but i find the level of anger and outrage in some of these vocal atheists to be disproportionate to the level of suffering, if any, they've endured as a result of their atheism. upon engaging these folks in discussion to try to understand their level of outrage, i find the core experiences that resulted in their zealous behavior to be severely lacking in the sort of personal oppression or cruelty one would expect from such a level of anger.
I mean, really? Really?
Does one need to be personally afflicted by something in order to be outraged by it? Is that your rubric? Because that's a pretty fucking retarded rubric. I've never
1) Been to africa, or
2) gotten AIDS
but I'm still fucking livid at the thought of the Catholic church preaching anti-condom messages in Africa. is this not correct? should I only feel outrage at something proportional to the amount of suffering i've personally endured at its hands? or is it perhaps possible to find the state of a particular aspect of a particular society contemptuous, and be outraged at it?
i am outraged by the practices, beliefs, wishy-washy intellectual dishonesty, and just general ignorance of many, many American religious folk, and yet I grew up in New Jersey, whose population of fundies you can count on one hand. i rarely encounter such people and yet i resent them. this is perfectly acceptable, as i have other sources of information about things than, you know, personally encountering every goddamned aspect of existence
but i find the level of anger and outrage in some of these vocal atheists to be disproportionate to the level of suffering, if any, they've endured as a result of their atheism. upon engaging these folks in discussion to try to understand their level of outrage, i find the core experiences that resulted in their zealous behavior to be severely lacking in the sort of personal oppression or cruelty one would expect from such a level of anger.
I mean, really? Really?
Does one need to be personally afflicted by something in order to be outraged by it? Is that your rubric? Because that's a pretty fucking retarded rubric. I've never
1) Been to africa, or
2) gotten AIDS
but I'm still fucking livid at the thought of the Catholic church preaching anti-condom messages in Africa. is this not correct? should I only feel outrage at something proportional to the amount of suffering i've personally endured at its hands? or is it perhaps possible to find the state of a particular aspect of a particular society contemptuous, and be outraged at it?
i am outraged by the practices, beliefs, wishy-washy intellectual dishonesty, and just general ignorance of many, many American religious folk, and yet I grew up in New Jersey, whose population of fundies you can count on one hand. i rarely encounter such people and yet i resent them. this is perfectly acceptable, as i have other sources of information about things than, you know, personally encountering every goddamned aspect of existence
mike, did you know that
i am very opinionated on let's say, the death penalty
just the other day i wrote a giant post on the subject with very little prompt that got pretty personal and heated
yet, i've never been executed
nor have i even personally known someone who has been executed. the idea of executions outrage me, the fact that there are parts of the world including the country right next to mine that are still executing people infuriates and upsets me.
so, it's the sort of thing that can get me all riled up and argumentative and talky.
that said
i can still acknowledge the difference between people who are ardent supporters of the death penalty (and are thus worthy of my contempt and the sort of folk i want to argue with) and people who either don't really think about it or sorta support the death penalty without having really thought the subject through.
i think i can be pretty good about commanding my outrage and anger and directing it at appropriate levels depending on who i am talking to and the amount which they support or are involved with something that pisses me the fuck off
so no, i don't think you need to be personally involved with or subjected to something horrible to get outraged by someone else having to suffer from it
but blindly flipping out on anyone even remotely resembling the sort of person that offends you, regardless of the complexities and nuances of the circumstance, seems to suggest the sort of personal level of anguish that usually stems from personal experience with the subject in question.
when that personal experience is lacking in an individual, it baffles me when they are still capable of blindly lashing out at someone who is even vaguely related to their personal axe to grind.
i'm a religious guy. the religion i follow, and the institution to which i am vaguely affiliated, has never circumcised baby girls, forcibly deprived native americans of their culture, burned accused witches alive, stoned heretics, oppressed scientific research, or called for people to assassinate their president.
does this mean my religion is squeaky clean, or that i personally am faultless and not accountable for any sort of wrongdoing? of course not.
but to listen to some evangelical atheists tell it, all religions are the same in their negative aspects and they are all accountable for the heinous transgression against humanity committed by some of them over time. every religious person, in the viewpoint of these folk, is at best ignorant, foolish, and self-deceptive and at worst actively malicious and sinister. the fury with which they will express these views can be brief and sudden, but it can be very shocking in the universal nature of their grievances with any religious person regardless of religion or denomination.
this is the sort of conduct that would be unfortunate yet understandable from someone who has personally suffered at the hands of a religious culture, society, or even individual. if your bible-thumping daddy beat you for dressing sinfully, or you were molested by a priest, or whatever. that i could understand why a person would have a massively angry and combative attitude towards all religion regardless of who or what it is.
i wouldn't agree with it, of course, but i could understand it in the same way the anger and bitterness of any victim of abuse or torment or oppression can be understood without being endorsed.
yet when i find someone who has never experienced anything remotely like these sorts of personal horrors still possess the sort of blind, all-consuming outrage completely overlooking complexities and nuance of the subject matter, quite frankly i think i'm being fair in considering it baffling.
i don't see how that's being smug, or a fence-sitter, really. what fence am i sitting on? think i have pretty clear views on these issues.
A girl tried to get me to go to the student christian group's meeting while I was in my chemistry lab wearing an Iron Maiden T-shirt a couple of weeks ago, I had to struggle not to laugh and be a dick, but I'm not sure that there is a worse person to try and convert than a science student that listens to metal.
Too bad about Nicko McBrain though...
And Dave Mustaine! Honestly, what is with all these metal musicians all the sudden converting to Christianity?
McBrain converted to Christianity in 1999 after an experience in the Spanish River Church, near his Boca Raton, Florida home. His wife Rebecca had been asking him to attend her church with her and on entering the Church McBrain found himself crying as he experienced a "calling". Recounting the tale, he said: '"I just sat there thinking, 'I didn't drink last night…why can't I stand? I had this love affair with Jesus going on in my heart.
Really not anything I can relate to there. At least with black/death metal musicians, the worst you're ever going to get is them converting to Asatru.
Is this lashing out describing how they carry themselves in a religious discussion or are you saying that viewpoint is outrageous?
