Why are there more atheists than agnostics?

Great Debates
21

VileOrb:

Dinsdale:

Hmm. If you meant, “Just you TRY to give a satisfactory definition!” then touché. How about “Atheist: Non-God-person”? (Throwing away Greek dictionary) <sigh>
I’ll have to go with: lack of belief in SUPERNATURAL occurrence or existence, with supernatural being “beyond what is explainable by natural forces or laws; having to do with God or a deity; of or relating to goblins, ghosts, spooks and the like” Though give me time to rummage through some old Philosophy texts before I get nailed down to anything. (Insert your own inappropriate Jesus joke here, if you’re so inclined.)

betenoir:

There is no basis. To the typical agnostic, it’s a guess. There is no evidence, and to the agnostic, there never will be. I find most agnostics think of themselves as theistic because of Pascal’s Wager.
betenoir

Well, of course, you can believe whatever you’d like, and call yourself whatever you’d like. I was trying to set some classical definitions from which we could all work, and according to Huxley (who defined the term, if not the philosophy), agnosticism doesn’t define the condition of not having decided; rather, agnosticism defines the condition of deciding that it is not possible to know the nature of a god (whether or not that god exists is another matter). Granted, the term has evolved somewhat, and we don’t have to stick to strict, classical, theological definitions. For instance, though I call myself an atheist, I am more properly referred to as a long-winded atheist. :slight_smile:
neutron star:

Believing in things because they haven’t been disproved is a dangerous condition, neutron. You’ll get into all kinds of semantic arguments about closed system logical proofs and disproving Santa Claus, etc. Technically, nothing in an open system (like our existence) can not be disproved; only proved; and even then it remains falsifiable. You would do well to read a bit of basic philosophy for a better explanation of how this works. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of such texts could compile a list—mine would be woefully short. Unlike my posts. :frowning: Sorry.

Thank you all for the cordial welcome!

22

Part of intelligence, I think, is knowing that you don’t know. And that makes an agnostic.

I think.

23

Uh, agnostic, remember? I don’t believe in god. But I don’t not believe in god, either.

24

Color me slow, Jingo, but your provisional definition of atheism differs from your description of most modern day agnostics exactly how?

And, since you asked:
Jesus walks into an inn, slaps three spikes down on the counter and asks, “Can you put me up for the night?”

25

This is a contradiction.

Perhaps if we eliminate a contraction it will be easier to see:
I do not believe in god
But I don’t not believe in god

Well, if we are talking about accurate labels here I might suggest you eschew both atheism and agnosticism and adopt “confused” instead.

26

Nothing really to add, but I always liked this quote, from Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial in 1925:

27

I’ve always considered myself a “fideist atheist.” That is, it’s the irrational bias of faith that determines the terminology for me. I don’t believe that it’s possible to prove there’s no God—on the contrary, I’ve always felt that the existence of God is kind of like Euclid’s fifth postulate: you can make a perfectly self-consistent system whether you consider it true or false, and there’s no way to decide the truth of the postulate from within the system you construct.

So why don’t I call myself an agnostic? Simple: when it gets down to the level of my irrational convictions, I don’t believe there’s a God. The universe just seems to have more sense and truth and virtue in it without the presence of a deity. This is absolutely no more intellectually respectable or epistemologically valid than a theist’s irrational or supra-rational faith that there is a God, of course; but it’s still part of what I believe, so it makes me a self-described atheist rather than an agnostic.

28

Podkayne wrote:

Why, they came from proteinoid microspheres, of course.

29

It is far easier to understand why others need religion than to accept any of them.

That thing called faith is required for all religions it seems, I have none.

I am an atheist, have been since the age of 13.

I do however make it a point to ponder my view every few years to see if perhaps my judgement beforehand is no longer fitting, no new opinions have been found.

Most folks look at me like I want to kill the Pope when they hear me say things regarding my religious standing. Doesn’t bother me but I am sure it keeps many in the closet. The number of people who attend religious services out of tradition, habit and social pressure is unknown. Just like choosing religion, your allowed to call yourself an atheist or agnostic at your own will. In such a political decision its quite understandable that the terms and meanings will become confusing.

To answer the original questions posed:
To declare yourself an atheist is very similar to declaring yourself a christian or a muslim. You are stating what you believe to be true. Call it bullheaded if you like (I don’t mind a bit).

As far the 100% positive thing goes, you can only be 100% positive in what you believe, not in reality.

Pardon me if I offeneded anyone, got off the subject too far, or made myself look like an ass in general, its my first post.

Alantus

30

How is that a contradiction?

