8/6/2007 10:34:21 AM

Quote :

"Yes. I agree completely. But, there is nothing wrong with people forming groups, right?"

There's a lot wrong with forming groups. The problem comes when that group elects a leader. Then it becomes a heirarchy, at which point it no longer functions constructively. And this always happens with humans because you have sheeps and you have shephards.

Unlike other organizations where checks and balances can prevent abuse of power, in a religious group, it only takes one person with the zeal and rhetoric to amass an brainwashed army to do as they please.

8/6/2007 11:09:06 AM

^interesting point, which is why I look forward to seeing how different atheist churches turn out...

Quote :

"where checks and balances can prevent abuse of power"

"can", not "do"
...besides, a group could form with checks and balances in mind if they wanted.
It's just that most groups are started by people who then become the leaders, so if they were going to abuse power, they wouldn't want checks and balances in the first place.

8/6/2007 11:37:58 AM

Quote :

"Religion is not based on evidence, it's based on faith. You guys keep confusing religion and science here. If you HAVE faith, then evidence can affect that faith, for good or bad. If you do not have the initial faith in whatever belief we are talking about, evidence doesn't matter at all. It's unfalsifiable, plain and simple. This is my huge problem with Organized religion AND the Athiests. Faith is an individual path."

Of course, you're right about religion being unfalsifiable, but what kind of atheist you're talking about will determine whether what you're saying about them is true. For instance, I call myself an atheist because I'm not an agnostic, but I also know that I can't say "I know there is no god," because the fact that he's unfalsifiable makes it impossible to say that he can't exist. It also makes it silly to say he does. There's no evidence that he does exist, though, and since the burden of proof is on the idea of existence and not nonexistence, I call myself an atheist. It's just the best word if someone really wants me to pigeonhole myself.

8/6/2007 11:42:36 AM

^sounds like you are a non-theist...
...but that term, accurate or not, is not widely used [yet].
Many self-described atheists are really non-theists, they just don't know that term, haven't heard it.

(of course, you could always call yourself an atheist if you simply didn't want to invite a discussion.)

Non-theism is the general category.
IOW, all agnostics are non-theists, but not all non-theists are agnostic.



[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ^"he"?]

8/6/2007 11:50:17 AM

^^by definition you are agnostic then.

As am I.

A non-theist is an agnostic. It's the entire principle that you KNOW you can't ever KNOW through observational or experimental data whether or not a higher being exists. You also don't have faith one way or the other. Having faith one way makes you a theist, the other way, an athiest.

I personally am on a journey to really find for myself what I believe, but for those like you George who just find the whole notion silly, you are still semantically lumped into agnosticism.

^I'd disagree and say its the opposite. All non-theists are agnostic, but not all agnostics are non-theists.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 12:16:23 PM

^how can an agnostic not be a non-theist?
The only alternative to non-theism is (a-, mono-, or poly-,) theism.

Non-theism includes everything that isn't (a-, mono-, or poly-) theism.

Whether one just doesn't care about theism in general (has nothing to do with,)
whether one hasn't decided yet (still on the fence,)
or whether one has decided that knowledge of theism is unknowable (agnostic,)
they're all not theists, they're non-theists.

8/6/2007 12:25:49 PM

because an agnostic can be a theist, just unsure of the classification of their belief. If someone believes in the existance of something (therefore a theist) but unsure of who or what that thing is, and are currently unswayed by religions, they would still be agnostic.

See definition 2 of agnostic.

8/6/2007 12:34:22 PM

^that sounds more like deism or something similar, than "agnostic theism".

You're saying one can simultaneously hold, (not just assert,)
complete faith in the existence of a god(s) or of godlessness,
and complete faith in the unknowability of the existence of that god(s) or of godlessness?

I suppose that might be possible,
but then the agnostic in that case isn't the same agnostic previously mentioned, which kinda takes away from it.
It just confuses the issue....because most [theistic] agnostics don't have any theistic faith.

Every level of everything could technically have an agnostic position....
It just seems silly for someone to believe in a god, and believe that that belief is unknowable.

Definition #2 is for agnosticism in general, unrelated to theism (political agnostics, for example)
But I guess you could apply agnosticism to anything.