I can certainly understand a need to be civil.
their behavior.
also, the sort of blind way they sometimes apply their outrage.
it's a common complaint i have, when some people will, for example, say "religion does _____" when what they mean to say is "christians i have met do _______" or whatever.
over-generalizing and snapping at people who have almost nothing to do with the people you are really angry at.
it's like saying "all christians walk around with god hates fags protest signs and show up at the funerals of soldiers to cause shit"
no
all christians do not do that
fred phelps does that. fred phelps and his weirdo loony group composed of his family and close friends do that.
if a person is going to say, bitch about religion in general, that's fine, but their gripe better be something that's universally applicable to all religions.
good luck with that, really.
there is certainly things some religious people do and beliefs that some religions publicly profess that are horrible and a person regardless of their background or experience has a right to get outraged about
but like, c'mon
some of us aren't those people, jeez
that's what i am getting at, basically
when you lose the ability to distinguish between folk and you're just sorta blindly raging at "religion" in general i think you've probably lost touch with sensible behavior
especially if you don't even have the sort of negative personal experience with religion to even partially justify having that sort of blind rage
His manner of sophistry is to enter a discussion unrelated to his personal philosophy and espouse it, intentionally obfuscating the nature of the discussion by utilizing terminology that the discussion is currently talking about (God, in this case) but having his own separate definition for it that functions exclusively for his purposes.
He does this so he can argue with people about what he thinks without them realizing what the fuck he's talking about until they get him to openly define his word usage. When he does, it's made clear he's utilizing his own definitions of words and expects you to use them his way, too.
Why he does this seems to be nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
Sophistry, I say.
I have made the mistake of reading the last 8 pages of this thread and getting steadily more angry at podly but not quite understanding why, this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Sure, you can use a bunch of words that within that system of words proves the existence of some higher power, but what use is that outside of that system and in real life? Very little, it seems to me.
Then again as an empiricist and physics/chemistry student, the very idea of thinking that you have reached a truth through nothing other than thought and/or discussion irks me and just seems ridiculous. In physics, you can start with something, fiddle with maths (which is pretty much just thinking), and end up with something that seems to be a truth, but then you go out and find whether it actually is true or not.
You'll have to excuse me, my science boner is showing.
Absolutely not. You are a being. God is not a being. God is the Being of beings.
God is being.
But he's not a being.
Ahh, I'm getting that thing where you look at a word too long and it's meaning starts to break down. I forget what it's called. Aphasia, maybe? They talk about it on Radio Lab every now and then.
At risk of offending Elki, I would like to try to bring back Podly's confusing metaphysics to the concept of religion because I think it's important to the root of this discussion.
Podly is using a lot of fancy words to make a very ancient and simple argument about God. Aristotle defined God as the "unmoved mover." In other words, everything that moves must have a mover, therefore, we can infer that there must be some initial "unmoved mover" that started everything because the idea of an infinite chain of movers is ridiculous.
When the Jews encountered the Greeks, they liked this argument and started thinking of their god philosophically as this unmoved mover. Previously, Yahweh was basially a standard henotheistic lord of the pantheon.
Christianity is often described as a mixing of the Hebrew and Greek worldviews, and in this sense, this is a good way of thinking about it. In the gospels, God takes on elements of Aristotle's idea. John says that before anything there was this "Word," actually "Logos." It is easy to compare this initial Logos to the concept of an unmoved mover that started everything (and note that this is expressly different than the God of the OT where stuff exists before he starts creating it.)
Fast-forward 1,200 years and Aquinas rediscovers Aristotle after a long dark-age slumber of ignorance. Aquinas really likes the unmoved mover argument and he uses the same logic to make his famous "fivefold proof of god." The five proofs are:
1. Everything has a mover. Therefore, since infinite regression is ridiculous, there must be a first mover. It's God.
2. Everything has a cause. Therefore, to avoid infinite regression, there must be a first cause: God.
3. Everything is contingent on some logically previous thing; for A to exist, B is necessary. For B to exist, C is necessary. And so on. But this can't be an infinite regression either. Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent on anything else and is just necessary. Guess who? God!
4. Some things are greater than others. Somehow this means there must be a Greatest thing: God.
5. Since everything seems to have some purpose, an intelligence must have designed it, the intelligence being, of course, God.
As you can see, #1, #2, and #3 are essentially the same arguments. It is also, essentially, the argument that Podly is making. He is saying that existence as we know it cannot be contingent on something forever in an endless regression. There must be something, which he calls Being with a capital B, at the root of our existence. That something is, of course, God.
Another way to restate Aristotle/Aquinas' argument, which I'm personally more familiar with, is called the Transcental Argument. This one is fun because you get Christians saying you can't even use logic to attack Christianity because in order to believe in logic, you have to belief in the root thing that "proves logic,"—that thing being, coincidentally, the Christian God.
Anyway, David Hume disproved this argument 300 years ago*, so I'm not sure why people still make it. But there you go: Podly is right to say that this way of thinking about God has informed Christianity for most of its history.
*
How do you know that God does not have a mover or a cause or a logically previous contingency?
You don't. God is tautologically defined as the first mover/cause/necessity/Being.
But if you can tautologically define God in this way, it is just as logical to tautologically define the Universe itself this way.
The argument is also problematic because it relies on inferences drawn from parts of the Universe to talk about the Universe as a whole.
over-generalizing and snapping at people who have almost nothing to do with the people you are really angry at.
it's like saying "all christians walk around with god hates fags protest signs and show up at the funerals of soldiers to cause shit"
no
all christians do not do that
What an incredible straw man.
I am unfamiliar with any atheist who has ever equated all Christians with the WBC.
In my experience, liberal/progressive "religious" people like you often use this straw man as chaff so that you don't have to address the actual criticisms that atheists bring forth about inconsistencies in liberal/progressive religiosity. Which is, as I'm sure MikeMan would agree, sort of infuriating.
over-generalizing and snapping at people who have almost nothing to do with the people you are really angry at.
it's like saying "all christians walk around with god hates fags protest signs and show up at the funerals of soldiers to cause shit"
no
all christians do not do that
What an incredible straw man.
I am unfamiliar with any atheist who has ever equated all Christians with the WBC.
In my experience, liberal/progressive "religious" people like you often use this straw man as chaff so that you don't have to address the actual criticisms that atheists bring forth about inconsistencies in liberal/progressive religiosity. Which is, as I'm sure MikeMan would agree, sort of infuriating.
