[QUOTE=Clothahump]
I have to disagree somewhat with that.
When given the question “Is there a god?” or “Does god exist?”, the agnostic is the only one who answers correctly: “I don’t know”.
Nobody knows for sure whether a god of any kind exists, so I think it is quite possible for an agnostic to take the point of view that belief is incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
If you want to be pedantic, then I can claim that you can’t know whether you can’t know that god exists.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
When given the question “Is there a god?” or “Does god exist?”, the agnostic is the only one who answers correctly: “I don’t know”.
[/QUOTE]
“I think so” and “I don’t think so” can’t be wrong answers. “Yes” and “no” can be wrong, everything else is the statement of one’s opinion. And I second DanBlather’s ‘pedantic’ point.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
Incidentally, both the alpha privative and the word theos were Greek borrowings from Sanskrit.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure? I don’t know, but this doesn’t seem right. Wouldn’t it rather be that both Greek and Sanskrit share the alpha privative and theos from their common PIE ancestor? I could be wrong, I just think that this is more likely.
[QUOTE=IvoryTowerDenizen]
No. I assert my position of nonbelief quite firmly. I do not believe in a god or gods. I am not undecided. I am not agnostic or otherwise unsure. My confidence in my position is solid.
I think the atheist/nontheist distinction is a minor one, if at all. Since a= without, as in acellular, amoral etc, atheist would then be “without a god-based belief system”, and that describes me.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the word “atheist” is a very good description for you. However, I believe the post you were responding to was speaking of people who don’t assert their position of non-belief firmly.
I just want to know who is this mythical person for whom the whole god-question is irrelevant. Is there any rational adult human being who hasn’t thought about the question?
“So… do you believe in God?”
“Never thought about it, don’t care to start. Good day sir.”
[QUOTE=muttrox]
I just want to know who is this mythical person for whom the whole god-question is irrelevant. Is there any rational adult human being who hasn’t thought about the question?
[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant does not mean you’ve never considered it. Many people - myself included - have allocated considerable resources towards the question. (IME, non-believers tend to be better versed in the arguments pro- and con- than believers.) Having arrived at their personal resolution of the question, however, they conclude that it has very little to no implication one way or another on how they lead their life.
There are plenty of rational reasons to decide to lead “a good life,” none of which depend on following divine laws, or being rewarded or punished after death. And there is no difficulty rejecting a supreme being who would be so petty as to punish a “good person” simply because that person was busy leading a good life without praising and honoring that particular deity.
Hey - OTOH - muttrox may have just afforded me mythological status. You guys gonna form a religion based on me and start tithing? Paypal accepted!
[QUOTE=sjc]
Yes, the word “atheist” is a very good description for you. However, I believe the post you were responding to was speaking of people who don’t assert their position of non-belief firmly.
[/QUOTE]
I went back and double checked the post I was responding too and I believe you were right. I read it differently the first time, but I can see it now.
I’m pretty sure that this discussion as I’ve come to understand it would have been irrelevant 40 years ago. Certainly 200 years ago.
Okay, we all today should have in our minds that there are those who absolutely believe that all the “miracles” of the universe and earthly nature are explained by physical laws that are absolute and discernable given our human attainments and do not require an explanation for origin. There is no evidence therefore that a superior being exists to explain this all and furthermore there is no hope of learning otherwise. These are the Atheists. I find it hard to understand how there were any atheists before Darwin.
Then there are those who just can’t connect with an understanding of a superior being whom you can’t hear or see and never experienced. These are the Non-theists. There are plenty of assumed theists who really fall into this category, given their behavior. Ii would say that these people, Non-theists represent the category for the OP’s 2nd question.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Okay, we all today should have in our minds that there are those who absolutely believe that all the “miracles” of the universe and earthly nature are explained by physical laws that are absolute and discernable given our human attainments and do not require an explanation for origin. There is no evidence therefore that a superior being exists to explain this all and furthermore there is no hope of learning otherwise. These are the Atheists. I find it hard to understand how there were any atheists before Darwin.
[/QUOTE]
Oooh. Hate to get into GD territory, but not everyone that understands science really does qualify as athiest. There are a lot of Christian scientists (I don’t mean “Christian Scientists”) that have “faith” and while fully adherent to science and dismissive of literal interpretations of the Bible, in fact do believe in a capital-letter Creator of some sort. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re stupid and don’t understand science, and they don’t pretend to offer a scientific backing for their faith. I guess I’m just trying to point out that the understanding of science and belief in a supreme diety aren’t necessarily self-contradictory. I think that recently a council of Christian churches recently announced their support of the theory of evolution, for example.
