Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[bignickel]

No, I'm not saying that perfect illusion=truth. I'm saying that an omnipotent god could, ex hypothesi, meet all standards of "true belief." That is, it isn't just that he could fiddle with our brain waves (as a very-powerful alien could), he could make it not only that we know, but that we know that what we know is true. How? Well, duh, he's omnipotent. You're still trying to have a bob each way on this: "but, if I was able to nip back to my pre-revelation existence I wouldn't be able to have it proven to me that my post-revelation knowledge was true." Sure, but that's not the point. We cannot know that there is no such thing as a god who is capable of making us fully and completely know of his divinity. Thus the claims of strong agnosticism are inherently absurd.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. It seems to me to be similar to someone saying 'blue and yellow make green', and then having Loki pop out of nowhere and zap them while saying "hah, now all green looks red to you now!" Well, that may be the new perception of the Loki-zapped person, but blue and yellow STILL make green, no matter what Loki has done.

Given the inherent limitations of creatures living inside the universe, it's just plain impossible for us to recognize the difference between creatures existing outside the universe, and aliens. Because as a noted person once said, "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If you insist on some creature from outside the universe messing with our heads so that we can recognize that they're master of un/reality, that STILL doesn't say anything about my ability to tell the difference between an alien and god. Unzapped, humans can't. Zapped, humans can? Well, so what? How do we recognize the 'zapped' from the delusional?

 

[Dancing David]

About the same I think.

ETA: Actually, I still didn't answer the right question. I think belief in witchy powers is about as reasonable as belief in supernatural gods. You asked about religion, not deities. I think belief in religion is more reasonable than belief in witchy powers, as religion has some well documented beneficial effects for people. Not all religions require belief in the supernatural.

What document, what citation, please.

 

[Dancing David]

If you're really bored though, here's a link to a theistic Buddhist group. I did study Buddhism.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/AMIDA.HTM

Yup, there are silly people of all sorts.

And buddhists who believe in reincarnation.

 

[Belz...]

There's an implication of "not enough" or "something missing", where "has no" is just zero and carries no such implication.

...really ?

 

[Yoink]

There's an implication of "not enough" or "something missing", where "has no" is just zero and carries no such implication.

Clearly different words have slightly different connotations. There would be circumstances where "lack" and "have not" would not be interchangeable. On the matter of belief in god, however, they do happen to be interchangeable. On the matter of "money to buy a car" you would need to put extra words in to get the difference you're trying to assert. "I lack sufficient money to buy a car" could imply that you're a dollar short. But then "I don't have sufficient money to buy a car" would do the same job. Simply saying "I lack the money to buy a car" says nothing more about how "close" you are to having enough money than saying "I don't have the money to buy a car." Here, perhaps this will help--imagine the following conversation:

A: "I don't have the money to buy a car!"

B: "Well, if I give you one quarter of the cost of the car you want, will that enable you to do it?"

A: "Yes, thank you. Actually, all I need is 1/8th of the cost."

If you can find some contradiction in A's statements, then you have a point. If you can't, you don't.

The guy who lacks the money for a car, could be just $1 short and still lack the money tIn terms of belief, if you chose to use the scale Dawkins suggests, lacking the belief to be a theist could be said to be anywhere on that scale below theist. No belief could be said to be pretty much at the point where he suggests it's the same as "belief in no".

And that's just plain wrong. To say "no belief is the same as belief in no" is just plain, flat-out, "I don't really understand the meaning of these words" WRONG. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's just as wrong as saying "green means red" or "two plus two equals five."

 

[Apology]

Yup, there are silly people of all sorts.

And buddhists who believe in reincarnation.

It's not so much the reincarnation thing as it is that Amida Buddha grants humans the right to go to the Pure Lands (which sound suspiciously like heaven) in a rather God-like fashion. Unfortunately most of what I learned about Pure Land Buddhism came from an educational film about Buddhism that I can't share with you guys. Buddhists and Hindus both have such different ideas about what God exactly is that it's hard to categorize them into an atheist/theist model. Both religions talk about the "soul" or "spirit" as if it is a sort of God, but if God is in everyone, they can hardly be considered "theistic". After the film we discussed it without making any headway as to whether they were atheists or theists.

