# Two questions for atheists / agnostics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781 "2010-05-09T03:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/121 "2010-05-13T00:37:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that I can’t have any certainty at all that the proposed gods (I’m not going to suggest new ones) do not exist? I am saying that I believe we do not and cannot know for certain, either way. > [@](#): > > Also: given your original question (which apparently you haven’t answered yourself, even though it appears to apply to you too) You’re not a very careful reader; I have answered the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/122 "2010-05-13T00:41:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I get the sense that you’re trying to make a point about atheism. Nah, not really trying to make a point. I do have an opinion on atheism, though, which I have stated. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/123 "2010-05-13T01:37:09Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Afterwards, you can read up on the Soviet gulags and the Red Guards of Maoist China. Atheists (or secularists or whatever you want to call them) piled up a stack of corpses more than130 million high all in one century. The idea that religionists are somehow more prone to violence than secularists is mere prejudice. > > I am immensely skeptical that religion is the root cause of mass violence. Since in most societies, religion is all pervading, religion is likely to get tangled up in any extreme conflict between nations or within a nation, but this in itself doesn’t mean religion was the sole cause or even a significant factor. [Professor Rummel of the University of Hawaii](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)estimates that 262 million people died in democides in the 20th century. It doesn’t seem to me that any significat number of them were motivated by religion. Well I understand what your saying; I should have been more clear about where I stand. I generally hold the belief that Religion has been the cause for both the **greatest** and worst things done in Human History. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/124 "2010-05-13T05:35:07Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I am saying that I believe we do not and cannot know for certain, either way. We can’t know for \*certain \*that we’re not all brains in bottles hooked up to an elaborate computer simulation, but that doesn’t mean we should extend any particular consideration to that hypothesis. We can never know ANYTHING “for certain”, even basic facts like the color of the walls or whether it is day or night. All we can do is construct explanations that account as best as possible for the sensory data we receive. If you were truly agnostic you would be unable to function on a day to day basis, since you would refuse to accept any of the necessary provisional assumptions that we all make from moment to moment to engage with the world around us. Is that traffic light REALLY green? How can you step on the accelerator without being CERTAIN? Of course, most agnostics only apply their principles to theological entities. Which is merely a form of begging the question. You decide in advance, for no apparent reason, that you’ll apply different epistemological standards to different types of things. You’re concerned about absolute certainty only when it serves to keep the door to the supernatural propped open an inch or two. It’s an intellectually inconsistent position. ---
**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:** [May 13, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/125 "2010-05-13T05:50:04Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Of course, most agnostics only apply their principles to theological entities. Which is merely a form of begging the question. You decide in advance, for no apparent reason, that you’ll apply different epistemological standards to different types of things. You’re concerned about absolute certainty only when it serves to keep the door to the supernatural propped open an inch or two. It’s an intellectually inconsistent position. Exactly. I’ve never been able to respect agnosticism as a position; it’s just a means of giving religion a position of intellectual privilege. I firmly take the stance that there are no gods for the same reasons I take a firm stance that Sauron is a fictional character. People would laugh at me if I was agnostic about Sauron, yet I’m supposed to take people seriously when they claim to be agnostic on bronze age myths. > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > This is the part that gave me pause. My answer is no. Heroin abuse is destructive on a personal level. As stated above, I know many strong believers, none of whom are harming themselves nor their loved ones with their faith. Religion is generally correlated with destructive, stupid, unethical behavior both socially and personally; example: [Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece) > [@](#): > > RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. > > According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. Religion is destructive. It undercuts scientific and social progress, encourages and excuses tyrannical and irrational behavior, ruins people’s judgment, and diverts energy from more useful things. And by all the evidence it’s simply factually wrong, not to mention impossible in most cases; and I prefer to be right. ---
**Author:** ![Warchild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b19c9b/32.png) [@Warchild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warchild)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/126 "2010-05-13T06:41:06Z")
Let’s face it folks. Human beings are animals with technology (technological and social) that allows us to create the construct of morality. Without it we would (will) revert to our original evolved programming - self preservation - vicious - merciless- kill or be killed etc. etc. It’s not evil, it’s just nature. Religion is a construct of social technology, the realization of an evolved, intelligent animal that there is a higher probability of survival when gathered in tribes. Religious tribes bring the added benefit of potential immortality, an escape from the harsh reality of the less attractive world of meaningless mortality. We are addicted to chemically induced pleasure (natural or otherwise) and an instinct to procreate. Boy, that does make me come off as one hell of a cynical hard case, but here’s the rub. I’m really not - just voicing what all of us probably feel in our gut. Time for another beer :-)( ---
