— 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.—
Ah, but that only rules out SOME Santaologies, not all of them. 
See what I mean? Things just get too murky when you bring the Claus man into it. Let’s just stick to deities and leprechauns, okay?
Apos, I appreciate your patience in explaining your perspective. It is helpful.
I recognize the limitations in applying the agnostic label in this fashion to myself. It’s not that I feel cowardly, but rather that there seems to be such fierce negative connotations with the word “atheist” that applying that label would be quite inaccurate (to many people).
Whew. I knew I should’ve taken that philosophy course in college. Ummmm. For me, my beliefs are a direct consequence of what I perceive as knowledge and evidence. It seems to me that beliefs based on any other basis is purely faith (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Your clarification that you view one set of labels as describing the universe and the other set of labels as describing oneself is interesting. I see now how you come to the conclusion that one can be both an agnostic and a theist, or both a gnostic and an atheist, etc. Thanks for disclosing your thoughts.
Now, for that murky topic of Santa Claus… let’s see, there is evidence (both for and against), but my interpretation of that evidence leads me to the conclusion that Santa doesn’t exist. I guess I’m a Santa-gnostic-atheist.
Well, it was in the pamphlet they passed out at the weekly meeting.
Hmmmm…did someone in this thread actually say theists are “brainwashed”?
“hot donkey sex”- 6 Google hits
I’m not sure how a true agnostic does it. I mean sure, in casual conversation I can admit the possibility of (a) G/god(s) but when I’m making moral decisions I have to make an assumption one way or the other. Do I have an all powerful Father figure watching over me or do I have my own emotions/natural environment/human society watching over me? The latter assumption seems to make for better real world application, imo.
what’s wrong with APATHEISM?
don’t know, don’t give a damn?
even if there is no God atheism is illogical. do buddhist countries produce atheists?
Dal Timgar
—For me, my beliefs are a direct consequence of what I perceive as knowledge and evidence.—
Me too. But in trying to understand the positions of others, it is apparent that not all people feel this way. Some people believe things without ever going through the process of knowledge or evidence: it’s a part of their character more than anything else. And provisionally, there’s not really anything wrong with that.
—It seems to me that beliefs based on any other basis is purely faith (not that there’s anything wrong with that).—
Perhaps (unless there is some third alternate method). Which is sort of my point. Belief and knowledge.
Another way to look at it is that theism/atheism classify people by a simple binary distinction: the prescence or abscence of god belief, respectively. Now, this classification is, in my opinion, a pretty broad and almost meaningless distinction: atheists are not necessarily anything alike, and theists are only necessarily alike in that they believe in a god: but of course that spans views that are almost as diverse as any range of views could be.
—what’s wrong with APATHEISM? don’t know, don’t give a damn?—
Nothing. But if you don’t give a damn, then almost certainly you don’t believe either. Belief is a positive quality: and affirmative step. If you don’t care, it’s pretty unlikely you’ll start running around saying “I believe in god.”
—even if there is no God atheism is illogical.—
How can atheism be illogical if it expresses only the mental state of the atheist (i.e. that they are without belief in a god).
Some strong atheists certainly seem illogical to me, not in the least because they are often not even clear WHAT god they believe doesn’t exist, or how they could justify claiming that no being exists that could be called god by someone.
—do buddhist countries produce atheists? —
Yes. Indeed, many Buddhists ARE atheists.
Not that I noticed; did you think I was implying that someone had?
if atheist dont believe in god, what do they believe in?
im a catholic, and i have a strong beliefe in God. But i can see why some people don’t think he trully exists. I could have waken up one morning and saw the sun come up, I don’t know why its rising, the easiest thing to do would be to say that a higher power is making it rise, and if no one has a reasonable answer on to why its rising, then it is proven that God has made it rise.
But now we have scientists proving that God isn’t doing it, its just science. But God created us, so God must have known that we would come up with our own reasons onto why things happen. God expected us to come up with things like this.
During the time when christianity was becoming popular, and the pope and such were being made, there came the idea of mixing religion with philosophy. The way of thinking like: You can think God doesn’t exist, but God gave you the ability to think. I’m not sure but i think somewhere in the bible it says that God gave humans the blessing of choice.