Oh please, now who is throwing up strawmen?
I was talking about blowhards who lose their shit over religion. Do you count yourself amongst them? You don't have to, I wasn't talking about you or Mike or really anyone in this thread in particular, but if you feel like counting yourself amongst the sort of uptight wads who will consider all religious people equally awful to someone like Phelps, go ahead.
Because those people exist Qingu, I've met them and interacted with them. That was all the basic point I was making when folk like you and Mike decided to get all huffed up about it.
Mike decided to call me a "smug fence-sitter" for it. Smug, I guess. But what fence am I sitting on? Still don't get that one. Pretty sure if you wanted to make it into some kind of issue of "sides" I'm obviously on one.
And here you are saying "liberal/progressive "religious" people like you".
Touchy, aren't you?
I wasn't targeting you, or calling you out on shit all. In fact, the only person in this thread I directly gave shit to was Pods, and that was for something else.
You want to make criticisms, fine, make criticisms. If you're going to make general criticisms about "liberal/progressive religious people", that's your business. If you're going to snap that "like you" in there, suddenly you are now directing your apparent criticism towards me and if that's the case, fine.
But, be honest about it. Don't try to hide behind snide generalities. I was talking about specific folk I know, and not you. You want to make this about you, or about me? That's cool, but that wasn't where I was going with this.
Your call, man. If you want to criticize me for things I actually think, believe, or say, do so. But don't make a bunch of whining about my criticisms of a small minority of folk I know personally as if they somehow apply to you.
This thread is getting to the point where it needs translation and clarification between parties prior to posting.
Everyone is overgeneralizing like hell when referring to one another and supposed groups, and using unclear language to boot.
Pony: It's called empathy. Atheists are in fact capable of it. There is also the issue of watching the world being run by people who believe in what are, from our perspective, little better than cartoon characters, and sacrificing human lives to said characters, and building lives entirely around them. The vast majority of our species believes in Daffy Duck, and many of them use that belief to do things which are far from harmless, and the harmless ones often make it harder to do anything about it. It is, quite frankly, often very very frightening to think about.
Qingu: Please stop talking to individuals based on their group affiliation. You know damned well that no two people who have actually thought about religion have the same exact stances even if they go to the same ceremonies. Try to focus on arguing individual stances instead of assuming that they agree with the common doctrines of their belief system, it'll save a lot of time in obtaining the lists of exceptions.
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
I gotta say -- that's pretty terrible. Making her believe that 'daddy is bad' isn't a bit different than your brainwashing her to believe that 'mommy is stupid'.
I do believe he's "brainwashing" her to believe that 'god is imaginary.'
See, that's just the thing. I'm not.
I had no desire to talk to my kids about religion, because I don't think they're capable of really understanding it beyond either believing what someone tells them exists (which kids pretty much always do, at least in my experience) or just kind of ignoring it.
As my daughter is a very curious little girl, she's taken what she's been told to heart, and all I've done in response is tell her that I don't think that's the case. I had nothing to do with putting these ideas in her head, and didn't want to go there, atheist or not until much later in her life, when she'd be capable of rational discourse on the subject.
My only expectation has always been to educate them about the world around them, teach them to question everything, and look for the answers that make sense based on the information they already know. And if proven wrong to rethink things entirely. Sadly, I'm going to have to start from an already losing position, since she now thinks that things which you can't see or feel or measure in any way are perfectly acceptable as "real".
This thread is getting to the point where it needs translation and clarification between parties prior to posting.
Everyone is overgeneralizing like hell when referring to one another and supposed groups, and using unclear language to boot.
Pony: It's called empathy. Atheists are in fact capable of it. There is also the issue of watching the world being run by people who believe in what are, from our perspective, little better than cartoon characters, and sacrificing human lives to said characters, and building lives entirely around them. The vast majority of our species believes in Daffy Duck, and many of them use that belief to do things which are far from harmless, and the harmless ones often make it harder to do anything about it. It is, quite frankly, often very very frightening to think about.
Qingu: Please stop talking to individuals based on their group affiliation. You know damned well that no two people who have actually thought about religion have the same exact stances even if they go to the same ceremonies. Try to focus on arguing individual stances instead of assuming that they agree with the common doctrines of their belief system, it'll save a lot of time in obtaining the lists of exceptions.
Bullshit. Being empathetic to the plights of others doesn't entitle anybody to act like a blindly raging douchebag waving an accusatory finger at anyone who even smells a little like the people they see as fucking up the world.
Every group has their douchebags. If you want to focus on that, that's totally understandable as they usually are the most vocal about things. Maybe I just don't understand what it is exactly Pony is trying to say and others are getting in a huff about.
Tasteticle on
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
Unicorns are not real. They will never be encountered on earth. However, according to modal logic, it is impossible for unicorns to not exist, and thus is is possible for them to exist. In this modal possibility, things exist per se, they have being. This is especially true if we extend this to possible worlds. If all possible worlds are in the same way -- that they all share being, and how could they not -- then we must say that it seems likely that horses with horns exist, and it*Is impossible to know how many possible worlds there are.*
Sent from my iPhone
The problem with this logic "It is impossible for something to NOT exist, therefore it MUST exist" is the underlying addendum of "...but we just have not OBSERVED it yet"
Now, expanding on L|ama's points- We can conceptualize the idea of a "Unicorn" that simultaneously does and does not exist- This can also be seen as an expansion of Schrodinger's popular idea (involving cats in boxes and whether they are alive or dead) in the sense that until we see a Unicorn they both exist and do not exist and we have no proof either way. The ontological argument (that you have been making) is that since we cannot conclusively prove it DOESN'T exist, then it obviously MUST exist.
This falls into a horrible epistemological trap, however, in that when you apply this idea to other things collective reality begins to break down. For instance, I do not have conclusive proof that the government is NOT actually run by Lizards from the earth's core, therefore the government is simultaneously run and not run by Lizards from the earth's core.
The corollary to this argument is also dangerous- It is easy to dismiss the ontology by simply taking the other side: I do not have conclusive proof that something DOES exist, therefore it must NOT exist.
Descartes expounded on this idea when he contemplated that the only constant he can be provided with is that HE exists and only because he can cogitate. He eventually concluded this paradox by claiming that since he is receiving unbidden sensory input from SOMEWHERE there MUST be an external reality.
