
—To me agnosticism implies, “withholding judgement”.—
It means “being without knowledge” (without a gnosis) Some people feel that certain judgements must sometimes be made without knowledge.
—It’s nice to see that even atheists have creeds and dogma too; just try googling “I believe in one less god” and see what you find.—
You’re joking, right? That explanation has crtainly become popular, but it is hardly right to call it anyone’s “creed” or “dogma” simply because they’ve borrowed an example from somewhere else.
—Oh yes yes, I know; atheists repeat it and quote it because it’s true, whereas theists repeat and quote their sayings because they’re brainwashed.—
I’m glad you’ve left no room for honest discussion, whereby that statement certainly conveys a useful truth about nonbelief, and theist sayings also convey useful information about their beliefs, and both are honest, and certainly not deserving of ridicule.
You’re also not distinguishing statements which purport to describe people’s beliefs or lack thereof (lack of a certain belief being a hard thing for some people to grasp) from those that make truth claims about their beliefs.
NOTE: I wouldn’t normally quote (nearly) a full post, but it’s on the previous page, so I’m doing this out of convenience to the reader.
Peloquin, your post resonated with me. There is so much debate about the precise definitions of an atheist vs an agnostic, that the pragmatic reality was getting “lost in the translation”.
While I completely agree with Ferrous’s (and other’s) argument using leprechauns, etc. as parallel examples, I’ve had difficulty defining myself as an atheist. As Peloquin says, given my upbringing it probably has to do with being comfortable/uncomfortable. It is a lot easier for me to say “I don’t know if there is a God or not, but I certainly don’t see any evidence” (which seems to me an agnostic view), than it is to say “given that I don’t see any evidence, I’m convinced that there is no God” (which seems to me an atheistic view).
—It can function as a waypoint between theism and atheism, however, and is probably a more comfortable transition. Agnosticism also doesn’t seem to ruffle anyone’s feathers quite as much…—
I agree that it’s certainly a waypoint as far as social respectibility, but that’s just about it.
—It is a lot easier for me to say “I don’t know if there is a God or not, but I certainly don’t see any evidence” (which seems to me an agnostic view), than it is to say “given that I don’t see any evidence, I’m convinced that there is no God” (which seems to me an atheistic view).—
Look even at your own use of words here: you’re talking about knowledge and evidence. Not what beliefs one has.
I think it’s easier to think of agnosticism as describing ones views about the universe, whereas theism/atheism describe oneself.
By saying that I am an atheist, I am conveying information about myself: that I don’t have god beliefs. This is an answer to the question “Do you believe in god” and the answer is no.
By saying that I am an agnostic, I am conveying information about existence. I am answering the question “Is there a god in the universe” and the answer is “I have no idea.”
The fact is, even after you say “I don’t know if there is a God or not, but I certainly don’t see any evidence” it STILL makes perfect sense to ask: “but, do you believe IN god?” If the answer is no, then what is that? Isn’t that the atheist answer (or, if you prefer, the non-theist answer)?
I almost used Santa Claus, but I vaguely remember a previous debate where someone argued that it is in fact possible to disprove his existence. We have pretty complete sattelite maps of the north pole region, and there’s no workshop there; not enough time to hit all the houses in one night… Something like that. I don’t remember it all, but I thought I’d just avoid the whole thing and use different examples.
Man, don’t you hate it when you think of the perfect joke just that little bit too late? What I wish I’d said just now is:
Because Santa Claus is real, dammit!!