Agnostic or Atheist

Tar.Aldarion

Inspired by what I thought would be in the thread of a similar name I am posing the question to the members of the board to see how many of each there are. Are you agnostic or atheist or other? You can say why you are which, if you wish.


*First poll*
\o/

Dades

Agnostic

Umm, let me think...

Only on an atheism/agnosticism forum could you get away with offering the term "other" to cover every known religion.

Of course we know that individual's definitions for each are different, but I guess it's what you call yourself and not what others call you that's important.

Tar.Aldarion

Other

The Atheist wrote:

Umm, let me think...

Only on an atheism/agnosticism forum could you get away with offering the term "other" to cover every known religion.

I thought it was a bit audacious myself, had a little chuckle.
I could always go for the 'it was my first poll excuse' :P

Of course we know that individual's definitions for each are different, but I guess it's what you call yourself and not what others call you that's important.

Ah yes, really, I am asking what do you view yourself to be moreso that what do I or any body esle, view you to be. What you call yourself is what matters. If it was a case of, what do I think somebody is, I would be calling somebody with the user name The Atheist along with most atheists and a lot of people who lean toward a religion, an agnostic but we are not using my personal poll(fnarr), of course.

Beruthiel

Other

Agnostic
I don't presume to know everything there is to know in the universe,
so I'll keep the option open, however, 'god' will have to prove he exists to me before I'll actually believe in 'him'

Funsterdelux

Agnostic

Atheist

Coz I know the universe.

A bold statement if there was ever one.

Dades

Agnostic

Funsterdelux wrote:

A bold statement if there was ever one.

Bold, considering you didn't know what you were earlier today.

Funsterdelux

Agnostic

I was having what they call the bright night of the soul, no just wonderin.
Anywho come on the Atheists

Asiaprod

Other

Beruthiel wrote:

Agnostic
I don't presume to know everything there is to know in the universe,
so I'll keep the option open, however, 'god' will have to prove he exists to me before I'll actually believe in 'him'

This sums it up for me too. Could not put it better.

Samos

Agnostic

I feel a little uneasy describing myself as 'atheist'. I similarly see no evidence for fairies, or the Loch-Ness Monster, or Martians... However I would not define myself as a 'fairy-nonbeliever' or claim a strong disbelief in the Yeti. These things are of little consequence to me. And so it should be with all fantastical beings, for which no good reason for their validity exists.

I think one need only discuss the issue of God because of its strong links with ethical issues, which are the things that really matter to all of us, and ought eventually to be divorced from the unnecessary and counterproductive supernatural element.

robindch

> I think one need only discuss the issue of God because of its strong links
> with ethical issues

Indeed. Memeticists like Susan Blackmore refer to this deception as the "Altruism Trick" and like much of religious thought, it's an elegantly evolved religious-propagation strategy. Blackmore discusses the Altruism Trick (and the Truth Trick and various others) at length in her book The Meme Machine, available at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019286212X

playdead

Agnostic

im an atheist, and yet, i do believe that there are martians and ghosts out there. well, there is more proof of those existing than 'GOD'. haha.

Playboy

Other

robindch wrote:

> I think one need only discuss the issue of God because of its strong links
> with ethical issues

Indeed. Memeticists like Susan Blackmore refer to this deception as the "Altruism Trick" and like much of religious thought, it's an elegantly evolved religious-propagation strategy. Blackmore discusses the Altruism Trick (and the Truth Trick and various others) at length in her book The Meme Machine, available at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019286212X

I thought the circular and self referential theory of memetics was on its way to dying a death. There is no empirical evidence for them. The theory arose as a result of certain scientists trying to draw a link between the gene and culture. Afaik it was unsuccessful. Memes for the idea of memes and all that. I thought Dawkins himself had pulled out of that debate since that book was published in 1999 but maybe Im wrong.

lostexpectation

Agnostic

Playboy wrote:

I thought the circular and self referential theory of memetics was on its way to dying a death. There is no empirical evidence for them. The theory arose as a result of certain scientists trying to draw a link between the gene and culture. Afaik it was unsuccessful. Memes for the idea of memes and all that. I thought Dawkins himself had pulled out of that debate since that book was published in 1999 but maybe Im wrong.

that doesn't discount the altruism trick

Playboy

Other

lostexpectation wrote:

that doesn't discount the altruism trick

but what about the trick of the altruism trick

robindch

> I thought the circular and self referential theory of memetics
> was on its way to dying a death.