In relation to the existence of a "Being" that is "God". You cannot conclusively prove in any other manner than a purely speculative and theoretical basis whether a "Being" that has the qualities of "God" exists. To this end, I take at the most atheistic a view of uncertainty and at the most theistic a very pantheistic view (if anything. I have expressed the limits of how I would view a god much earlier in this thread- it is very much the watchmaker argument, but again, I am firmly agnostic).
Now a problem with using an ontological view to define and "prove" the existence of a "Being" that is omnipotent is the definition breaks down when you begin to ascribe certain elements of most religious stories to the conceptual idea. I can accept that you can ontologically postulate that there is an ultimate being using the traditional ontological argument- however this being cannot be constrained by any religious dogma or else the argument fails as the ontology only holds for defining the existence of this entity.
It is a logical and epistemological error to begin to ascribe traits to this entity. For example the trappings of Christianity. You can "prove" ontologically that an omnipotent being called "God" exists but you cannot use the same arguments to define the statement "He sent his only son so that we may be forgiven and live eternally in his grace" ontologically. The reasoning is because this argument DEPENDS on the validity of the first argument being true.
1. God is the entity of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.
This is St. Anselm's traditionally accepted Ontological argument (correct if I am wrong)
Expanding this to include christian dogma gets this
5. God exists in three parts
6. If God exists, he exists in three parts
7. As God exists, he must necessarily exists in three parts
This gets extremely flimsy as an argument quickly, and it breaks down much quicker the more you expand
8. God loves the world
9. If God exists, he loves the world
10. Since God exists, he loves the world
11. If God loves the world, he sent his son down to redeem it
12. God Loves the world
13. Therefore he sent his son down to redeem it
Because of how quickly this argument looses steam when applied to anything more than the simple existence of a God, I call into question how one can use the metaphysical argument of "God IS Being" as the basis for their belief in a given religious dogma.
Everyone agrees that there is an underlying reality in which we all operate (otherwise, we'd be solipsists).
1) That's not what a solipsist is.
Pedant.
2) "We'd be solipsists" is an entirely confused statement.
Not really. It's just a recognition that multiple people can all be solipsists at the same time. Being a solipsist doesn't mean you're correct in your views.
Because those people exist Qingu, I've met them and interacted with them. That was all the basic point I was making when folk like you and Mike decided to get all huffed up about it.
I guess I just find this surprising because I've interacted with a lot of atheists and I've never, ever seen someone like this. The dominant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens aren't like this.
And here you are saying "liberal/progressive "religious" people like you".
I wasn't intending to pigeonhole you, though I understand that's how it came across. I inferred that this would be a good way to describe you based on the fact that you said you were religious and how you described your religiosity. If you wouldn't describe yourself this way, I apologize.
That said, there are a huge number of "liberal/progressive religious folk" that generally have a view of religion that, I believe, deserves some criticism. the kind of criticism I'm talking about is not "they're just like Fred Phelps." Which was really my main point in responding to you.
And yes, Incenjucar, I know that every religious person has unique views, but there are general patterns and common arguments and interpretations, i.e. "the Bible is a metaphor"
Oh, I'm "working". Or, at least, I am in a state of being at work. But not necessarily Being at work. Work may be Being, though. I'm still working that part out. At work.
Oh, I'm "working". Or, at least, I am in a state of being at work. But not necessarily Being at work. Work may be Being, though. I'm still working that part out. At work.
Theist: Someone who believes there is a god(s).
Atheists: Someone who believes there is no god.
Gnostic: Someone who is sure in their belief.
Agnostic: Someone who is is not 100% sure in their belief.
It's not a 1D scale, it's a 2D scale.
agnostic has absolutely had some definition creep as well.
the problem, in my mind, is that we have no word for the 0 state I posted above. some one who does not believe or disbelieve.
I'm kinda sorta skimming through some posts, but it seems to me that an agnostic, that lacks belief that there is a god or is not a god, perfectly fits your 0 state definition.
I agree with this fine
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
except that those qualifiers serve to confuse discussion, in my opinion. because they suggest that states 0 and 2 exist on a spectrum together, but that spectrum is seperate from state 1 (theism)
when, in reality, it could be said EITHER that all three states are seperate, or else that all three states exist on the same spectrum.
I disagree. If theism means "I hold a belief in god," and atheism at its most basic means the opposite of that, "I do not hold a belief in god," then your state 0 is, I think, absolutely a type of atheism. If you can't decide whether or not you hold a belief in something, then you don't hold a belief in that something. Maybe you will in the future, but you currently don't.
Imagine theism as a club. The bouncer only admits people who say that they believe in god. You get to the door and he asks you, "Do you believe in god?" If you say "I don't know," you'll be out on the street along with the people who answered "No I don't" and "Of course not, because there is no god." You'll be an atheist, because you're not in the club.
your definition of atheism is NOT the opposite of theism, it is the ABSCENCE of theism.
There is a distinct difference between "I don't believe" and "I believe against"
What do you call a person who hates Yahweh but loves Jesus?
Illiterate.
Uh....
Gnostic?
That's sorta Gnosticism's deal.
Gnostics praise Jesus as a bringer of truth and knowledge, and consider Yahweh a horrible creature they call the "Demiurge" who keeps humanity from truth.
Seriously.
Look it up!
This is why I think it's really funny when people say that agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
say that you're an "agnostic atheist"? or an "agnostic leaning towards atheism"?
I dunno. I guess it seems silly to me to be afraid of other people thinking my position is weak, because I know it isn't, and I will happily back it up. When I tell people I'm an agnostic Jew, they ask how that works, and I tell them. No muss, no fuss.
If you, personally, want to be called an atheist, I have no problem with that; I'm not trying to lable other people. My concern has to do with the mission creep that the word "atheist" experiences, whereas people with completely different theological views are suddenly ALSO "atheists".
I can view myself as a goalpost, and say that by the time that I can be defined as an atheist, the word has crept too far.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
I'm an atheist and I have zero objection to religious faith. I have an objection to it's involvement in civic life and society.