Now about churches, and pay me money and the go to heaven myth. I go to church sometimes, and i feel enlightened sometimes. I usually give money to the donation thing for the sole reason that if i don’t i feel really really guilty. I don’t do it because i think its going to get me into heaven. I don’t think it says in the bible that if you give money to get into heaven. The closest thing to it is a sacrifice. But that can be about anything.
As to proving the existence of God. The main thing that keeps people coming back to the belief in Him are miracles. These by definition ( i think), are actions or events that have no scientific explination. In an age that science has proven everything, its easy to see why a miracle can restore anyone’s belief in God. and in this age we need a God to beleive in.
It reminds me of a quote I once heard. " If there is no God, it would be necessary to invent Him".
—if atheist dont believe in god, what do they believe in?—
Just about anything else, potentially. Or are you suggesting that god is the ONLY thing anyone could possibly believe in?
—The way of thinking like: You can think God doesn’t exist, but God gave you the ability to think.—
That’s a little circular. You are simply assuming that it was a God that gave you the ability to think, as opposed to any alternative.
—Now about churches, and pay me money and the go to heaven myth.—
You sound like you’ve been the recipient of some nasty remarks. You shouldn’t let people tell you why you do things, when you know perfectly well, or at least better than anyone else would.
—The main thing that keeps people coming back to the belief in Him are miracles.—
Actually, if Michael Shermer’s polls are any guide, the main thing that makes people think god exists is the arguement to/from design.
—These by definition ( i think), are actions or events that have no scientific explination.—
So, spontaneous human combustion is a miracle? Alien abduction? Many things are unexplained, and we would expect that to be so, seeing as we are not omniscient. But the unexplained doesn’t demonstrate the existence of a god very convincingly at all.
—and in this age we need a God to beleive in/If there is no God, it would be necessary to invent Him—
Necessary for those who wish to believe in god, and needed by those who wish to believe in God, yes.
Apos:
I believe that we are getting bogged down with definitions. Let me recap:
Somebody who declares that there is no God: Hard atheist.
Somebody who provisionally concludes that there is no God, based on the lack of evidence for such a Deity: Soft atheist.
Somebody who believes that such questions are unanswerable: agnostic, as defined in the late 1800s. I agree that this is an epistemological position.
There is a fourth category:
4) Somebody who wishes to withhold judgement on a certain question.
Q: Are most redwoods closer to 100 meters tall or 100 feet tall?
A: Beats me. I withhold judgement since I lack sufficient evidence.
Q1: Does a Supreme Deity exist?
A1: Define Supreme Deity.
Q2: [Reasonably vague answer].
A2: Oh. Beats me. I withhold judgement since I lack sufficient evidence.
Now I call 4) an “agnostic”. I suspect that 4) does correspond to popular understanding of agnosticism, though it differs somewhat from the conception put forward by the original coiner of the term.
CarnalK: *Do I have an all powerful Father figure watching over me or do I have my own emotions/natural environment/human society watching over me? *
Apos: Yes. Indeed, many Buddhists ARE atheists.*
True. But Buddhist doctrine as I understand it does not require atheism. It does, however, assert that supernatural deities provide little or no help for the believer who pursues enlightenment. As I understand it.
—I believe that we are getting bogged down with definitions.—
I think we’re bogged down in justification for various definitions: but I do think the approach I advocate would contribute the LEAST to anyone getting bogged down.
—But my claim that #4 differs from #2 remains.—
It does differ: the problem is, they are different because they deal with different sorts of distinctions, and as such, are a poor place to found intelligible definitions.
Indeed, your definitions ask and answer different questions at different times. This isn’t, in my opinion, a clear way to define things. Try thinking of it as a simple question:
Yes: theist
No: atheist
What could be simpler or clearer than that, in reference to one’s beliefs about god?
Consider: we don’t ask the theist why they believe in god prior to defining them as a theist- all we need to know is that they say they believe in god. So it seems nonsensical and asymetrical to have our definition of “atheist” rely on questions about why someone doesn’t believe (especially when there need not even be an affirmative reason).
That is, simply saying “I don’t believe in god/lack god belief” already encompasses all the different SORTS of additional things that may be true about a given atheists’ opinions on the god question, just as “theist” already encompasses all the different SORTS of additional things that may be true about a given theists’ opinion on the god question. Defining “atheist” the way I (and most atheists I know of, actually) suggest allows both “theist” and “atheist” to be similar terms that deal with the same LEVEL of classification abstraction, while still leaving totally intact everything about “agnosticism.”