I don’t believe in god = I have no faith in (or reason to believe) that god exists.

I don’t not believe in god = I have no evidence or reason to believe that god does not exist.

Why the confusion?

Sorry if the double negative threw you. I was in a hurry when I typed it and wanted to explain my position as concisely as possible.

31

I guess it would have been more clear if I said that I didn’t know if I believed in god and I didn’t know if I didn’t believe in god. I suppose it was ambiguously worded.

32

I am not atheist or agnostic. I tried to be. But I find myself talking with god, thanking god, and cursing at them often enough that I decided it was silly to say i do not believe in god.

I think all the xian weenies that argue against evolution and for prayer in school are annoying idiots.
It is not easy to deal with this because ppl want to label. Labels don’t fit me well.

33

Ya sure it wasn’t lipids? It’s my understanding that this is an area of some debate, which is why I deliberately kept my response to neutron star “agnostic”. :wink:

I don’t believe that I suggested making any wild guesses. I said that science is the way to find the answer, and however you define science, it is not making unfounded guesses, nor does science imply that we should cling to any guess that doesn’t fit the evidence.

Anyway, “guessing” that God isn’t behind the Big Bang or the first living organisms isn’t all that “wild”, since God has never been conclusively shown to be responsible for any physical phenomenon. Why is it reasonable to think that this will change in the future? Maybe God is responsible for the Big Bang–but that’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, and I very strongly doubt that it’s true, in the same way that I doubt that God will stop the Sun from rising tomorrow.

34

This might be long (though I don’t know, I haven’t written it yet) so I don’t blame people if they tend to skip it. Naturally, I hope you don’t.

I don’t believe in God. But I do believe in Good which is what I believe God is derived from. Why were babies born?God allowed it. Why did player X win the swim meet? Because the Lord, Jesus Christ, was on his side. But why did the Holocaust happen? People were evil. Wasn’t it God? *No, it was people who decided that, God gave them free will. * But God created people, right? So why would God create evil in those people? Because God works in mysterious ways.

You’ll never get anyone religious to admit that God is bad. The reason is that God, almost by his very definition, is Good. Saying God is bad is like saying up is down. God is Good and Good is something anyone can believe in. Whether Good comes from within or from a higher power, it’s still Good. Athiests follow the Ten Commandments just as much as Agnostics and Conservatives and Orthodox do. The reason is that the Ten Commandments are just common sense. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. I don’t need God to tell me that! People have morals and if they believe in Good they won’t do those things regardless of any higher power that might or might not be watching over them.

Now, while I don’t belive in God, I do believe in other people’s belief in God. Their faith makes me have faith. I don’t want them to convert me. I don’t want them to make me see the light. But if they personally believe that God is out there and He’s looking out for everyone, I’m glad for them. They have a faith in something I can’t even comprehend but if that’s what it takes to make them do Good, I have no problems. Me? I do Good for Good’s sake, not for God’s.

I believe that God exists so long as people believe in Him. A (VERY) simplistic approach would be Tinkerbell. Clap if you believe. Well, God is “pray if you believe.” As long as there are those that have faith and pray, then God exists. He doesn’t exist for me, but he does for others and that’s close enough.

I don’t understand how we can make fun of the Native Americans and their Polytheistic ways or the Greeks and Romans with their “mumbo jumbo” mythology and then turn around and go to Church or Synagogue on the weekends. How can we claim that our faith is true, despite not one shread personal evidence, yet blast others for their beliefs? I think Atheists are just as wrong to flame away at those who believe as devout Christians are to try to convert us.

I think that if God wants me, He can come and get me. I’m not going to spend my time praying to a God that, to me, is so insecure he needs people to pray to Him in the first place. Those that do pray might do it as a moral beacon, a way to discover within themselves what truly is right.

Don’t fault me if I choose to meditate and seek answers within instead of pray.
Don’t fault me if I choose to go to a psychiatrist for guidance instead of pray.
Don’t fault me if I don’t believe but I still manage to do Good. Because if God truly does exist, that’s all he’s really asking for.

35

Um, you mean except for the “I am the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no other gods before Me” and “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” and “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images” and “remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy”, right? :wink:

36

:o
um…well…yeah. OK, so that was kinda badly phrased and not too well thought out to boot. Good call Gaudere.

My main point, which I think you understood, was this: Good is Good is Good no matter what religion you are. Whether you believe that God handed Moses two tablets atop Mt Sinai, or you just want to avoid jail time, I think you’ll agree that murder is bad. Most reasonable people do. It just makes sense and Abraham, Jesus Christ, Muhammed, Zoroaster, Confucious, and the Dali Lama all saw this (sorry if they’re misspelled). Athiests and Agnostics don’t need God to tell them that murder is wrong. They figure it out for themselves.