Also, being agnostic is very strong position to defend in an argument. I certainly wouldn't call it weak. I don't like it because I believe most agnostics are atheists who simply hate to think of the possibility of eventually offending others, but it's not an unreasonable stance.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
I'm an atheist and I have zero objection to religious faith. I have an objection to it's involvement in civic life and society.
Also, being agnostic is very strong position to defend in an argument. I certainly wouldn't call it weak. I don't like it because I believe most agnostics are atheists who simply hate to think of the possibility of eventually offending others, but it's not an unreasonable stance.
I'm a member of a religion who ALSO has a VERY strong objection to the involvement of religion in civic life and society. You don't have to be an atheist to think that's whack.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
I'm an atheist and I have zero objection to religious faith. I have an objection to it's involvement in civic life and society.
Also, being agnostic is very strong position to defend in an argument. I certainly wouldn't call it weak. I don't like it because I believe most agnostics are atheists who simply hate to think of the possibility of eventual offending others, but it's not an unreasonable stance.
How is it a strong position? Everyone asked what they actually mean go on to define both having an ideology/morality defined in the same way as an atheist, and also believing...exactly the same things as an atheist.
It becomes an argument of insistence, rooted correctly - as you observe - in the idea that by saying you're agnostic you don't offend people with religious faith. It's so you can always say "well I think you might be right". Which is stupid again, coz either there isn't a problem, or you're in a country where the correct answer also isn't "agnostic".
Of course and I never said that. My post was not "I'm an atheist, because....".
I was looking to correct the bolded in the post i quotedpart, where he implied that for people atheism should automatically mean objections to religious faith.
say that you're an "agnostic atheist"? or an "agnostic leaning towards atheism"?
I dunno. I guess it seems silly to me to be afraid of other people thinking my position is weak, because I know it isn't, and I will happily back it up. When I tell people I'm an agnostic Jew, they ask how that works, and I tell them. No muss, no fuss.
If you, personally, want to be called an atheist, I have no problem with that; I'm not trying to lable other people. My concern has to do with the mission creep that the word "atheist" experiences, whereas people with completely different theological views are suddenly ALSO "atheists".
I can view myself as a goalpost, and say that by the time that I can be defined as an atheist, the word has crept too far.
Evander, you never answered my questions from before.
According to quantum mechanics, there is a very slight possibility that I will fall through the matter of my chair when I go to sit down. It could happen; it is within the realm of probability. It most likely won't, though. And so I do not modify my behavior to account for the possibility of it happening.
For the italicized reason, I say "I do not believe I am going to fall through my chair." I might also say "I know I am not going to fall through my chair." Whatever word I use to state my position, however, is less important than the fact that I do not behave as if falling through my chair is something I even need to consider.
Now, take someone who says they are an agnostic, who is "not sure about the existence of God." Well, okay. Does this person behave any differently from someone who says they are sure no gods exist? Does this person ever go to church "just in case they're wrong"? Do they erect hecatombs to Zeus because "Zeus may exist?" Do they ask for forgiveness from Jesus because, even though they aren't sure Christian-Yahweh exists, they might be wrong?
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know a single person who labels themself an "agnostic" who behaves this way. Every agnostic I know is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist.
So this is how I think the word "atheist" should be used. If it walks like an atheist, quacks like an atheist, and looks like an atheist, it's an atheist—regardless of this person's metaphysical position on the nature of belief and certainty (which, for many people, is not even coherent to begin with).
Evander, I would certainly call you an atheist (or a Jewish atheist to be charitable to your desire to self-identify Jewish). As far as I know, your behavior indicates you think Yahweh's existence is about as likely as Zeus's, or falling through your chair. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
My problem with saying that I'm "agnostic" is that people seem to regard it as a very weak stance. If I say that I'm an "atheist" then people understand that I have substantial objections to religious faith.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
I'm an atheist and I have zero objection to religious faith. I have an objection to it's involvement in civic life and society.
Also, being agnostic is very strong position to defend in an argument. I certainly wouldn't call it weak. I don't like it because I believe most agnostics are atheists who simply hate to think of the possibility of eventual offending others, but it's not an unreasonable stance.
How is it a strong position? Everyone asked what they actually mean go on to define both having an ideology/morality defined in the same way as an atheist, and also believing...exactly the same things as an atheist.
It becomes an argument of insistence, rooted correctly - as you observe - in the idea that by saying you're agnostic you don't offend people with religious faith. It's so you can always say "well I think you might be right". Which is stupid again, coz either there isn't a problem, or you're in a country where the correct answer also isn't "agnostic".
except that, surprise surprise, I sit here as a VERY real agnostic.
Believe me, I do not care about offending people. Were I an atheist, I would call myself one.
The idea that anyone who questions the existence of god is automatically an atheist is INCREDIBLY absurd, and honestly removes all semblance of a useful meaning from the word "atheism"
Calling myself an "agnostic atheist" is exactly what I do and exactly what I proposed earlier in the thread.
I don't believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist. I recognize that I can't completely discount the possibility of the existence of something that could reasonably be called a god and that observing such a thing could be completely outside humanity's potential, therefore I'm agnostic.
We have a guy in our group who's a Jewish atheist. That's a position I get, if only because Jewish certainly identifies a shared cultural history and identity (family/friends in Israel, the whole deal).
Posts
Wow! You must be a very, very patient man to tap out correct spelling and punctuation. Kudos. :P
Now tarry here just a second!
:winky:
you say shit like
I mean, really? Really?
