Religious people having input into government is fine, which no one has disputed. I just don’t want them to demand policies based on what God says and think this gives them a good argument, unless they can produce that god.
The debates we used to have here about SSM is a perfect example. Those against it, almost universally religious, when challenged to give a non-religious reason came up with garbage, like regular marriage falling apart. None of which has come true, no surprise. (And plenty of religious people were for it, just to give credit where credit is due.)
If someone can’t come up with a secular argument for something, no matter what they believe, they should just keep quiet.
And if someone on the left argued for increasing taxes on the rich based on something Jesus was supposed to have said, the argument would be just as invalid.
Agnosticism as it is commonly used has been a means for atheists not ready to come out of the closet to chicken out, which they think (maybe correctly) is less offensive to theists than pure lack of belief.
But I’ve heard people self-identify as agnostic theists, which is a perfectly legitimate position.
Atheism is just lack of belief in a god. You can lack belief for good reasons, like lack of evidence, or for crappy reasons. Belief in no god is an optional additional step. I made that step myself, but I’m open to being shown to be wrong, if good evidence is presented. After 45 years I’m not holding my breath.
I’m not objecting, merely trying to find the line between agnosticism and atheism.
From what I’ve gathered there must be a difference but from what a few people in this thread have said, atheism sounds a lot like agnosticism but surely there is a difference.
I read the positive and negative atheism postulate, and that makes sense but then why would the negative atheists not be agnostics?
This may be the correct interpretation. I also do not believe, based upon a lack of evidence, but I also do not disbelieve but I am open to the possibility of either. I thought atheists would positively argue that there is no god (but having no real way to disprove it)
Most atheists I know call themselves “agnostic atheists” for this very reason; negative atheism, the position that there is no compelling evidence that a god or gods exist, and that there is therefore no rational reason for faith, is the most common strain. The notion that there is a big community of atheists who positively believe that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist (which would be as unfalsifiable an assertation as it’s opposite) is either a misunderstanding or a deliberate strawman of Christians like @DrDeth who want to turn atheists’ arguments back on themselves.
Technically, “theism” and “atheism” are terms of belief, while “agnosticism” concerns knowledge. So you can, as I think @Voyager or @thorny_locust pointed out, have theistic agnostics; those who believe a god exists, but can’t, or don’t see a need to, prove it.
As to why atheists don’t call themselves agnostics, I think the explanation is this: in popular conception, an agnostic is someone who’s not sure if they believe in God, or is unwilling to say “yes” or “no” to the question. Those who accept the label “atheist” are a little more assertive about their position: in the absence of solid objective evidence of the existence of the Abrahamic God, or any other, disbelief is the rational position.
I have no idea of how many “atheists who positively believe that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist”, but the number is significant, some have posted here. It may be a small %, but they are quite vocal in their prosetlying.
But yes, you are correct, that statement is unfalsifiable .
I have always said that when they wrote the constitution they should have written this “man should have freedom of religion and also freedom from religion if he so chooses”
Sorry, no, I won’t be keeping quiet. You really don’t get to impose some sort of qualifying test on people to determine if they have a right to express an opinion, or a belief, and to base their political actions on those beliefs.
You don’t, Jerry Fallwell didn’t, Paula Deen doesn’t.
Some people do point out logical contradictions about the usual descriptions of the Abrahamic God. So not everyone thinks that that particular version is unfalsifiable.
Wasn’t me.
I had to go look up the concept. Seems to cover people who believe in God but acknowledge that they don’t know why; and people who believe in God but don’t claim to know anything, or anything very much, about God; and people who find religious ritual important for humans whether or not there is any God?
Too late to post as an edit:
If you want to straight out say ‘I want to require everyone to follow my specific religious beliefs and therefore I think the country should impose/continue/enforce these particular laws, which I have no other basis for’ – yes, I think you’re entitled to say so in public.
I think that actually having such laws, in the USA, is in violation of the Constitution; and I think you should also consider that, if it’s legitimate for you to impose such laws, it would be equally legitimate for others to impose laws that required you to follow other peoples’ religious beliefs that you don’t agree with.
I also think that if that’s the actual only reason you have to back such a law, then you shouldn’t make up other false reasons in an attempt to conceal that what you’re doing is trying to impose your religion on other people. (General ‘you’; I’m not accusing you specifically of doing so.)