Er, have you read Blackmore's book?

> The theory arose as a result of certain scientists trying to draw a
> link between the gene and culture. Afaik it was unsuccessful.

Then I suggest that you read Blackmore's book which successfully explains the current state of the art of memetic theory. The only people who say it's been unsuccessful are folks like the theologian Alistair McGrath who (a) don't understand what it is and (b) have a good reason for denying its validity, as it suggests that McGrath and other religious people have been taken for an (elegant) ride. In form, their argument is quite similar to creationists and biologists all over again

> I thought Dawkins himself had pulled out of that debate since
> that book was published in 1999 but maybe Im wrong.

You are wrong. Dawkins is giving a talk with Blackmore in a couple of weeks time in London about memes + culture:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/calendar/cal_item.shtml?select=1134393343

...which I'd love to be present for, but I'll be abroad elsewhere...

Playboy

Other

robindch wrote:

Then I suggest that you read Blackmore's book which successfully explains the current state of the art of memetic theory. The only people who say it's been unsuccessful are folks like the theologian Alistair McGrath who (a) don't understand what it is and (b) have a good reason for denying its validity, as it suggests that McGrath and other religious people have been taken for an (elegant) ride. In form, their argument is quite similar to creationists and biologists all over again

Define successful Robin. Just because a theory is elegant in its explanation does not make it right or true. Biological and cultural evolution are not the same no matter how hard Dawkins and Blackmore want to believe it. The theory never predicted any new piece of data and all the literature on it is practically void of any empirical evidence. It seems that some of the writers are not even concerned with empirical evidence. There is wealth of material out there on the refutation of memetic theory by people such as Stephen Jay Gould. You might have heard of him and I dont think he has problems understanding the theory .Also check out Bill Wimsatt and Robert Brandon who are philosophers of science and have spent a lot of time dissecting the theory quite brilliantly. They changed my mind on the subject and might change yours too.

pH

Playboy wrote:

The theory never predicted any new piece of data and all the literature on it is practically void of any empirical evidence.
....
Also check out Bill Wimsatt and Robert Brandon who are philosophers of science and have spent a lot of time dissecting the theory quite brilliantly

I like that - start talking about predictions and evidence - then bringing in the 'Philosophers of Science'. Possibly Blackmore should call it philosophy and it would be fine then?

Memetics has a special place in the hearts of philosophers (those 'of Science' in particular). Their spluttering outrage that a mere scientist should have the audacity to play their word games is quite funny.

So are you saying memetics is philosophy or science?

lostexpectation

Agnostic

Playboy wrote:

but what about the trick of the altruism trick

ok ISWYM, but its this thing that god and ethics have something to do with each other???

Playboy

Other

I'm saying that memetics is scientific speculation without any hard evidence to back it up. And just to let you know pH those two Philosophers of Science that I mentioned were big advocates of memetics until it became obvious to them and many others in the scientific communiity that it was flawed. For some strange reason though Dawkins fan base take it as a personal insult when you question or challenge any of his theories.Its kinda ironic that the man has a nearly religious status among his followers. Its probably one of the main reasons that the theory has survived for so long. That and the fact that Dawkins and Blackmore have nearly their whole careers invested in the theory and it makes them quite a lot of money.

pH

Playboy wrote:

I'm saying that memetics is scientific speculation without any hard evidence to back it up.

Right, we'll call it philosophy so.

And just to let you know pH those two Philosophers of Science that I mentioned were big advocates of memetics until it became obvious to them and many others in the scientific communiity that it was flawed.

Isn't Philosophy wonderful, based on opinions and 'how obvious' things seem to really smart people.

For some strange reason though Dawkins fan base take it as a personal insult when you question or challenge any of his theories.Its kinda ironic that the man has a nearly religious status among his followers.

Please use the phrase 'peace be apon him' when speaking about the prophet, you infidel.

Its probably one of the main reasons that the theory has survived for so long. That and the fact that Dawkins and Blackmore have nearly their whole careers invested in the theory and it makes them quite a lot of money.

Oh you poor philosophers ...

zippo22

playdead wrote:

im an atheist, and yet, i do believe that there are martians and ghosts out there. well, there is more proof of those existing than 'GOD'. haha.

