• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Your thoughts on atheism...

canadarocks

Thinker
canadarocks
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
155
I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions.

Thanks.
 
In some cases, there is no difference. For example, I consider myself to be both an agnostic, and an atheist. I am an agnostic because I do not know whether or not some sort of God exists, and I am an atheist because I am not a theist, where a theist is somebody who believes that some sort of specific god does exist.

Note that agnosticism has to do with what you know (or think you know). Atheism and theism have to do with what you do, or do not, believe.


Dr. Stupid
 
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Note that agnosticism has to do with what you know (or think you know). Atheism and theism have to do with what you do, or do not, believe.
Click to expand...
I guess I think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know what he believes.
 
I guess I think of an agnostic as a person who doesn't know what he believes
Click to expand...

I know what I don't believe, such as "the Bible is the word of god" and that "organized religion is the one true way", and I know that I believe theories that are supported by observable evidence and are repeatable. I can easily imagine that there is no god as well as concede the existance of a higher being if provided evidence that I consider sufficient. Would I be considered agnostic or atheist?
 
canadarocks said:
I know what I don't believe, such as "the Bible is the word of god" and that "organized religion is the one true way", and I know that I believe theories that are supported by observable evidence and are repeatable. I can easily imagine that there is no god as well as concede the existance of a higher being if provided evidence that I consider sufficient. Would I be considered agnostic or atheist?
Click to expand...

Are there any gods that you believe exist? Not those that "you could imagine could exist," but a god that you believe does exist?

Take out a sheet of paper and list all the gods you think _do_ exist. Not those that you have not ruled out (that would actually be infinite), but those who you believe do exist.

If that sheet is empty, then I would call you an atheist ("without belief in god").

Agnostic is a different issue, and will depend on who you talk to. From my perspective, I would ask, suppose a god or gods does (do) exist. Do you think we could know it? If yes, then I would not call you agnostic.

Others may have different opinions on agnostic, but I will say I am not comfortable with agnostic = don't know whether god exists or not. Despite the claims of theists, no one really knows whether god exists or not, so saying someone is agnostic is not all that informative.
 
I recommend not worrying about it much. This is a very common question on boards like these, and nothing definitive is really ever concluded. These words are used in different ways by different parts of the US population (I restrict myself to the US because I am most familiar with English as it is used in the states). I had an old philosophical dictionary, for example, that defined atheism as the philosophical stance that God's existence can be disproven, which is rather different than how we tend to use it on this board: atheism = a-theism, or a lack of theism; a lack of belief in god. So really, whenver you use the term you really need to define how you are using it, or risk confusion.

In general, however, agnostic is the position of unknowability, whether philosophical (we can't in principle know if god exists) or personal (I haven't made my mind up yet), whereas atheism usually entails a statement of disbelief, again whether philosophical or personal. As you have found out, there is a fair amount of overlap in those definitions; both terms can apply to some positions.
 
Thanks. Very informative discussion and I am starting to see where there is not going to be a concensus of opinion. As my sheet of paper is blank, I would be considered an atheist by some. By other measures, an agnostic. I guess the moniker of "free-thinker" may be a better route (i.e. open mind that would consider evidence concerning god(s) as it comes).
 
Originally posted by roger

I had an old philosophical dictionary, for example, that defined atheism as the philosophical stance that God's existence can be disproven
Click to expand...
This is often referred to as 'strong atheism'. I can't recall ever seeing anyone even try to actually make a case for it.
...which is rather different than how we tend to use it on this board: atheism = a-theism, or a lack of theism
Click to expand...
For the sake of consistency then, taking this stance earns you a rather unfortunate label: 'weak atheist'.

Introducing oneself as a "free-thinker" is likely to be met with rolled eyeballs. I usually just tell people I'm not superstitious (most people are glad to hear that -- right up until they figure out that it includes their faviorite brand of superstition as well).
 
Aren't we all atheists?



Some of believe in no gods.




And some of us believe in 1 out of a thousand past gods and disbelieve in the other 999.



Is there really that big a difference in our positions?
 
I don't know whose word it is but I like the term: apatheistic, meaning I don't really care what God or gods you may or may not believe in.

Perhaps you should make up your own term for the belief that you have. I did.

I always find myself choosing the middle way. I'm not Buddhist but that's the way I end up choosing.

I call myself an Experiential Deist. Which to believers sounds like I accept a God over all things. But what it means to me is that I've had an experience that I have called God. I am sure it is the same spiritual experience that Christians have. I was a Christian when I had it. I've also had Buddhistlike spiritual experiences.

What it comes down to for me is that across time and culture people have had feelings of God. That has led them to believe that God exists but all it means is that feelings exist. If you think God is a feeling you can be an Experiential Deist too.

It's a flexible term and I like that. I can choose to explain it if I have to as inoffensively as I want depending on the circumstances.