For the most part, I don’t want to do that. I do have some religious beliefs that I do my best to impose on everyone, though. For example, I believe that the taking of human life is in almost every circumstance is wrong, and I would like to see that reflected more strongly in the law than it is now. I would like to see the death penalty abolished, for example, with no exceptions.
I could not agree more. I don’t want to see everyone required to confess their sins to a priest, or receive communion once in a while. I don’t want the state to forbid certain marriages, any more than I want to see the church required to officiate at weddings of people that cannot, according to my church, be married.
But where’s the line? Is it a violation of the Constitution for me to press my representatives to abolish the death penalty because I believe it’s wrong for religous reasons? Or should I keep my mouth shut because my reasons are religious, while another person may agitate for abolition because his/her reasons are purely secular?
I don’t. I don’t generally need to, actually – I can usually articulate a quite genuine reason for backing (or opposing) a particular law that doesn’t involve religion. And that’s not an attempt at concealment.
However, if I can’t, I won’t claim otherwise.
That can also be defended on secular grounds. There are plenty of atheists who hold that belief.
Do you think that if you weren’t religious you wouldn’t hold that position?
Genuinely curious about that. Is the only reason you’re opposed to humans killing other humans because you believe that God said not to?
I don’t know what you think is unfalsifiable. That some atheists postively believe that the Abrahamic god does not exist?
Because I can positively believe that no unicorns exist, even if I can’t prove that. However it is possible to prove that the Abrahamic god or unicorns do exist by producing examples. I’m using prove loosely here, in the sense that we can prove Paris exists.
Now if I said that I know that the Abrahamic god does not exist I’d have to demonstrate it, which would be hard to do. Especially since even that example of a possible god is ill-defined. The god I learned about in Hebrew School is quite different from the god my fundamentalist friends believe in.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as they have a right to talk, but no one with any sense should listen to them. Especially not people who make legislation and rules.
Do you have an example of a position that is based only on religious arguments that we should make into law? That would help as a real example. I’d not want to assume you hold any particular position.
There are excellent secular arguments for this position. Which I share. Not many good Biblical arguments, since the death penalty for all sorts of infractions is all over the Bible.
So you are doing exactly what I said all people should do.
BTW, taking a position based on what you think God wants but arguing for it based on secular reasons, to include those who don’t believe in your god, is fine with me. No one knows what initiates a position. It could be a nightmare. The argument is what is important.
Perfectly reasonable position. I disbelieve because I can construct models of a world with any of the gods I know of and compare them to the world we know. I disbelieve in a deistic God due to Occam’s Razor, though that is a much weaker disbelief than that of the god of the inerrant Bible. I’d never even to try to argue a deist out of her position. Seems pointless and I haven’t yet heard of a deist who think their god cares about my sex life.
And as I said before, my disbelief is provisional. Show me a god and I’ll change my mind.
Logical contradictions about man made concepts. Like can He make a rock so big he cant lift it? That is just a logical contradiction about being all powerful. The Bible doesnt state God is omnipotent in the sense of a logical contradiction.
I will refer you back to the post I was replying to:The notion that there is a big community of atheists who positively believe that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist (which would be as unfalsifiable an assertation as it’s opposite)
So, what you seem to be saying is that if a atheist believes it, it’s ok, but not if someone of faith does.
Religions are also codes of ethics, too. Those ethics dont go away even if you dont have faith. Quite a few Jewish People, and Christians hold to the ethics, even if doubters.
Most of the ten C are just fine:
Dont Murder.
Respect your father and mother.
Take a day off.
Dont steal
Dont cheat on your spouse.
Dont perjure against your neighbor.
Do any of this boards atheists think we should dump these just because there are part of the Ten C?
You don’t have to search for such a person - I admit to that belief. But it is very falsifiable. Just show me a god. And that god would know what would convince me.
Now the belief that some god exists is not falsifiable since no matter how many gods you disprove, you can imagine one more. Including the deistic god whose presences is unknowable by definition.
But I think you are confusing belief with claims to knowledge. I can believe that no black swans exist while being quite open to being shown I’m wrong if someone produces one.
That believers these days think God is being coy is not evidence of his existence. They seem to be like the stereotypical nerd who claims he has a hot girlfriend who is never around when you are, won’t talk on the phone, and is allergic to having pictures taken. Maybe she exists, but it is a safe bet she doesn’t.