Everyday brings decisions when morally questionable situations arise. Is speeding right when you’re late to a charitable function? Should I tell someone the truth about how they look when they ask me even if they’re hurt by the response? Should I get an abortion if not getting could possibly harm me?

Where do you go for answers? Places of worship? Religions figures? Your best friend? Your parents? Advice columnists? Yourself? A law book? A combination of any or all of the above? Well, why not? Good is Good is Good.

Maybe each of those places will have a different answer to give you. But who can really say which one is better than the other? If God exists, it certainly would be His word that is the final word. But what if he doens’t exist? Or what if God does exist and His only response is “figure it out for yourself.” In either case you’re left right back where you started: you. I think faith in you oughta be more important than faith in God.

The end result is that most people around the Earth come to strikingly similar conclusions about what is right and what is wrong regardless of whatever God they believe in. Does this mean that different religions all still believe in the same God, or does this just mean that all people are basically the same despite their religious backgrounds?

37

I do eat grapes.
I don’t eat grapes.

See the contradiction? Now substitute “not believe in god” for “eat grapes”. See the contradiction?

I believe the sentiment you are striving for in your second sentence is: I am not certain god does not exist. That seems eminently reasonable to me. It is not, however, synonymous with “I don’t not believe in god”. Which, when parsed properly means “I do believe in god.”

I usually try to avoid playing grammar cop, but in this case it seemed important since it affected one of the central ideas of your post.

38

neutron star:

I see. The grammatical problem here is born of ambiguity of belief. That is to say that you hold a certain fixed belief; that belief is that you hold no certain fixed belief. I understand your position, it just doesn’t translate into English very eloquently. That, actually, seems to be the crux of the debate. A problem of defining that which is at best very difficult to express, and at worst a moving target. That’s why my first post sought to pin down some common meaning—a tough nut to crack, it seems. Keep in mind that throughout the debate, you are free to call yourself whatever it is you wish and to think however you’d like. However, at the end of this thread you must declare your beliefs once and for all. There will be a test. :wink:
Dinsdale:

Ooh, good one. It differs not at all, it would seem, and that’s why I’m rapidly changing it. Hey, what’s the weekend for if not poring over Heidegger, Leibniz, and Sartre?
Actually, I’m just kidding–my definition of ATHEISM is just fine. The problem is, of course, other definitions…and in my posts, ain’t it always? I’m using strict, logical definitions, whereby we have a binary situation, thus: theists believe in some sort of spirituality; a-theists, by definition, do not. That’s it. On/off. Either/or. The trouble comes because we like to clarify things by ascribing reasons for the belief, and the believers (or non-believers as it were) don’t want to get lumped in with someone else’s reasons. But as it stands, by simple logic (simple meaning basic, not facile), there is belief and lack of belief. Atheism posits nothing at all on it’s own—it simply implies lack of theism. Often, theists will attempt to make their definition of atheism so narrow as to apply only to those who explicitly reject a theist doctrine. However, this is a false assertion as it applies only to a sub-set of atheism (critical explicit atheists). Therein lay the rub. There can be many reasons for atheism, both implicit and explicit (I’ll get to these in a future post if everyone can still stand me after this ponderous missive) and agnosticism (“I cannot know”) can be a valid reason for atheism. Agnosticism can of course also be a valid reason for theism. My point is that although it is commonly used as such, agnosticism is not a convenient phantom third alternative to theism and atheism. Between them, theism and atheism, by definition, cover all possibilities of belief. Thus, it follows that my definitions of atheist and contemporary agnostic do not differ appreciably—they can be synonymous. The difference is that, while they share beliefs, both find the other’s label offensive. There are a myriad of reasons to be atheistic, rejection of a particular god or set of gods is just one of them. And if I can avoid doing yard work for another weekend by hiding in the basement and reading philosophy books, then by god, I’ll describe a whole bunch of others to you.
BTW, reading philosophy is NOT a third alternative to yard work/lack of yard work, according to Mrs. Jingo.
Thank you, and Goodnight

39

I appreciate your effort to nail down logical definitions. However you’re ignoring the fact that the term atheisism IS used, by theists and atheists to express a positive belief: there is no God. That is a belief, that is positing something, more than just a lack of active belief in God.

40

“Atheism” is also used to refer to lacking belief in God, not necessarily including active belief that there is no God(s). Yes, by both atheists and theists alike.