Does one need to be personally afflicted by something in order to be outraged by it? Is that your rubric? Because that's a pretty fucking retarded rubric. I've never
1) Been to africa, or
2) gotten AIDS
but I'm still fucking livid at the thought of the Catholic church preaching anti-condom messages in Africa. is this not correct? should I only feel outrage at something proportional to the amount of suffering i've personally endured at its hands? or is it perhaps possible to find the state of a particular aspect of a particular society contemptuous, and be outraged at it?
i am outraged by the practices, beliefs, wishy-washy intellectual dishonesty, and just general ignorance of many, many American religious folk, and yet I grew up in New Jersey, whose population of fundies you can count on one hand. i rarely encounter such people and yet i resent them. this is perfectly acceptable, as i have other sources of information about things than, you know, personally encountering every goddamned aspect of existence
mike, did you know that
i am very opinionated on let's say, the death penalty
just the other day i wrote a giant post on the subject with very little prompt that got pretty personal and heated
yet, i've never been executed
nor have i even personally known someone who has been executed. the idea of executions outrage me, the fact that there are parts of the world including the country right next to mine that are still executing people infuriates and upsets me.
so, it's the sort of thing that can get me all riled up and argumentative and talky.
that said
i can still acknowledge the difference between people who are ardent supporters of the death penalty (and are thus worthy of my contempt and the sort of folk i want to argue with) and people who either don't really think about it or sorta support the death penalty without having really thought the subject through.
i think i can be pretty good about commanding my outrage and anger and directing it at appropriate levels depending on who i am talking to and the amount which they support or are involved with something that pisses me the fuck off
so no, i don't think you need to be personally involved with or subjected to something horrible to get outraged by someone else having to suffer from it
but blindly flipping out on anyone even remotely resembling the sort of person that offends you, regardless of the complexities and nuances of the circumstance, seems to suggest the sort of personal level of anguish that usually stems from personal experience with the subject in question.
when that personal experience is lacking in an individual, it baffles me when they are still capable of blindly lashing out at someone who is even vaguely related to their personal axe to grind.
i'm a religious guy. the religion i follow, and the institution to which i am vaguely affiliated, has never circumcised baby girls, forcibly deprived native americans of their culture, burned accused witches alive, stoned heretics, oppressed scientific research, or called for people to assassinate their president.
does this mean my religion is squeaky clean, or that i personally am faultless and not accountable for any sort of wrongdoing? of course not.
but to listen to some evangelical atheists tell it, all religions are the same in their negative aspects and they are all accountable for the heinous transgression against humanity committed by some of them over time. every religious person, in the viewpoint of these folk, is at best ignorant, foolish, and self-deceptive and at worst actively malicious and sinister. the fury with which they will express these views can be brief and sudden, but it can be very shocking in the universal nature of their grievances with any religious person regardless of religion or denomination.
this is the sort of conduct that would be unfortunate yet understandable from someone who has personally suffered at the hands of a religious culture, society, or even individual. if your bible-thumping daddy beat you for dressing sinfully, or you were molested by a priest, or whatever. that i could understand why a person would have a massively angry and combative attitude towards all religion regardless of who or what it is.
i wouldn't agree with it, of course, but i could understand it in the same way the anger and bitterness of any victim of abuse or torment or oppression can be understood without being endorsed.
yet when i find someone who has never experienced anything remotely like these sorts of personal horrors still possess the sort of blind, all-consuming outrage completely overlooking complexities and nuance of the subject matter, quite frankly i think i'm being fair in considering it baffling.
i don't see how that's being smug, or a fence-sitter, really. what fence am i sitting on? think i have pretty clear views on these issues.
I can certainly understand a need to be civil.
Really not anything I can relate to there. At least with black/death metal musicians, the worst you're ever going to get is them converting to Asatru.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
their behavior.
also, the sort of blind way they sometimes apply their outrage.
it's a common complaint i have, when some people will, for example, say "religion does _____" when what they mean to say is "christians i have met do _______" or whatever.
over-generalizing and snapping at people who have almost nothing to do with the people you are really angry at.
it's like saying "all christians walk around with god hates fags protest signs and show up at the funerals of soldiers to cause shit"
no
all christians do not do that
fred phelps does that. fred phelps and his weirdo loony group composed of his family and close friends do that.
if a person is going to say, bitch about religion in general, that's fine, but their gripe better be something that's universally applicable to all religions.
good luck with that, really.
there is certainly things some religious people do and beliefs that some religions publicly profess that are horrible and a person regardless of their background or experience has a right to get outraged about
but like, c'mon
some of us aren't those people, jeez
that's what i am getting at, basically
when you lose the ability to distinguish between folk and you're just sorta blindly raging at "religion" in general i think you've probably lost touch with sensible behavior
especially if you don't even have the sort of negative personal experience with religion to even partially justify having that sort of blind rage
I have made the mistake of reading the last 8 pages of this thread and getting steadily more angry at podly but not quite understanding why, this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Sure, you can use a bunch of words that within that system of words proves the existence of some higher power, but what use is that outside of that system and in real life? Very little, it seems to me.
Then again as an empiricist and physics/chemistry student, the very idea of thinking that you have reached a truth through nothing other than thought and/or discussion irks me and just seems ridiculous. In physics, you can start with something, fiddle with maths (which is pretty much just thinking), and end up with something that seems to be a truth, but then you go out and find whether it actually is true or not.
You'll have to excuse me, my science boner is showing.
Semantic Satiation.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Podly is using a lot of fancy words to make a very ancient and simple argument about God. Aristotle defined God as the "unmoved mover." In other words, everything that moves must have a mover, therefore, we can infer that there must be some initial "unmoved mover" that started everything because the idea of an infinite chain of movers is ridiculous.
When the Jews encountered the Greeks, they liked this argument and started thinking of their god philosophically as this unmoved mover. Previously, Yahweh was basially a standard henotheistic lord of the pantheon.
Christianity is often described as a mixing of the Hebrew and Greek worldviews, and in this sense, this is a good way of thinking about it. In the gospels, God takes on elements of Aristotle's idea. John says that before anything there was this "Word," actually "Logos." It is easy to compare this initial Logos to the concept of an unmoved mover that started everything (and note that this is expressly different than the God of the OT where stuff exists before he starts creating it.)
Fast-forward 1,200 years and Aquinas rediscovers Aristotle after a long dark-age slumber of ignorance. Aquinas really likes the unmoved mover argument and he uses the same logic to make his famous "fivefold proof of god." The five proofs are:
2. Everything has a cause. Therefore, to avoid infinite regression, there must be a first cause: God.
3. Everything is contingent on some logically previous thing; for A to exist, B is necessary. For B to exist, C is necessary. And so on. But this can't be an infinite regression either. Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent on anything else and is just necessary. Guess who? God!
4. Some things are greater than others. Somehow this means there must be a Greatest thing: God.
5. Since everything seems to have some purpose, an intelligence must have designed it, the intelligence being, of course, God.
As you can see, #1, #2, and #3 are essentially the same arguments. It is also, essentially, the argument that Podly is making. He is saying that existence as we know it cannot be contingent on something forever in an endless regression. There must be something, which he calls Being with a capital B, at the root of our existence. That something is, of course, God.