When it comes to science versus a supreme diety, one could argue (and I’m not arguing this, just presenting it) that we’re living in a simulated universe. Yeah, The Matrix and all that. Suppose that “God” were a doctoral candidate working on full universe simulations? Of course in that scenario we’re not talking intelligent design et al, but rather letting physics (simulated physics in a machine) run its course. So science applies, although there is a disinterested “creator” at some point.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Irrelevant does not mean you’ve never considered it. Many people - myself included - have allocated considerable resources towards the question. (IME, non-believers tend to be better versed in the arguments pro- and con- than believers.) Having arrived at their personal resolution of the question, however, they conclude that it has very little to no implication one way or another on how they lead their life.
[/QUOTE]
But see then, if someone were to ask your stance, you have already arrived at your personal resolution, and have one handy. It may not be relevant to your life, but it is relevant to the question and labeling, and this whole thread. You can’t pretend that you don’t have a belief on this issue, everyone does.
Note that you can be both an agnostic and an atheist… see here. You can be both. Agnostism is a statement about the evidence. It is an assertion that there is not enough evidence to logically prove or disprove god’s existence. Atheism is a statement about your own personal belief, regardless of the evidence for or against it.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
When given the question “Is there a god?” or “Does god exist?”, the agnostic is the only one who answers correctly: “I don’t know”.
Nobody knows for sure whether a god of any kind exists, so I think it is quite possible for an agnostic to take the point of view that belief is incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
So, would you consider a theist who believe in God on the basis of faith, but who does not claim to know God exists, an agnostic?
How about me? I don’t claim to know that all gods do not exist, but lack belief in any god, and go beyond that in not believing that any god exists. Am I an agnostic also? I don’t even require a rigorous definition of knowledge as certainty, but will allow that I know that the God of the inerrant Bible does not exist, thanks to scientific evidence. In fact, I believe I could argue quite effectively against both theistic and atheistic knowledge. Thus, we’d all be agnostics, every one of us.
If we take agnosticism to mean someone who believes it is not possible to know if a god exists, then these problems go away. I’m not an agnostic, since I think that if the Exodus had happened, those seeing the parting of the Red Sea etc. could reasonably claim to know God exists. If God chose to show us, we’d know.
[QUOTE=muttrox]
But see then, if someone were to ask your stance, you have already arrived at your personal resolution, and have one handy. It may not be relevant to your life, but it is relevant to the question and labeling, and this whole thread. You can’t pretend that you don’t have a belief on this issue, everyone does.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make, nor do I believe I have much more to offer this discussion.
You are correct - I have personally decided that I believe there is no God/gods. So the term atheist does accurately apply to me. However, I tend to avoid assuming the “label” of atheism for a couple of reasons.
As I tried to explain above, I feel it inaccurately focuses too much on one particular thing I reject. Instead, I believe it says much more about me to describe the reasons I arrived at that decision - as a rational humanist. To me the idea of religion is somewhat curious in terms of history, sociology, and such. I consider it curious that so many people have chosen variations on this one irrational theme to believe in, while growing out of or rejecting other irrational beliefs that impress me as equally (in)valid.
I am very aware that atheism cannot be proven. I have no desire to slip into the convenient “your atheism has no firmer basis than my belief” argument. Instead, by referring to the rational humanism underlying my personal philosophy, I emphasize the considerable distinctions between how we arrived at our divergent conclusions. My rational humanism has a very different basis from a believer’s faith.
Through experience, I know that identifying myself as an atheist has a good chance of being greeted unfavorably. So many people strike me as being so judgmental that I am not overly eager to give them an easy reason to pigeonhole, disapprove of, and discriminate against me and my family.
As this very thread shows, there is considerable confusion over what is meant by the term atheist. There are discussions of hard vs soft atheism, and the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism. IME, many believers are relatively ignorant of the specifics concerning their own professed faith - I certainly cannot expect greater intellectual rigor for them concerning the terms describing my lack of faith.
I have researched such issues considerably in the past, along with a fair number of christian faiths and non-christian belief systems. But I do not retain the arguments pro and con at the tip of my tongue because - as I have said - they simply have next to no relevance to my day-to-day life. Nor do I derive much interest or pleasure from repeating variations on the same discussions. Nor do I have any desire to “convert” anyone from their beliefs to mine.
For practical reasons, when asked I tend to say my family attends a UU church. Do not underestimate the societal benefit in the parts of America where I have lived from belonging to a church - any church is better than being unchurched. I cannot count the times this was met with the response, “Oh well, we all believe in the same God.” And for purposes of social intercourse, I am generally comfortable allowing them to continue in their misperception.
My point is that you are an athiest. How you arrived there, how you explain it to others, how it integrates with your life, how you are percieved in your community – these are all interesting (and IMO admirable), but not germane to the issue.
Okay.
But I guess the label means more to you than it does to me.
Which I guess goes to the question of who ought to get to choose the label - the labeller or the labelled?
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Okay.
But I guess the label means more to you than it does to me.
Which I guess goes to the question of who ought to get to choose the label - the labeller or the labelled?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it usually the armed person who gets to make the choice?
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Isn’t it usually the armed person who gets to make the choice?
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
So we can call the Venus de Milo whatever we wish?