I'm on the lookout for good terms (I love words) so if anyone cares to be creative, maybe I'll steal yours.
 
Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right? Sounds to me like we may very well be stuck in a Matrix of sorts. Hmm ... yet where could it have originated? Well, I have heard that the temporal springs forth from the Eternal. Could that be a possibility?
 
balrog666 said:
Aren't we all atheists?


Some of believe in no gods.


And some of us believe in 1 out of a thousand past gods and disbelieve in the other 999.


Is there really that big a difference in our positions?
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is there are no true <S>scotsmen</S> theists?

/Atheist. But would never describe myself as "free-thinker".

canadarocks I think you've seen some working definitions of atheism and theism. I consider myself an atheist, but that dosen't mean I'm beyond convincing otherwise.

I don't know whether a god(s) exists, so in that sense I can be called an agnostic. I also have a positive disbelief in god(s) which makes me an atheist. In the same vein I also have a positive disbelief in the easter bunny. I can never prove the easter bunny dosen't exist, but I still think he dosen't.

Of that other type of atheist you mentioned, (the type that thinks they can prove all gods does not exist), they are fairly rare, and I've never met one. However, some people are strongly atheist about a particular god (and hence about particular claims commonly associated with that god). If the claims that are made about a particular god are mutually exclusive, then you can say with high epistemological certainty that either the claims are wrong, or the god does not exist.
I'll give you an example (using the most common western god):

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.
 
It's a conscious attempt to rid yourself of an inate, evolved trait (belief in God). I say "conscious" on the idea that religion is so natural. (That doesn't make it true, of course.)

Why bother being an athiet? An atheist should commit suicide as swiftly and pleasurably as possible, and otherwise lead the most amoral life they can until they get up the nerve to do it. (I know there are logical, non-suicidal benefits to atheism, I just don't think they outweigh the alternative.)

There's no evidence for a God. Any faith I have, therefore, is tremendously powerful, since it's all-the-more baseless considering that lack of evidence. And I wouldn't hesitate to exploit my faith for comfort, power, and to communicate certain ideas "for the greater good". Indeed, I would even foster my own faith if I had the time and motivation. (I don't.)

I REALLY don't belong here........ :D
 
Atheism is too easy, and I find it is empty. Whatever happened to jumping through dogmatic hoops and retreating to mystery every time you had to think about something? There are no challenging contradictory ideas to feverently believe against my nature to reject outlandish claims as substitutes for truth. Why can we not gather to toss our change into a plate and cower in fear of the devil, which we know to be free thought or anything else not like us? Ideas are big and scary things which carry with them the possibility of being wrong. Let's train ourselves like Russian space monkeys and award ourselves mental bananas for charitable deeds. Hell, let's award ourselves mental bananas just for showing up and listening to the head monkey. Because it's perfectly healthy to go completely insane as long as you only do it in groups on the weekend. Horray for that feeling we get for hopping around blindfolded in a high altitude tub of ice while chanting broadway tunes backwards until we feel secure because we're doing it together, for that is the wonderful feeling of religion, and that is exactly what atheism is missing. Whakka whakka doo doo I AM GENGHIS KHAN!
 
c4ts said:
Whakka whakka doo doo I AM GENGHIS KHAN!
Click to expand...
Khan you are full of whacka doo doo. I was with you though right up til you started talkin about them damm Roosky Monkees. Keep you damm bananas. Here is one space monkee goin to heaven wearin the good ol stars and stripes of old glory herself. Do whacka do whacka do and God Bless 'Merica

(paid for by the Roosky Monkey Defamation League
a subidiary of Angels on your Shoulder
a for profit, psuedo religious, front company
for the God, Guns, and Guts 2nd Ammendment Church of Light)
 
While I don't like summing up my opinions in one word, I find "atheist" is the closest term for me.

Iacchus said:
Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right? Sounds to me like we may very well be stuck in a Matrix of sorts. Hmm ... yet where could it have originated? Well, I have heard that the temporal springs forth from the Eternal. Could that be a possibility?
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with staying on topic?
 
Ratman_tf said:

Do you have a problem with staying on topic?
Click to expand...
I don't know, what don't you believe in, besides God that is? And yet if man were nothing but a creature of faith, how can he not be predisposed towards the belief in something? And why not God, since that would be the belief of all beliefs?
 
Ratman_tf said:

Do you have a problem with staying on topic?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't know, what don't you believe in, besides God that is? And yet if man were nothing but a creature of faith, how can he not be predisposed towards the belief in something? And why not God, since that would be the belief of all beliefs?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered, Ratman...
 
canadarocks said:
Thanks. Very informative discussion and I am starting to see where there is not going to be a concensus of opinion. As my sheet of paper is blank, I would be considered an atheist by some.
Click to expand...

And a lot of people will note that these are not mutually exclusive terms, and you could well be one of either or both.

agnostic-theist
agnostic-atheist

etc

I agree with roger. Don't get caught up on labels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom