Atheism and Agnosticism

[Escéptico]

Yeah, otherwise some people might realize that there is more to this existence, and we definitely wouldn't want that. They need their religi...er, I mean science.

More to this existence than what, Matt? Everything we know through responsible methods of scientific inquiry? The miracle world of microbiology and DNA? The amazing legacy of life on Earth? The wonders of cosmology? All this is somehow unimpressive to you? These don't tell you anything about the precarious value of life and our place in the universe? Maybe I'm not the one who's lacking imagination after all.

I'm getting tired of being insulted and called closed-minded just because I don't personally affirm every bit of mystical-schmistical lunacy offered to me. I've said plenty of times that whatever makes someone a more tolerant and responsible person is okay by me, but that doesn't seem good enough for people seeking validation for their spiritual experiences. The same grudging courtesy is never extended to nonbelievers, who get criticized for their anti-supernatural bigotry and reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence for claims of mystical experience. And now in this thread, atheists are being raked over the coals because they're too narrow-minded to go one by one through every conceivable notion of God before rejecting the concept outright. It seems nothing is ever good enough.

How many more times are you going to trot out the "science is religion" canard, Matt? Do we really need to patiently explain yet again how we trust the scientific method because it's designed to circumvent human bias? Do we need to discuss the cumulative, collective effort of empirical evidential inquiry? The way that testing provisional theories brings us closer and closer to a full understanding of phenomena but never proves anything 100%? Could you at least admit that we've been through this plenty of times before?

 

[crystalonyx]

Or the nature of "god" is such that we are not able to differentiate god from not-god.

There is no real evidence that this is true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists claim that the nonexistence of a god is knowable due to lack of evidence of same.

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I've read in a long time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I also have imagination, and intuition, and desire, and I can use these just as effectively as I can use empirical reasoning to navigate and understand my experience of existence.

How would you know?

 

[Sunstone]

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I've read in a long time.

Naw, Jay. You should check out my answers to questions in my mysticism thread if you want to see some dumb answers. Logician is a mere amateur.

 

[Sunstone]

But what aspect of what we call "reality" is NOT an intellectual construction invented in our minds for the sake of our own desires and convenience?

That's very true. For instance: I once constructed the notion my nation was being run by an idiot named Bush in order to satisfy my desire to be utterly humiliated as an American citizen. Boy, was that a blast! Thank god he was just an intellectual construction.

 

[gnomon]

Defining God as both creator and "the whisper in the wind" or "the tussle in my hair" pretty much renders the communicative value of God useless.

 

[Magic Man]

More to this existence than what, Matt? Everything we know through responsible methods of scientific inquiry? The miracle world of microbiology and DNA? The amazing legacy of life on Earth? The wonders of cosmology? All this is somehow unimpressive to you? These don't tell you anything about the precarious value of life and our place in the universe? Maybe I'm not the one who's lacking imagination after all.

I'm getting tired of being insulted and called closed-minded just because I don't personally affirm every bit of mystical-schmistical lunacy offered to me. I've said plenty of times that whatever makes someone a more tolerant and responsible person is okay by me, but that doesn't seem good enough for people seeking validation for their spiritual experiences. The same grudging courtesy is never extended to nonbelievers, who get criticized for their anti-supernatural bigotry and reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence for claims of mystical experience. And now in this thread, atheists are being raked over the coals because they're too narrow-minded to go one by one through every conceivable notion of God before rejecting the concept outright. It seems nothing is ever good enough.

How many more times are you going to trot out the "science is religion" canard, Matt? Do we really need to patiently explain yet again how we trust the scientific method because it's designed to circumvent human bias? Do we need to discuss the cumulative, collective effort of empirical evidential inquiry? The way that testing provisional theories brings us closer and closer to a full understanding of phenomena but never proves anything 100%? Could you at least admit that we've been through this plenty of times before?

There's a way to be an atheist without making statements like:
"When you're done wiping your boots on the entire legacy of empirical evidential inquiry, please put it back where the rest of us can recognize and respect it."

 

[Escéptico]

There's a way to be an atheist without making statements like:
"When you're done wiping your boots on the entire legacy of empirical evidential inquiry, please put it back where the rest of us can recognize and respect it."

Someone without my boundless patience and Christ-like tolerance might accuse you of disingenuity, Matt.

Didn't you post a snide comment about my reply to PureX, after he asserted that reality as a whole is just whatever our minds construct to make us feel better? Do you really consider that statement a defensible position?

Couldn't an observer claim that you were expressing your scorn for the idea that we 'know' things through empirical evidential inquiry? Or that you were accusing me of closed-mindedness for not affirming that so much more exists than just this measly material reality?

Perhaps you could clarify your position, Matt. What exactly did you mean to say with your unsolicited response to my comment to PureX?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why don't you guys take it off line? Thanks.