It just makes more sense to use the [theistic] term agnostic to mean
faith in the unknowability of theism, in place of faith in theism.

But this thread is more about atheists, anyway....

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 1:26:06 PM

Quote :

"Don't you get it? I'm putting forward a definition of atheist that many current so-called self-described atheists don't use. No [real] atheist proclaims skepticism about god(s), instead, quite the opposite, atheists proclaim unmovable faith, complete belief in godlessness, not simply skepticism. Skepticism is in the realm of non-theism, often agnosticism."

Who died and made you king of the dictionary? I don't know any nonbeliever that fits your definition of atheism. It's not even a reasonable position; it's stupid to have a strong belief that something that can't be disproven can't exist. If you want to make up definitions so badly, call that position "antitheism". Leave "atheist" alone for people like Lowjack and me, and don't clump us in with agnostics like StillFuchsia that refuse to make a decision against ludicrous supernatural fabrications.

8/6/2007 2:07:21 PM

^^ the thing is, agnostic is a broad grouping. It includes a lot of different people with a lot of different viewpoints. It's not saying that every person must adhere to all view to be a member. It's an inclusive order, not an exclusive order.

And I very much believe that there may well be something out there, but there is absolutely no way I would be able to prove it's existance through any verifiable observation or experiment. Hence why it's faith. That's what all faith boils down to really.

Back to the topic though,

I honestly doubt the large majority of Athiests in the sincerity of their beliefs, much in the same way I double the large majority of Christians. I think there are a large number of hypocrits who claim athiesm for a number of reasons, none of which really have to do with an enlightened, reasoned sense that there can be no God. Not all, but a damn lot.

I also think a large number of athiests are like DirtyGreek, who don't really realize they aren't athiest.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 2:11:29 PM

Quote :

"I don't know any nonbeliever that fits your definition of atheism. It's not even a reasonable position; it's stupid to have a strong belief that something that can't be disproven can't exist. If you want to make up definitions so badly, call that position "antitheism". Leave "atheist" alone for people like Lowjack and me, and don't clump us in with agnostics like StillFuchsia that refuse to make a decision against ludicrous supernatural fabrications."

Regardless, that's how "atheist" is defined, as the other end of the "theist" spectrum. It's as unreasonable as a theist position because it requires faith, as you said. I don't know why people label themselves "atheist" if they really mean something different by the word, and I think that's what most of this word debate has been about. You can doubt that there is a God, but until you make the step of actually believing there is no God (obviously sans evidence), you're not a true atheist.

8/6/2007 2:20:25 PM

call my system of thought what you want - the point is, someone who calls himself an atheist isn't necessarily a person who "knows" there's no god. that's all I'm saying.

8/6/2007 2:58:29 PM

Quote :

"You can doubt that there is a God, but until you make the step of actually believing there is no God (obviously sans evidence), you're not a true atheist."

Exactly.

Quote :

"I don't know why people label themselves "atheist" if they really mean something different by the word, and I think that's what most of this word debate has been about."

They do it because [real] atheists are poorly grouped and therefore are less able to defend the proper definition.

I remember seeing something where self-described "Satanists" explained that they were really atheists. People opposed the predominant religions and faiths use the word "atheist" indiscriminately. (Like when a 8-year-old calls you a "fascist" because you're enforcing bedtime.)

That certainly doesn't make them right, though.... even if they are the majority.

Quote :

"Who..made you king of the dictionary?"

Wiki, that's who.

Quote :

"I don't know any nonbeliever that fits your definition of atheism"

That's because nonbelievers aren't necessarily atheist, but could be nontheist as well, or agnostic.

Quote :

"someone who calls himself an atheist isn't necessarily a person who "knows" there's no god. that's all I'm saying"

Right, they're just someone who completely and utterly believes it.


[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 3:23:23 PM

Quote :

"call my system of thought what you want - the point is, someone who calls himself an atheist isn't necessarily a person who "knows" there's no god. that's all I'm saying."

You're agnostic, its okay George, welcome to the new world order. Athiesm is for retards just as much as Fundamentalist Christianity is.