It's unclear whether Tibetan Buddhists are theists or atheists either. Honestly I can't understand what exactly they believe because there are so many sects

 

[Egg]

Clearly different words have slightly different connotations. There would be circumstances where "lack" and "have not" would not be interchangeable. On the matter of belief in god, however, they do happen to be interchangeable. On the matter of "money to buy a car" you would need to put extra words in to get the difference you're trying to assert. "I lack sufficient money to buy a car" could imply that you're a dollar short. But then "I don't have sufficient money to buy a car" would do the same job. Simply saying "I lack the money to buy a car" says nothing more about how "close" you are to having enough money than saying "I don't have the money to buy a car." Here, perhaps this will help--imagine the following conversation:

A: "I don't have the money to buy a car!"

B: "Well, if I give you one quarter of the cost of the car you want, will that enable you to do it?"

A: "Yes, thank you. Actually, all I need is 1/8th of the cost."

If you can find some contradiction in A's statements, then you have a point. If you can't, you don't.


And that's just plain wrong. To say "no belief is the same as belief in no" is just plain, flat-out, "I don't really understand the meaning of these words" WRONG. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's just as wrong as saying "green means red" or "two plus two equals five."

Once again, we are discussing "lack" and "has no". "Don't have" is either a red herring or some straw man you're using to try to prove your point. Here's your original statement:

How does "lacks" differ significantly from "has no"? If I "lack" money it is because I "have no" money. You seem to be having more and more problems with simple English. There is absolutely no difference between those two statements.

If A says "I have no money to buy a car" then A's second statement indeed is a contradiction. He had no money, then suddenly he had some money.

Dictionary.com says the following:
noun
1. deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
2. something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.
–verb (used with object)
3. to be without or deficient in: to lack ability; to lack the necessities of life.
4. to fall short in respect of: He lacks three votes to win.
–verb (used without object)
5. to be absent or missing, as something needed or desirable: Three votes are lacking to make a majority.
—Verb phrase
6. lack in, to be short of or deficient in: What he lacks in brains, he makes up for in brawn.

Feel free to check out what other dictionaries have to say.

1. Strong Theist - 100% probability of God (I know there is a God!)
2. De facto Theist - Very high, but < 100% probability of God
3. Technically agnostic- leaning towards theism, higher than 50% probability of God
4. Impartial agnostic - exactly 50% probability of God
5. Technically atheist - leaning towards atheism, less than 50% probability of God
6. De facto atheist - Very low, but > 0% probability of God
7. Strong atheist - 0% probability of God (I know there is no God!)

This is the Dawkins chart as posted earlier in the thread.

"Has no" = has zero

According to this chart then, "has no" means "I know there is no God".

According to the dictionary, "lack" could mean 0 too, but could also put someone up to the Technically agnostic position.

Personally, I think this chart has flaws and is of limited use, and that it could be argued that belief is a more on/off concept. However, I was just pointing out that "it could be said" that "has no belief in = belief that there is no", or in other words different people could have a different understanding of the two terms and for good reason.

 

[Apology]

Since you've indicated you're bowing out, I'm not sure you'll see my response.

I don't understand your problems with the argument. If you have any creature (god/s, aliens, MIB, et al) who can change your brain wave patterns, then, afterwards, sure, you'd be a gnostic after that. But that doesn't mean that the agnostic 'standards of evidence' have magically been willed away. I'm thinking of the final chapters of 1984 here: when Winston sees that 2 + 2 = 5, does that really mean that 2 + 2 = 5? Or has he walked away from the 'standards of mathematics'?

I could be reading your thread wrong, of course; if I suddenly heard voices speaking to me and making me see bushes on fire: I'd assume I was mad, or at the very least, suffering from visual and audio hallucinations. Past that... aliens.

This is true. The standards of evidence are still there. I'm going to make a little construct here to illustrate my point.

Mad Scientist says he has found proof of God's existence. It is an infinitesimal microscopic molecule that we previously did not have the technology to see. Mad Scientist says that it is aloof from us, but is indeed the Creator of Life and the Essence of Life. What do I do?