 

[Halcyon]

My handy dandy pocket Merriam-Webster says that an atheist is "one who denies the existence of God." I'm pretty sure that's the most common definition. That's why I never considered myself atheist, although for many years I certainly acted as if God did not exist.

Maybe it is the most common, and maybe many atheists do ascribe to that mentality, but I don't think it is the most correct.
An atheist is someone who has no belief in a God or gods - if you ask two people "Do you believe in God?" you could get two broad types of answer, summed up as "I don't believe in God" and "God doesn't exist". They're the same answer for all intents and purposes, the latter answer seems to come from a person with an omniscience not available to the former but that doesn't invalidate the former as an atheistic opinion.

I don't think it's really all that subtle. If you don't deny the existence of God, it seems that agnosticism is the better descriptor. I think it is reasonable to deny the existence of God if one is taking it as a principled position, rather than just based on lack of evidence.

When presented with a concept a person can choose to accept it, disbelieve it or try and disprove it. With God trying to disprove it is a pointless endeavor (as is trying to prove it), and to be able to actually deny the existence of God (God does not exist) you'd need that disproof on which to base that claim of denial, so I don't think denying the existence of God is reasonable at all.
Disbelief though doesn't require any refutation of any kind, just a lack of belief in the concept as presented.

 

[snakeblood08]

I know this has been discussed before, but once again, for the new members here, how do you see the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It seems to me that many who claim to be atheists based on the lack of evidence for God really are more like agnostics. Atheism, I always thought, was a more principled position that makes the positive claim "there is no God." It's a principled position in the same way someone might say "I am my own person." There's no real evidence to show whether one is their own person or not (what does that even mean?)...unless you live in a vacuum, yet it is a principled view that tells us about one's perspective about their relationship to the world.

Someone like Richard Dawkins for example strikes me as an atheist. The basis for his atheism can't be just that evolution can explain the diversity of species without God. Dawkins chooses not to believe in God on principle, and the ToE is just a kind of side note that says "See, we didn't come from clay like the Bible says." There are lots of theists who accept the ToE and still see it all belonging to God, what we know and what we don't know. Dawkins sees (I am guessing from his passion and the things I'm familiar with him saying) God as a symbol for something that must be eradicated, whether it be ignorance or obedience, or whatever.

So, if you are an atheist, do you have a principled reason for not believing in God, such as "I am my own person," or is it more just that you don't have evidence that you can trust?

An Atheist is someone who, for one reason or another, does not believe in any Gods, deities, or any sort of religious doctrine.
An Agnostic is someone who is hesitant to believe in something that cannot be proven or inherently known. They withold judgment until more evidence is given to support either position.

To answer your second question, I call myself an Atheist because all purported evidence for a Theistic worldview point is rooted in concepts and stories which are unable to be proven; most of these stories are allegorical at best.
Also, at this time, theists are unable to satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies between science and religious doctrine. These things make me Atheist.

 

[PureX]

There is no real evidence that this is true.

Or, everything is evidence that it's true.

 

[PureX]

How would you know?

By the results.

 

[Escéptico]

Disbelief though doesn't require any refutation of any kind, just a lack of belief in the concept as presented.

I'll buy that.

I look at it the same way as I look at the belief in the extinction of thylacine wolves. These marsupial predators were numerous in Australia until the 1930's. There has not been a confirmed sighting for several decades. It's not a matter of 'faith' to believe that these animals don't exist, and evidence would be easy to produce (a live specimen or confirmed sighting) to make the belief untenable.

But it's as if we're being told that some marsupial wolves are invisible, or maybe they look like trees. In fact, say the faithful, there's no conceivable way to excuse the belief that thylacine wolves no longer exist. Thus, to believe that they exist is the most logical position to take.

I've said many times that I have no problem with a belief that someone says makes them a better person to others. But to characterize nonbelief as a delusional fetish is outrageous.

 

[PureX]

Defining God as both creator and "the whisper in the wind" or "the tussle in my hair" pretty much renders the communicative value of God useless.

On the other hand, defining God as a form of cheese would prove both God's value, and existence! *hehe*

 

[PureX]

Someone without my boundless patience and Christ-like tolerance might accuse you of disingenuity, Matt.

Didn't you post a snide comment about my reply to PureX, after he asserted that reality as a whole is just whatever our minds construct to make us feel better? Do you really consider that statement a defensible position?

Couldn't an observer claim that you were expressing your scorn for the idea that we 'know' things through empirical evidential inquiry? Or that you were accusing me of closed-mindedness for not affirming that so much more exists than just this measly material reality?

Perhaps you could clarify your position, Matt. What exactly did you mean to say with your unsolicited response to my comment to PureX?

I think he just likes my haircut. *smile*

 

[Sunstone]

...to characterize nonbelief as a delusional fetish is outrageous.

Quite true and well said! Frubals!

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Atheism seems a bit more...Abrasive. Agnostics seem a bit more open minded.

 

[logician]

Or, everything is evidence that it's true.

Not from a scientific viewpoint.