I believe in ghosts myself. (But I must admit I've never been able to find their droppings.)

Playboy

Other

pH wrote:

Right, we'll call it philosophy so.

Fine

pH wrote:

Isn't Philosophy wonderful, based on opinions and 'how obvious' things seem to really smart people..

Philosophy is based on reason.

pH wrote:

Please use the phrase 'peace be apon him' when speaking about the prophet, you infidel.

pH wrote:

Oh you poor philosophers ...

Welcome to reality. Dawkins has a lot of money and his reputation tied up in memetics. Don't be fooled into thinking he is an atheists version of saint.

samb

Agnostic

Memetics is not really a proper scientific theory and I do not think it is claimed to be. It is more of a way of thinking about how ideas, expressions,etc spread, increase and decrease in society. In that sense it is valid.

robindch

> Biological and cultural evolution are not the same no matter how hard
> Dawkins and Blackmore want to believe it.

From this, I don't think you have read The Meme Machine which makes it quite clear, time after time, where the gene/meme analogy breaks down.

> The theory never predicted any new piece of data and all the literature
> on it is practically void of any empirical evidence.

Again, you seem to know little about what memes are said to be, or how they operate -- Blackmore's book contains page after page of observations which make it quite clear that the memetic way of thinking about cultural evolution is simple, useful and valid. Saying that there is little or no evidence simply makes it look like you've not read anything on the topic.

For example, take a look at this page:

http://www.christianitymeme.org/

...which explains christianity in terms of memetic evolution. The page on The Essence of Christianity is the one to read if you've only got a short time.

Part of the reason why so many people don't like memetic theory is that is suggests that brains are simply machines for replicating ideas. And many people simply don't like this.

> check out Bill Wimsatt and Robert Brandon

I've had a quick look for relevant articles, but can't seem to find anything very appropriate. Do you have any links?

Playboy

Other

According to Wikipedia the theory seems to be struggling.

In 2005, Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission ceased publication and published a set of 'obituaries' for memetics. This was not intended to suggest that there can be no further work on memetics, but that the exciting childhood of memetics, which began in 1996, is finally drawing to a close, and that memetics will have to survive or become extinct in terms of the results it can generate for the field of cultural evolution. Memetics as a social, internet-fueled popular scientific movement is now probably over. Many of the original proponents have moved away from it. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have both expressed some reservations as to its applicability, Susan Blackmore has left the University of the West of England to become a freelance science writer and now concentrates more on the field of consciousness and cognitive science. Derek Gatherer found the academic world of the north of England to be unsympathetic to his ideas, and gave up to work as a computer programmer in the pharmaceutical industry, although he still publishes the odd memetics article from time to time. Richard Brodie is now climbing the world professional poker rankings. Aaron Lynch disowned the memetics community and the words "meme" and "memetics" (without disowning the ideas in his book).

Link

Robindch wrote:

From this, I don't think you have read The Meme Machine which makes it quite clear, time after time, where the gene/meme analogy breaks down.

I havent read Blackmore's book. I was more familiar with Dawkins version of memetic theory which I presumed was the same as Blackmore's but obviously is not.

Robindch wrote:

I've had a quick look for relevant articles, but can't seem to find anything very appropriate. Do you have any links?

I came across the info in Uni while doing the philosophy of Science. I'll have a look and see if I can dig up anything

robindch

> According to Wikipedia the theory seems to be struggling.

I'm aware of the Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia the best place to look for unbiassed information, especially about a topic which is still debated. I'm not surprised to see the word "reservations" in there, without actually mentioning any of them...

> I was more familiar with Dawkins version of memetic theory which
> I presumed was the same as Blackmore's but obviously is not.

Blackmore refines Dawkins' ideas from the Selfish Gene, as well as cites more examples. I haven't read the Dawkins' Extended Phenotype which does discuss memetics, but can't imagine that it's much more informative than Blackmore.

BTW, Dennet is coming out with a book in two days' time on the general topic of religion as meme:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003472X

...which I suspect might be worth getting for anybody who's interested in where religion comes from and why it's ended up the way it has.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Agnostic

Atheist- Occams Razor and all that
I don't need a god to give myself something to live for or to give me moral fibre.