I'm going to check out Mad Scientist. I'll look at his credentials and his other work. Since he's making claims of God, I'll look at his religious background to see if he's got a potential agenda. I'll evaluate testimonials by his peers. They're more likely to be phrased in a way that I'll understand, but they're still anecdotal in nature and may or may not be true. Peers may be researched to see if they have a motive for giving a negative testimonial.

If Mad Scientist checks out, and the other scientists agree with him, I may decide at this point that it's okay to believe based on circumstantial evidence. I take science's word for things all the time.

What if the other scientists conflict on whether or not Mad Scientist's work is valid? Perhaps they agree "You've found a new substance, and it's the essence of life," but disagree that it's "The Creator of Life". Who do I believe? Mad Scientist? or his detractors? At this point, I enter into a study phase, and try to learn more so I can find out who to believe. Usually this solves things by giving preponderance of the evidence to one side or the other.

What if I can't decide whether it's "The Creator of Life" even after I've studied it further? Mad Scientist thinks it is, but can't prove it. His detractors think it isn't, but naturally can't be expected to prove a negative. This is where agnosticism kicks in. You withhold the decision. Since the detractors obviously can't prove a negative, they're off the hook. Mad Scientist has the burden of proof.

I've heard it said that God is not only unknowable, but meaningless. In a sense it's true. To me, an aloof God is devoid of meaning and unworthy of explicit support. Apparently for others it's a very meaningful experience, and I can't really refute their meaning, not having had those experiences myself (comfort etc.) I don't get any comfort from believing in such a God and I haven't had any personal experience with it, so I withhold my explicit belief. I don't go around telling people that "God is meaningless" because it's a personal opinion that I'm unsure of, and it offends people who find God meaningful.

Part of my issue with using children in constructs has a little to do with the 2 + 2 = 5 scene, so I'm going to discuss it in a little more detail.

Winston could not be considered a rational human being capable of making a choice at that point. He literally lost his mind at the Ministry of Truth, and his capability for rational thought broke down completely. At that point, he believed whatever they told him to believe by choosing to not evaluate any evidence against his programmed beliefs. He had a vested interest in doing this: stopping the torture. It said somewhere in there that the Ministry of Truth had scientifically determined almost exactly how much abuse a human body could take before the prisoner died, so they could torture him infinitely. (I'm sorry, my copy has gone astray, I'm in the middle of moving). I do believe that Winston begged them to kill him and wished he would die more than once.

While Winston was still capable of rational free thought, he did examine the evidence skeptically and came to the conclusion that the government was lying. His will had to be broken in order to force on him the new "beliefs", such as 2 + 2 = 5.

Here's where the children come in. Children's minds are in a developmental state. They can't be blamed for their inability to properly evaluate evidence. Their beliefs are actually belief in the person who related the information rather than belief in the subject. When a three-year old says "I wuv Jethus", it's not necessarily a reflection of their belief in Jesus, but more likely a reflection of their belief in their parents, who praise the hell out of them for lisping out "I love Jesus" at every opportunity. I'm sure I could easily convince a three-year old that 2 + 2 = 5, no breaking of spirit necessary.

Let's go back to Mad Scientist and his "Creator of Life" molecule. Let's say that after evaluating the evidence, I decide that Mad Scientist seems like a good scientist without a hidden agenda, and his research looks sound to my fairly uneducated eye. It's fairly rational to believe him. Ten years later, someone working with the "Creator of Life" molecule somehow disproves the possibility that it actually created life. I was wrong to believe in it. What do I do?

Shrug my shoulders and move on with my life. It's not the end of the world to hold an untrue belief. As I walk down the street with my fists in my jacket pocket, kicking a can sheepishly ahead of me, I'll say to myself, "Aw, nuts. I wish I wouldn't have spend all of my allowance on those dumb book," as I walk into the sunset. (Kind of like I did with Nostradamus.)

I would like to point out that the definition of weak agnosticism is the "generally" accepted definition, and all the other categories of agnosticism are formed by agnosticism + personal belief, including model agnosticism, which I just learned about in the course of this thread and am only using for purposes of discussion since I don't like it much. Seems almost like bragging to call oneself a "model" of anything.