**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:** [May 13, 2010, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/127 "2010-05-13T07:22:56Z")
> [@Warchild](#): > > Let’s face it folks. Human beings are animals with technology (technological and social) that allows us to create the construct of morality. Without it we would (will) revert to our original evolved programming - self preservation - vicious - merciless- kill or be killed etc. etc. > It’s not evil, it’s just nature. Morality, or at least a tendency to be moral appears to be part of that built in nature. There are people like you describe, namely psychopaths; but most of us aren’t psychopaths. Our upbringing, our “technology of morality” can extend and render more sophisticated our natural moral impulses; but as psychopaths demonstrate without that initial, instinctive moral impulse all culture can do is get them to fake a surface version of morality. In other words, I care about the welfare of people far away whom I’ll never meet because of my culture; but the only reason I care at all about anyone is because of instinct. The idea that natural impulses are nothing but “kill or be killed” is archaic, and largely a myth created for ideological/theological reasons. In reality cooperation is at least as natural as competition and predation. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/128 "2010-05-13T09:51:31Z")
> [@](#): > > We can never know ANYTHING “for certain” This is an interesting statement. There are plenty of atheists (and theists) who state their position as fact rather than belief. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/129 "2010-05-13T10:18:11Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > This is an interesting statement. There are plenty of atheists (and theists) who state their position as fact rather than belief. So? It doesn’t validate the theist position in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/130 "2010-05-13T11:58:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So? It doesn’t validate the theist position in any way. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/131 "2010-05-13T12:26:48Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Post # 102. Ah, I see. I did miss it. From your description I’d say you were Hard Agnostic. (Is there one particular god you’re agnostic about? or do you think all/some/a few of them are possible?) > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > _1. Do you, as a non-believer, accept the notion that many believers acquire some degree of strength, comfort and/or solace from their faith?_ > > Absolutely. I know several deeply religious people, and I have no doubt that they receive all three benefits from their faith. > > _2. If you answered ‘yes’ to question one, are you willing to acknowledge any measure of feelings of envy toward those who reap such benefits of their faith?_ > > Yes. During particularly hard times I have marvelled at these aforementioned people and have felt pangs of envy. This is what, in fact, prompted my initial query. Regarding the comments that such folks are delusional and their comfort is therefore false, I would respond that it is very real to them. Thanks. My parents and brother are believers and I agree that it’s not delusion and the comfort is “real to them”. But that’s different from saying the things they take comfort from are objectively real. They believe in heaven and derive comfort from this belief, but if heaven isn’t real this comfort is going to be taken away at some point, abruptly. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/132 "2010-05-13T12:28:57Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Afterwards, you can read up on the Soviet gulags and the Red Guards of Maoist China. Atheists (or secularists or whatever you want to call them) piled up a stack of corpses more than130 million high all in one century. The idea that religionists are somehow more prone to violence than secularists is mere prejudice. > > I am immensely skeptical that religion is the root cause of mass violence. Since in most societies, religion is all pervading, religion is likely to get tangled up in any extreme conflict between nations or within a nation, but this in itself doesn’t mean religion was the sole cause or even a significant factor. [Professor Rummel of the University of Hawaii](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)estimates that 262 million people died in democides in the 20th century. It doesn’t seem to me that any significat number of them were motivated by religion. Good post. It may be added that countries don’t believe in God, people do, and some that believe in God may not follow the teachings. Also in any country there is only a small percentage of the population that consistently break the law. I believe the study to be worthless. Just an ad for atheistism. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/133 "2010-05-13T12:53:14Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If you were truly agnostic you would be unable to function on a day to day basis, since you would refuse to accept any of the necessary provisional assumptions that we all make from moment to moment to engage with the world around us. Is that traffic light REALLY green? How can you step on the accelerator without being CERTAIN? I don’t agree with this. Theistic agnosticism doesn’t preclude functioning in absence of certainty. A theistic agnostic functions perfectly fine with regard to decisions based on ethical or moral behavior (which is very much in the realm of religion). Whether or not, a deity (or deities) exist does not prevent the agnostic from going about life in the same manner an atheist does. It becomes, for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. At least for me it does. ETA: Besides, there is evidence that my perception of the color of traffic lights is accurate. ---