Another way to restate Aristotle/Aquinas' argument, which I'm personally more familiar with, is called the Transcental Argument. This one is fun because you get Christians saying you can't even use logic to attack Christianity because in order to believe in logic, you have to belief in the root thing that "proves logic,"—that thing being, coincidentally, the Christian God.
Anyway, David Hume disproved this argument 300 years ago*, so I'm not sure why people still make it. But there you go: Podly is right to say that this way of thinking about God has informed Christianity for most of its history.
*
You don't. God is tautologically defined as the first mover/cause/necessity/Being.
But if you can tautologically define God in this way, it is just as logical to tautologically define the Universe itself this way.
The argument is also problematic because it relies on inferences drawn from parts of the Universe to talk about the Universe as a whole.
Podly, you love tautologies: eat your heart out.
I am unfamiliar with any atheist who has ever equated all Christians with the WBC.
In my experience, liberal/progressive "religious" people like you often use this straw man as chaff so that you don't have to address the actual criticisms that atheists bring forth about inconsistencies in liberal/progressive religiosity. Which is, as I'm sure MikeMan would agree, sort of infuriating.
Oh please, now who is throwing up strawmen?
I was talking about blowhards who lose their shit over religion. Do you count yourself amongst them? You don't have to, I wasn't talking about you or Mike or really anyone in this thread in particular, but if you feel like counting yourself amongst the sort of uptight wads who will consider all religious people equally awful to someone like Phelps, go ahead.
Because those people exist Qingu, I've met them and interacted with them. That was all the basic point I was making when folk like you and Mike decided to get all huffed up about it.
Mike decided to call me a "smug fence-sitter" for it. Smug, I guess. But what fence am I sitting on? Still don't get that one. Pretty sure if you wanted to make it into some kind of issue of "sides" I'm obviously on one.
And here you are saying "liberal/progressive "religious" people like you".
Touchy, aren't you?
I wasn't targeting you, or calling you out on shit all. In fact, the only person in this thread I directly gave shit to was Pods, and that was for something else.
You want to make criticisms, fine, make criticisms. If you're going to make general criticisms about "liberal/progressive religious people", that's your business. If you're going to snap that "like you" in there, suddenly you are now directing your apparent criticism towards me and if that's the case, fine.
But, be honest about it. Don't try to hide behind snide generalities. I was talking about specific folk I know, and not you. You want to make this about you, or about me? That's cool, but that wasn't where I was going with this.
Your call, man. If you want to criticize me for things I actually think, believe, or say, do so. But don't make a bunch of whining about my criticisms of a small minority of folk I know personally as if they somehow apply to you.
Everyone is overgeneralizing like hell when referring to one another and supposed groups, and using unclear language to boot.
Pony: It's called empathy. Atheists are in fact capable of it. There is also the issue of watching the world being run by people who believe in what are, from our perspective, little better than cartoon characters, and sacrificing human lives to said characters, and building lives entirely around them. The vast majority of our species believes in Daffy Duck, and many of them use that belief to do things which are far from harmless, and the harmless ones often make it harder to do anything about it. It is, quite frankly, often very very frightening to think about.
Qingu: Please stop talking to individuals based on their group affiliation. You know damned well that no two people who have actually thought about religion have the same exact stances even if they go to the same ceremonies. Try to focus on arguing individual stances instead of assuming that they agree with the common doctrines of their belief system, it'll save a lot of time in obtaining the lists of exceptions.
See, that's just the thing. I'm not.
I had no desire to talk to my kids about religion, because I don't think they're capable of really understanding it beyond either believing what someone tells them exists (which kids pretty much always do, at least in my experience) or just kind of ignoring it.
As my daughter is a very curious little girl, she's taken what she's been told to heart, and all I've done in response is tell her that I don't think that's the case. I had nothing to do with putting these ideas in her head, and didn't want to go there, atheist or not until much later in her life, when she'd be capable of rational discourse on the subject.
My only expectation has always been to educate them about the world around them, teach them to question everything, and look for the answers that make sense based on the information they already know. And if proven wrong to rethink things entirely. Sadly, I'm going to have to start from an already losing position, since she now thinks that things which you can't see or feel or measure in any way are perfectly acceptable as "real".
1) That's not what a solipsist is.
2) "We'd be solipsists" is an entirely confused statement.
Bullshit. Being empathetic to the plights of others doesn't entitle anybody to act like a blindly raging douchebag waving an accusatory finger at anyone who even smells a little like the people they see as fucking up the world.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
The problem with this logic "It is impossible for something to NOT exist, therefore it MUST exist" is the underlying addendum of "...but we just have not OBSERVED it yet"
Now, expanding on L|ama's points- We can conceptualize the idea of a "Unicorn" that simultaneously does and does not exist- This can also be seen as an expansion of Schrodinger's popular idea (involving cats in boxes and whether they are alive or dead) in the sense that until we see a Unicorn they both exist and do not exist and we have no proof either way. The ontological argument (that you have been making) is that since we cannot conclusively prove it DOESN'T exist, then it obviously MUST exist.
This falls into a horrible epistemological trap, however, in that when you apply this idea to other things collective reality begins to break down. For instance, I do not have conclusive proof that the government is NOT actually run by Lizards from the earth's core, therefore the government is simultaneously run and not run by Lizards from the earth's core.
The corollary to this argument is also dangerous- It is easy to dismiss the ontology by simply taking the other side: I do not have conclusive proof that something DOES exist, therefore it must NOT exist.
Descartes expounded on this idea when he contemplated that the only constant he can be provided with is that HE exists and only because he can cogitate. He eventually concluded this paradox by claiming that since he is receiving unbidden sensory input from SOMEWHERE there MUST be an external reality.
In relation to the existence of a "Being" that is "God". You cannot conclusively prove in any other manner than a purely speculative and theoretical basis whether a "Being" that has the qualities of "God" exists. To this end, I take at the most atheistic a view of uncertainty and at the most theistic a very pantheistic view (if anything. I have expressed the limits of how I would view a god much earlier in this thread- it is very much the watchmaker argument, but again, I am firmly agnostic).