This is also what the derivation of “theist” and “atheist” actually mean: and as means of classifying people: the distinction is simply whether or not they have god beliefs. Period.
Your division, using a whole range of different judgements about things, conflates belief and knowledge. This is confusing, to say the least.
Consider also that the adjective “atheistic” does not commonly involve “not believing in gods.” An atheistic morality contains no such premise: it is atheistic because it does not call upon the existence of god.
There is, of course, another important question that people want to know the answer to:
Exists: Gnostic theist
Dunno: Agnostic
No way: Gnostic anti-theist
But do you at least agree that this is a different SORT of question, and as such, it would be at least a little confusing to have “agnostic” as an alternative to “atheist”?
Consider one final related problem:
—4) Somebody who wishes to withhold judgement on a certain question.—
This person may withhold their judgement on whether or not god exists, but we can still ask them: do you believe in god or not? Their stance does NOT adequately answer this question. Isn’t it fair to say that if they are withholding judgement, then they have not yet made a judgement, and hence do not yet have a god belief?
If (uncontroverisally) theist means “one who believes IN god” isn’t it perfectly fair to say that 4 does not believe IN god, and is thus an atheist, or at least, a non-theist?
Finally (and I hope you’ve stayed tuned, despite me being longwinded here), consider the perspective that “Do you believe in god?” is a question, not about god, but rather about the person being asked! Answering “I dunno” to this question is a little strange: do you not know the contents of your own head well enough to know what you believe or don’t?
Alternatively, the question “does god exist?” IS a question about god. To this, you can answer yes, no, or i dunno.
I answer “no” to the first question, and “i dunno” to the second. How about you? How would you best classify us, using the fewest terms and clearest distinctions?
—True. But Buddhist doctrine as I understand it does not require atheism.—
Indeed: and many Buddhists are theists (usually polytheists). Regardless, the question was “do buddhist countries produce atheists.” Now, it probably begs the question to say “produces atheists” since many Buddhists were never theists to begin with, but it is certainly true that many Buddhists are atheists (my definition).
I skipped down to this point, because I believe it to be central. If somebody is withholding judgement, it is misleading to say, “They do not believe in God”, as that would imply active disbelief.
Similarly, I could ask whether or not I believe that the temperature of Alpha Centuri 10,000 km from its center is between 5000 and 10,000 degrees Celsius. Surely it is meaningful to say that “I don’t know”, characterizes my belief. Thus, on this subject, I am also agnostic.
(When is the 3rd option chosen? I would be inclined to work along the lines of decision theory.)
While dividing beliefs into 2 parts -athiest and theist- does indeed have the virtue of simplicity, that taxonomy is unacceptably misleading, IMHO.
*Your division, using a whole range of different judgements about things, conflates belief and knowledge. This is confusing, to say the least. *
Alas, I find it more confusing to separate the two. (In fact, I’m even unclear about what you’re saying or whether it is meaningful.)
Knowledge is a mastery of a framework that contains facts and/or theory. Belief refers to intensity of certainty regarding the truth-value of certain facts or the validity of certain theories. The statements, yes, no, 50-50, 75-25, and “I don’t know”, are all meaningful statement about one’s beliefs.
– Let me know if there’s something pivotal that I’ve missed.
Sorry, when you said theists are “brainwashed”, I assumed you were being sarcastic, and were attempting to disparage what you believed was someone else’s position. I guess I got that wrong - apparently you were not being sarcastic, and you believe that theists are brainwashed.
It was an attempt at irony, but as you point out, nobody has accused theists of being brainwashed in the content of this thread therefore nobody has ever suggested such a thing anywhere else either.
And of course, it goes without saying that no theist has ever been “brainwashed” in the entire history of human civilization.
Also, the number of hits on Google is inversely proportional to veracity of a statement.
—2)… I skipped down to this point, because I believe it to be central. If somebody is withholding judgement, it is misleading to say, “They do not believe in God”, as that would imply active disbelief.—
No, it would not. Not believing is just NOT the same thing as believing not! Not believing X is not the same thing as believing not X.
Look at it this way: “Believing in” is a mental action. A person who is witholding judgement is not undertaking that action. They are not believing in: instead they lack the “belief that.”