**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:** [May 13, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/134 "2010-05-13T13:00:11Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > I don’t agree with this. Theistic agnosticism doesn’t preclude functioning in absence of certainty. A theistic agnostic functions perfectly fine with regard to decisions based on ethical or moral behavior (which is very much in the realm of religion). Whether or not, a deity (or deities) exist does not prevent the agnostic from going about life in the same manner an atheist does. It becomes, for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. At least for me it does. Of course. That, again is why agnosticism isn’t something to be taken seriously; it is applied only when necessary to shelter religion from critical thought. It’s just a specialized, get-out-of-jail-free card for religion; for people who are unwilling or unable to really defend religion, but who don’t want to admit just how bad it comes off when any serious critical thought is applied to it. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/135 "2010-05-13T13:04:22Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Good post. It may be added that countries don’t believe in God, people do, and some that believe in God may not follow the teachings. Also in any country there is only a small percentage of the population that consistently break the law. I believe the study to be worthless. Just an ad for atheistism. You mean atheism? The problem with religion is that it often encourages violence while atheism has no set of teachings to really encourage anything. Know what the punishment for apostasy in Islam is? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/136 "2010-05-13T13:17:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course. That, again is why agnosticism isn’t something to be taken seriously; it is applied only when necessary to shelter religion from critical thought. It’s just a specialized, get-out-of-jail-free card for religion; for people who are unwilling or unable to really defend religion, but who don’t want to admit just how bad it comes off when any serious critical thought is applied to it. I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Why would an agnostic care about sheltering religion from critical thought? And doesn’t faith sort of require the absence of critical thought? Why would agnostics wish to defend religion? As an agnostic, I can be certain that there’s no evidence of a “higher power,” but I can’t say that lack of evidence proves there is no higher power. I’m simply not aware of one. Further, I have no use for faith in one because it doesn’t effect my life one way or another. I, personally, consider belief in a higher power to be hypothetical, not even theoretical. It’s just not a hypothesis I have any use for. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/137 "2010-05-13T13:26:40Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > You mean atheism? > > The problem with religion is that it often encourages violence while atheism has no set of teachings to really encourage anything. > > Know what the punishment for apostasy in Islam is? Thanks for the spelling correction. But no religion encourages violence, no, not one. All major religions encourage just the opposite. [http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html](http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html) It is people that encourage violence, equally those who belong to religions and those who don’t. And you are right about atheists also ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/138 "2010-05-13T13:45:01Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Thanks for the spelling correction. But no religion encourages violence, no, not one. All major religions encourage just the opposite. > > [http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html](http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html) > > It is people that encourage violence, equally those who belong to religions and those who don’t. > > And you are right about atheists also You can post all the links you want. When the Mutaween or the Basij refuse to let girls out of a burning school because they don’t have their faces covered, that’s a religious cause. Judaism, Islam, Christianity- they all advocate violence, despite what apologetic religions leaders across the world say. My cites are the Bible, the Torah and the Qu’ran themselves. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/139 "2010-05-13T13:59:10Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > There are plenty of atheists (and theists) who state their position as fact rather than belief. The nonexistence of God is a fact to exactly the same extent that the rising of the sun this morning is a fact. Both hypotheses can never be absolutely proven, but both are also the best explanation for the data (or lack of it) presented by our senses. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781/140 "2010-05-13T14:07:21Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Why would agnostics wish to defend religion? Perhaps you should ask yourself that question. > [@](#): > > As an agnostic, I can be certain that there’s no evidence of a “higher power,” but I can’t say that lack of evidence proves there is no higher power. I’m simply not aware of one. Just as you can’t be \*certain \*that there’s not a leprechaun stealing your socks out of the dryer. The fact that you’ve never seen him do it is not proof of his nonexistence … right? The fact is that agnosticism is merely a form of special pleading for religion. It holds theological claims to a different standard of truth than other claims. But why should an exception be made for religion? Why should the question of the existence of God be treated any differently than the question of the existence of ANY hypothetical entity? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-atheists-agnostics/538781.md?page=8)