8/6/2007 3:48:10 PM

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

(Penn Jillette (at least that's where I heard it))

8/10/2007 12:04:04 AM

okay, so let's say atheism isn't a religion.

it's just a non-religious group of narrow-mined zealots who have pledged blind allegiance to their cause and who publicly ostracize any who dare to challenge key tenets of the orthodoxy.

8/10/2007 1:15:57 AM

You can make atheism a 'faith' just like you can make being a TWC customer a 'faith.'

This does not mean it inherently is, however.

8/10/2007 10:35:49 AM

Like SandSanta said above, you can make anything into a religion. Though, I don't believe atheism is inherently a faith/religion. I do believe atheism can be turned into one fairly easily. For example,

Quote :

""Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." "

Good analogy, but irony spills over when not collecting stamps evolves from a passive attitude into a voluntary action. That's when the non-stamp collector goes around claiming and making statements like,

"I do not collect stamps!"
"Good moring sir, did you know that I don't collect stamps?"
"Yes, that's me, the non-stamp collector "
"There is no such thing as a stamp, I've never seen one. Where's the proof?"
"Look at the facts, stamps are made from paper and glue. There is nothing special about your precious stamps!"
"Stamp collecting is stupid! What a waste of time."

If these are common statements made by the non-stamp collector, then these statements will in turn transform the person into an anti-stamp collector. He makes it a mission of his to not collect stamps at all cost. And opposes those who do collect stamps with his scientific proof about how they are made and how stamps are not worth that much. This in turn makes a hobby out of his anti-stamp collecting. In the end, he becomes an anti-stamp zealot and his ideals are not much different than that of a stamp collector.

A more appropriate situation for that analogy would be more like "Agnosticism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". They don't care if stamps exist or not. And they don't worry about claiming if they are stamp collectors or not. They are not inherently influenced to make anti-stamp collecting a habit or hobby.

8/10/2007 11:29:51 AM

you are wrong on both attempts.

Athiesm is the BELIEF that there is no God. They use science as a backing to invalidate logical assertions of God's existance. Which is just as worthwhile as using science to validate God's existance. In the end, it's a belief system based on an unfalsifiable judgement by a person.

Agnosticism just means the person doesn't have enough knowledge to make a decision. It says nothing of INTENT. I am an active agnostic, meaning I am constantly open to and seeking religious views and merits, in the hope that one day I will be able to make a truly sincere decision. Others MAY just not care one way or the other, and still others MAY decide it's ultimately unknowable.

8/10/2007 1:26:19 PM

What type of information, proof, or otherwise are agnostics looking for?

because i believe there are two different types of agnostics, or at least a line that sways from "inclined to believe in God but i have my doubts" to "inclined to believe there is no God, but I don't rule it out"

8/10/2007 4:43:23 PM

So what would people label me?

I don't believe in gods in the same sense I don't believe in ghosts, leprechauns, and unicorns. I know I can’t disprove non-falsifiable invisible magic, but my default position is to not believe in the supernatural until I see proof. Which is different than having faith that invisible magic is impossible.

I definitely don’t believe in it, there’s no “I’m not really sure” or “I’m still searching” or “I don’t feel man is smart enough to come to a reasonable conclusion on this” which is who you’d be lumping me in with if you called me an agnostic. So I’m not agnostic.

Apparently, according to many in this thread, atheist implies faith & applies to almost no self-described atheists. So I’m not atheist.



So I’m not agnostic, I’m not atheist.

What am I? Am I non-religious, or non-theist? Or something else?

Is there a term that I can use that doesn’t use a- or non- something. Is there a way to describe myself by what I am, rather than negative terms that describe what I am not? Which is someone who wont believe in magic until I see it.

8/10/2007 7:24:22 PM

you are agnostic.

You know you do not have the knowledge to make a sure decision on either existance or non-existance.

Agnosticism is a large cloud of differing opinions, much in the same way that Christianity is.

The unifying part is the lack of knowledge whether temporary or permanent, to be able to make an informed decision.

8/11/2007 5:37:16 PM

^^

Quote :

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. T. H. Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889 "

8/12/2007 11:47:59 PM