Think of this person, and start listing all the beliefs that this person has. Look among all these belief. Is the belief “god exists” among them? No.
—Similarly, I could ask whether or not I believe that the temperature of Alpha Centuri 10,000 km from its center is between 5000 and 10,000 degrees Celsius. Surely it is meaningful to say that “I don’t know”, characterizes my belief. Thus, on this subject, I am also agnostic.—
Again, you’ve switched questions midway through. The question being asked is a question about your beliefs. The question you are answering is “is the temperature between 5000 and 10,000 Celsius.”
Even if you answer “I don’t know,” anyone can STILL ask “but do you believe it is?”
—3) When I am asked what I believe, I am asked for my assessment of reality. My assessment can be “Yes”, “No” or some variant of “Insufficient data”.—
No, you are being asked a question about your beliefs. No matter how many times you tell me that you don’t know X, I can still ask if you believe X. The answer is no. I can also ask if you believe not-X. The answer, again, is no.
—4) While dividing beliefs into 2 parts -athiest and theist- does indeed have the virtue of simplicity, that taxonomy is unacceptably misleading, IMHO.—
Why? What is misleading about it? In fact, I think you still have it mixed up what I am trying to divide: not “beliefs” but having a belief vs. not having it. This is, after all, what atheists mean by “atheism,” regardless of what other beliefs they may have (including the ADDITIONAL belief that god does not exist)
—5) Your division, using a whole range of different judgements about things, conflates belief and knowledge. This is confusing, to say the least.
Alas, I find it more confusing to separate the two. (In fact, I’m even unclear about what you’re saying or whether it is meaningful.)—
Then what do you do with agnostic theists?
Belief vs. objective knowledge is a pretty major distinction, it seems to me: if it wasn’t, then one could simply interchange the two.
One can have knowledge of their beliefs: self-knowledge. One can know whether they believe something or not (and this knowledge, provided it is reported honestly, is pretty much unquestionable unless you want to doubt the reality of someone’s thought). This, however, doesn’t ensure that the claim made by the belief is objective knowledge.
—Knowledge is a mastery of a framework that contains facts and/or theory. Belief refers to intensity of certainty regarding the truth-value of certain facts or the validity of certain theories.—
Indeed: so aren’t these two different things?
It is quite possible, indeed actual in many many cases, to know that something is true, but not to believe it. Or not to know it, but to believe it. These positions exist, and are even quite common (the latter more than the former).
—The statements, yes, no, 50-50, 75-25, and “I don’t know”, are all meaningful statement about one’s beliefs.—
How can “I don’t know” be a statement ABOUT one’s beliefs? Belief is, as you said, an intensity of certainty about something. Saying you don’t know if you believe in something seems a contradiction in terms: “belief in” is an affirmative stance: how can one take a stance, but not know it, in the contents of their own head? How could a person, for instance, think they believe in something but not actually believe it. The very act of thinking you believe something IS the act of belief itself. The statement “I don’t know what I believe” seems a little incoherent. Even if it wasn’t, it still would remain the fact that the person would believe in something or not: they just would be unaware of which.
So, all these statements seem to me to be yet more statements about the WORLD, not about someone’s beliefs.
Gathering knowledge about the world is an arduous process of observation, interpretation, and correcting error. Knowledge about what I believe, however, comes easily: I simply report it as I experience it, to myself or others.
—6) Finally, I do believe that there’s a bright line between my stance and that of the soft athiest. For those reasons alone, it makes sense characterize my stance with a different term.—
For your definition of “soft-atheist,” sure (let’s not presume too much here!). But there doesn’t seem to be any bright line between your stance and mine, and I do not believe in god. So what the heck am I? I am, definately, a non-theist (not a god believer), and virtually everyone (including you!) seems happy to call me an atheist despite the fact that I only say “I don’t believe.”
Completeness is another important feature of practical definition. So is symetry.
Eh?
"two times two is four" yields about 374
"Elvis was a Martian" gets only 2
In any case, if life had a rewind button, now is when I would be pressing it; my attempt to draw a parallel between the dogma of believers and the well-worn sayings of atheists was, in this case nothing more than a failed attempt at humour. Please accept my apologies for the diversion and for any offence/confusion caused.
No problem, I took it as such and was just having a little fun myself. (In case it was missed, the first paragraph of my original post (the one less god one) was intended to have something of a light tone.)