 

[bignickel]

Apology, that's quite a bit of writing. I'd rather not use the quote function and break it up. The problem for me in this post is not figure out which parts need to be responded to; I don't want to get hung up on tangents.

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that of 'withholding judgment'. That's fine; there's nothing wrong with not committing to one side or the other on matters of science. From the scientific POV, a fact is something that it would be perverse to not tentatively agree to ('the sun is hot'). There is always the option of revising once new data comes in throws the original idea into doubt.

-- If a scientist finds a new particle, and says it shows the existence of god... how? Everyone can talk pro and con about the existence of the new particle, just like the existence of N-Rays, but that it shows proof of god is just the scientist's opinion; it's not enough, unless he can show evidence that this is the case. Scientists' opinions don't count for squat unless they can connect the dots. Until then, they are valued for what they are: opinions.

Theism is a specific belief about supernatural beings. Those who say 'yes' to that belief are theists. Because there is a superabundance of theists in the world, who have a significant affect over government, culture, and society, a word was created for those that did not believe: atheists. 'Atheism' is an odd word: it has no real reason to exist, since it actually espouses no tenants. As such, it seems to be a word created by theists to assert that atheists believe and have faith in something, at least to the point that it warrants an -ism. However, nothing about atheists' lack of 'saying yes to the supernatural belief' actually warrants this.

-- there are some that use 'agnostic' as 'have no knowledge', outside of religious discussions. That's all fine and good, but the definition changes when talking about religious issues and the standards of evidence that agnosticism addresses. Agnosticism, as opposed to atheism, actually DOES have a position to assert.
-- and yes, there are many in the popular culture who very much want 'agnosticism' to mean 'maybe' in religions matters. Just as the popular culture want to use 'hypothesis' to mean 'guess'. The problem is when we start talking about scientific matters, we MUST insist that hypothesis does NOT mean 'guess'. We already have a word for that: 'guess', and we shouldn't destroy the utility of the word 'hypothesis' because of popular nomenclature.
-- likewise, I (capital I) believe that we shouldn't destroy the usefulness of a word such as agnostic, by causing it to take on on the meaning of 'maybe' for such discussions in religion. Because we already have a word for people who say 'maybe': atheist: those who can't "Yes, I believe in god/s".

I believe it's critical to keep agnostic as a position on evidence, no on belief, because it's important to differentiate the atheists who could convinced by new 'evidence', experience, interpretation, etc, and become theists, and the atheists who can not be convinced. Because by turning into 'maybe', it destroys the it's assertion of humanity's limitations, as creatures inside the universe, from recognizing creatures outside of it. I believe it's important to keep such a position of humility intact, and not have it wasted because some people out there don't want to get lumped in with 'those atheists'.

If someone wants to say 'maybe', and believes they can be convinced, let them call themselves gnostic atheists, and be done it it. Or not call themselves anything at all. No reason to put yourself in a box just because of what everyone else is doing.

 

[Yoink]

Once again, we are discussing "lack" and "has no". "Don't have" is either a red herring or some straw man you're using to try to prove your point. Here's your original statement:
If A says "I have no money to buy a car" then A's second statement indeed is a contradiction. He had no money, then suddenly he had some money.

Dictionary.com says the following:
noun
1. deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
2. something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.
–verb (used with object)
3. to be without or deficient in: to lack ability; to lack the necessities of life.
4. to fall short in respect of: He lacks three votes to win.
–verb (used without object)
5. to be absent or missing, as something needed or desirable: Three votes are lacking to make a majority.
—Verb phrase
6. lack in, to be short of or deficient in: What he lacks in brains, he makes up for in brawn.

Feel free to check out what other dictionaries have to say.

1. Strong Theist - 100% probability of God (I know there is a God!)
2. De facto Theist - Very high, but < 100% probability of God
3. Technically agnostic- leaning towards theism, higher than 50% probability of God
4. Impartial agnostic - exactly 50% probability of God
5. Technically atheist - leaning towards atheism, less than 50% probability of God
6. De facto atheist - Very low, but > 0% probability of God
7. Strong atheist - 0% probability of God (I know there is no God!)