Now a problem with using an ontological view to define and "prove" the existence of a "Being" that is omnipotent is the definition breaks down when you begin to ascribe certain elements of most religious stories to the conceptual idea. I can accept that you can ontologically postulate that there is an ultimate being using the traditional ontological argument- however this being cannot be constrained by any religious dogma or else the argument fails as the ontology only holds for defining the existence of this entity.
It is a logical and epistemological error to begin to ascribe traits to this entity. For example the trappings of Christianity. You can "prove" ontologically that an omnipotent being called "God" exists but you cannot use the same arguments to define the statement "He sent his only son so that we may be forgiven and live eternally in his grace" ontologically. The reasoning is because this argument DEPENDS on the validity of the first argument being true.
1. God is the entity of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.
This is St. Anselm's traditionally accepted Ontological argument (correct if I am wrong)
Expanding this to include christian dogma gets this
5. God exists in three parts
6. If God exists, he exists in three parts
7. As God exists, he must necessarily exists in three parts
This gets extremely flimsy as an argument quickly, and it breaks down much quicker the more you expand
8. God loves the world
9. If God exists, he loves the world
10. Since God exists, he loves the world
11. If God loves the world, he sent his son down to redeem it
12. God Loves the world
13. Therefore he sent his son down to redeem it
Because of how quickly this argument looses steam when applied to anything more than the simple existence of a God, I call into question how one can use the metaphysical argument of "God IS Being" as the basis for their belief in a given religious dogma.
Pedant.
Not really. It's just a recognition that multiple people can all be solipsists at the same time. Being a solipsist doesn't mean you're correct in your views.
I wasn't intending to pigeonhole you, though I understand that's how it came across. I inferred that this would be a good way to describe you based on the fact that you said you were religious and how you described your religiosity. If you wouldn't describe yourself this way, I apologize.
That said, there are a huge number of "liberal/progressive religious folk" that generally have a view of religion that, I believe, deserves some criticism. the kind of criticism I'm talking about is not "they're just like Fred Phelps." Which was really my main point in responding to you.
And yes, Incenjucar, I know that every religious person has unique views, but there are general patterns and common arguments and interpretations, i.e. "the Bible is a metaphor"
This is also the best thing ever. Sig'd
I've also found a shiny new sig in this thread.
I agree with this fine
others don't, though. they want to say that the 0 state is ALSO an atheist.
being 0 state myself, I would tend to disagree
your definition of atheism is NOT the opposite of theism, it is the ABSCENCE of theism.
There is a distinct difference between "I don't believe" and "I believe against"
If that were the case, the number of "athiest" in the world would be incredibly small.
This is why I think it's really funny when people say that agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism.
is that a bad thing?
I mean, I'm part of a group that makes up about half of a percent of the world's population, myself.
I still say that my set of semantics is the most useful that I've seen proposed.
say that you're an "agnostic atheist"? or an "agnostic leaning towards atheism"?
I dunno. I guess it seems silly to me to be afraid of other people thinking my position is weak, because I know it isn't, and I will happily back it up. When I tell people I'm an agnostic Jew, they ask how that works, and I tell them. No muss, no fuss.
If you, personally, want to be called an atheist, I have no problem with that; I'm not trying to lable other people. My concern has to do with the mission creep that the word "atheist" experiences, whereas people with completely different theological views are suddenly ALSO "atheists".
I can view myself as a goalpost, and say that by the time that I can be defined as an atheist, the word has crept too far.
I'm an atheist and I have zero objection to religious faith. I have an objection to it's involvement in civic life and society.
Also, being agnostic is very strong position to defend in an argument. I certainly wouldn't call it weak. I don't like it because I believe most agnostics are atheists who simply hate to think of the possibility of eventually offending others, but it's not an unreasonable stance.
I'm a member of a religion who ALSO has a VERY strong objection to the involvement of religion in civic life and society. You don't have to be an atheist to think that's whack.
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
I never said he said I did.
Not everything has to be a disagreement.
How is it a strong position? Everyone asked what they actually mean go on to define both having an ideology/morality defined in the same way as an atheist, and also believing...exactly the same things as an atheist.
It becomes an argument of insistence, rooted correctly - as you observe - in the idea that by saying you're agnostic you don't offend people with religious faith. It's so you can always say "well I think you might be right". Which is stupid again, coz either there isn't a problem, or you're in a country where the correct answer also isn't "agnostic".
I was looking to correct the bolded in the post i quotedpart, where he implied that for people atheism should automatically mean objections to religious faith.
According to quantum mechanics, there is a very slight possibility that I will fall through the matter of my chair when I go to sit down. It could happen; it is within the realm of probability. It most likely won't, though. And so I do not modify my behavior to account for the possibility of it happening.
For the italicized reason, I say "I do not believe I am going to fall through my chair." I might also say "I know I am not going to fall through my chair." Whatever word I use to state my position, however, is less important than the fact that I do not behave as if falling through my chair is something I even need to consider.
Now, take someone who says they are an agnostic, who is "not sure about the existence of God." Well, okay. Does this person behave any differently from someone who says they are sure no gods exist? Does this person ever go to church "just in case they're wrong"? Do they erect hecatombs to Zeus because "Zeus may exist?" Do they ask for forgiveness from Jesus because, even though they aren't sure Christian-Yahweh exists, they might be wrong?
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know a single person who labels themself an "agnostic" who behaves this way. Every agnostic I know is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist.
So this is how I think the word "atheist" should be used. If it walks like an atheist, quacks like an atheist, and looks like an atheist, it's an atheist—regardless of this person's metaphysical position on the nature of belief and certainty (which, for many people, is not even coherent to begin with).
Evander, I would certainly call you an atheist (or a Jewish atheist to be charitable to your desire to self-identify Jewish). As far as I know, your behavior indicates you think Yahweh's existence is about as likely as Zeus's, or falling through your chair. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
except that, surprise surprise, I sit here as a VERY real agnostic.
Believe me, I do not care about offending people. Were I an atheist, I would call myself one.
The idea that anyone who questions the existence of god is automatically an atheist is INCREDIBLY absurd, and honestly removes all semblance of a useful meaning from the word "atheism"
I don't believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist. I recognize that I can't completely discount the possibility of the existence of something that could reasonably be called a god and that observing such a thing could be completely outside humanity's potential, therefore I'm agnostic.