This is the Dawkins chart as posted earlier in the thread.

"Has no" = has zero

According to this chart then, "has no" means "I know there is no God".

According to the dictionary, "lack" could mean 0 too, but could also put someone up to the Technically agnostic position.

Personally, I think this chart has flaws and is of limited use, and that it could be argued that belief is a more on/off concept. However, I was just pointing out that "it could be said" that "has no belief in = belief that there is no", or in other words different people could have a different understanding of the two terms and for good reason.

The (non-)distinction that Apology was making, and which I was responding to was this:

Of course, their definition "An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god" differs significantly from the weak atheist definition, "Anyone who lacks a belief in God."

Please notice the phrasing here "lacks a belief in god"--not "lacks some belief in god" or "lacks a firm belief in god" but "lacks A belief in god." O.K? So, yes, just as I said--there are OTHER contexts in which "has no" and "lacks" are different--although only because certain qualifiers are taken as read. "I lack money" is certainly less absolute than "I have no money." But "I lack some-non-divisible-thing" (such as "a belief") is exactly and completely and inarguably identical to "I have no some-non-divisible-thing."

Do you understand the point at issue now?

 

[Egg]

Please notice the phrasing here "lacks a belief in god"--not "lacks some belief in god" or "lacks a firm belief in god" but "lacks A belief in god." O.K? So, yes, just as I said--there are OTHER contexts in which "has no" and "lacks" are different--although only because certain qualifiers are taken as read. "I lack money" is certainly less absolute than "I have no money." But "I lack some-non-divisible-thing" (such as "a belief") is exactly and completely and inarguably identical to "I have no some-non-divisible-thing."

Do you understand the point at issue now?

Aye, you're quite right there. "Lacks belief" and "lacks a belief" - I did miss that. You've got to laugh at the difference one letter can make.

My apologies for wasting both our time over that one.

 

[Apology]

Apology, that's quite a bit of writing. I'd rather not use the quote function and break it up. The problem for me in this post is not figure out which parts need to be responded to; I don't want to get hung up on tangents.

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that of 'withholding judgment'. That's fine; there's nothing wrong with not committing to one side or the other on matters of science. From the scientific POV, a fact is something that it would be perverse to not tentatively agree to ('the sun is hot'). There is always the option of revising once new data comes in throws the original idea into doubt.

-- If a scientist finds a new particle, and says it shows the existence of god... how? Everyone can talk pro and con about the existence of the new particle, just like the existence of N-Rays, but that it shows proof of god is just the scientist's opinion; it's not enough, unless he can show evidence that this is the case. Scientists' opinions don't count for squat unless they can connect the dots. Until then, they are valued for what they are: opinions.

Theism is a specific belief about supernatural beings. Those who say 'yes' to that belief are theists. Because there is a superabundance of theists in the world, who have a significant affect over government, culture, and society, a word was created for those that did not believe: atheists. 'Atheism' is an odd word: it has no real reason to exist, since it actually espouses no tenants. As such, it seems to be a word created by theists to assert that atheists believe and have faith in something, at least to the point that it warrants an -ism. However, nothing about atheists' lack of 'saying yes to the supernatural belief' actually warrants this.

-- there are some that use 'agnostic' as 'have no knowledge', outside of religious discussions. That's all fine and good, but the definition changes when talking about religious issues and the standards of evidence that agnosticism addresses. Agnosticism, as opposed to atheism, actually DOES have a position to assert.
-- and yes, there are many in the popular culture who very much want 'agnosticism' to mean 'maybe' in religions matters. Just as the popular culture want to use 'hypothesis' to mean 'guess'. The problem is when we start talking about scientific matters, we MUST insist that hypothesis does NOT mean 'guess'. We already have a word for that: 'guess', and we shouldn't destroy the utility of the word 'hypothesis' because of popular nomenclature.
-- likewise, I (capital I) believe that we shouldn't destroy the usefulness of a word such as agnostic, by causing it to take on on the meaning of 'maybe' for such discussions in religion. Because we already have a word for people who say 'maybe': atheist: those who can't "Yes, I believe in god/s".

I believe it's critical to keep agnostic as a position on evidence, no on belief, because it's important to differentiate the atheists who could convinced by new 'evidence', experience, interpretation, etc, and become theists, and the atheists who can not be convinced. Because by turning into 'maybe', it destroys the it's assertion of humanity's limitations, as creatures inside the universe, from recognizing creatures outside of it. I believe it's important to keep such a position of humility intact, and not have it wasted because some people out there don't want to get lumped in with 'those atheists'.

If someone wants to say 'maybe', and believes they can be convinced, let them call themselves gnostic atheists, and be done it it. Or not call themselves anything at all. No reason to put yourself in a box just because of what everyone else is doing.

I read this post but I forgot to answer it Let me get back to you tomorrow or the next day so I can give it the time it deserves. I promise I'll address it.

 

[bignickel]

Edit: for my above post

Please substitute the word 'theory' for the word 'hypothesis'. My statement was about 'theory' not meaning 'guess'.

I've stopped my experiment of no coffee during the day; back to coffee.

 

[Tailgater]

Wow, I just read the entire thread and my brain hurts. I vote for seperation of theist, agnostic, and atheist. I think that theists and atheists have a belief, despite the pages of semantics. Both have groups with agendas. I feel similar distaste for strong atheists that I do for strong theists. They have the same tone. They say "you are" alot. You are this and you are that. You're one of us because I can prove it through my use of the english language. Both groups think the other should be wiped out or civilization will end. Polar opposites. You are with us or against us. Theists can't prove that god exists and atheists can't prove that god does not. Both believe that what they think is correct and laugh at the thoughts of the other side. Just my opinion of course. I'll stick with agnostic.

I like the Dawkins model. It could be shortened a little.

 

[skeptical]

Wow, I just read the entire thread and my brain hurts. I vote for seperation of theist, agnostic, and atheist. I think that theists and atheists have a belief, despite the pages of semantics. Both have groups with agendas. I feel similar distaste for strong atheists that I do for strong theists. They have the same tone. They say "you are" alot. You are this and you are that. You're one of us because I can prove it through my use of the english language. Both groups think the other should be wiped out or civilization will end. Polar opposites. You are with us or against us. Theists can't prove that god exists and atheists can't prove that god does not. Both believe that what they think is correct and laugh at the thoughts of the other side. Just my opinion of course. I'll stick with agnostic.

I like the Dawkins model. It could be shortened a little.

I will admit to not reading this entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been posted, but from my own personal experience, I think you are a little quick to equate Atheists and Theists. While it is true that there are "rabbid" Atheists in the world, the number is vanishingly small, compared to a large number of "rabbid" fundamentalists. (albeit, still a minority at least in the West)

I cannot think of a single well-known Atheist who thinks theists should be wiped out, although I can think of entire groups of Theists who do. (Taliban, Al Queda, any country living under Sharia law, anyone who wants the Mosaic code enforced) I am sure you can find a blogger somewhere who says such things, but they do not even make a blip on the radar, and cannot reasonably be compared to the significant number of Theists who would wipe out every "infidel" if they could.

I would also point out the obvious, that the burden of proof is on someone making a claim, not someone disputing it. Making a theistic claim is a positive claim, the onus of evidence is on the claimant. If you claim you have magic yogurt that makes you invisible, then you have the burden of producing evidence. I do not have to show that your yogurt doesn't do this to claim it doesn't if you cannot produce such evidence. (this example shamelessly pulled from Sam Harris)

There is no need to "prove" that God does not exist (whatever one happens to mean by that term), it is enough to be an Atheist to say that the evidence of a personal creator is either bad or non-existent, no need to come up with any evidence at all because the Atheist is not the person making the original claim. I know there are some Atheists who do go so far as to say they actually claim there is no God, but that is by far not necessary to be an Atheist. It is simply enough to say that the evidence for a personal creator is poor, and therefore you do not accept that one exists.

I consider myself to be, among many other things, an Atheist because I simply lack a belief in any personal creator. I don't laugh at those who do, I just think the reasons they have for their beliefs are really bad reasons, having carefully examined the reasons over a long period of time.

I hear this sort of comparison between Atheists and Theists made all the time, and I simply see very little evidence to back it up.

 

[Tailgater]

I will admit to not reading this entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been posted, but from my own personal experience, I think you are a little quick to equate Atheists and Theists. While it is true that there are "rabbid" Atheists in the world, the number is vanishingly small, compared to a large number of "rabbid" fundamentalists. (albeit, still a minority at least in the West)

I cannot think of a single well-known Atheist who thinks theists should be wiped out, although I can think of entire groups of Theists who do. (Taliban, Al Queda, any country living under Sharia law, anyone who wants the Mosaic code enforced) I am sure you can find a blogger somewhere who says such things, but they do not even make a blip on the radar, and cannot reasonably be compared to the significant number of Theists who would wipe out every "infidel" if they could.

Good post. I would only like to clarify that I meant the elimination of beliefs and not physically eliminating people (except your example ).

 

[Tailgater]

I consider myself to be, among many other things, an Atheist because I simply lack a belief in any personal creator. I don't laugh at those who do, I just think the reasons they have for their beliefs are really bad reasons, having carefully examined the reasons over a long period of time.

I hear this sort of comparison between Atheists and Theists made all the time, and I simply see very little evidence to back it up.

You have come to a conclusion. Do you feel that someone who has not yet reached a conclusion should be grouped with you?

 

[skeptical]

You have come to a conclusion. Do you feel that someone who has not yet reached a conclusion should be grouped with you?

Everyone has come to some conclusion, the only question is the level of confidence in the conclusion.

I conclude simply by living in the world and experiencing it, reading deeply on the question and reflecting, that there is no personal God. I also quite freely admit that I could be wrong about that, and I am willing to hear arguments to the contrary, assuming that I have not heard them a thousand times before.

I suppose that makes me a "Agnostic Atheist", although I tend to dislike this terminology because it confuses people.

I don't know you, but I strongly suspect that you have _some_ conclusion about the existence of a personal deity. You may say "I don't know", which is perfectly fair and honest, but that is a question of _knowledge_, the question of _belief_ is logically distinct, though obviously related.

If someone asks if you _believe_ in a personal deity, I think you would have to say that you either do or you don't, with the caveat of course that you could be wrong. But I have a hard time believing that you have simply no belief whatsoever about it one way or the other.

So, this is a long-winded way of answering you by saying: I think you most likely have a conclusion, however tentative it might be, so it is just up to you to figure out what it is.

 

[cafink]

That depend on how you define the groups. If we define our groups to be "those who believe god exists" and "those who do not believe god exists," then yes, those who have come to the conclusion that god does not exist belong in the same group as those who have not come to a conclusion.

 

[skeptical]

That depend on how you define the groups. If we define our groups to be "those who believe god exists" and "those who do not believe god exists," then yes, those who have come to the conclusion that god does not exist belong in the same group as those who have not come to a conclusion.

Agreed and that is generally how I define the groups, and how I have seen others define the groups, including the groups themselves.

I have to say again though, I think it is in a way dishonest for someone to say they haven't come to a conclusion. I have a very difficult time believing that there is any adult on the planet who has not come to _some_ conclusion about a personal deity. It is simply a question that every person with a functioning cortex is going to ask themselves early on in their lives. (and yes, that may be the fallacy of "argument from incredulity", but I'm going with it)

For an adult to say "I have no opinion" on the question of a personal God is to me like someone saying they have no opinion on whether they are attractive or not. You don't have to be a beauty contestant to have wondered about this very early on, and have come to some conclusion, however tentative or non-reality based it might be. If you asked someone: "do you think you are attractive", and they said "I have no opinion about that subject", I think it would be fair to say that person is not being truthful. The same goes for the question of a personal deity, everyone has some opinion on the matter.

I think the majority of people are simply uncomfortable with the "Atheist" label, because it carries so much baggage, and theists tend to use that to their advantage and tilt at strawman arguments. Saying you are "Agnostic", gives you more room to work with in discussions, although it also comes with its own set of baggage.

I understand this well, as I only recently have decided to abandon the Agnostic label, primarily because its just not an honest statement about my beliefs. I lack belief in a personal deity, therefore I am an Atheist. As I understand it, this is the generally accepted definition by the majority of Atheists.