Mostly atheists?

KidKeith89

Are most of the regular posters on this forum mainly atheist? Looking through past threads it seems most people are. Is there a lot of argument between the atheists and agnostics?

Shenshen

Agnostic atheist for me. I suspect most of the posters here are.

Doctor DooM

Question is wrong, you can be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.

strobe

Both.

mikhail

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Question is wrong, you can be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.

Or we can back away from the dictionary and use the common understanding (however inaccurate) of the terms as being the "No" and "Don't know" answers to the question "Is there a God?".

axer

mikhail wrote: »

Or we can back away from the dictionary and use the common misunderstanding (however inaccurate) of the terms...

FYP

Pygmalion

mikhail wrote: »

Or we can back away from the dictionary and use the common understanding (however inaccurate) of the terms as being the "No" and "Don't know" answers to the question "Is there a God?".

If you want/expect people to go with inaccurate definitions of the terms Atheism & Agnosticism there are probably better places to do it than the "Atheism & Agnosticism" forum.

Doctor DooM

mikhail wrote: »

Or we can back away from the dictionary and use the common understanding (however inaccurate) of the terms as being the "No" and "Don't know" answers to the question "Is there a God?".

Um... Kinda missing the point to this particular forum to hold that opinion, no?

KidKeith89

Sorry about the inadequate options in the poll. I know there are many different definitions and opinions on what the terms mean, but I just put it up to see if the overwhelming majority were more atheist than agnostic.

ShooterSF

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Sorry about the inadequate options in the poll. I know there are many different definitions and opinions on what the terms mean, but I just put it up to see if the overwhelming majority were more atheist than agnostic.

But it's like asking are you more socialist(opposed to say capitalist) than liberal (opposed to say Authoritarian) . They are two different axises.

Doctor DooM

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Sorry about the inadequate options in the poll. I know there are many different definitions and opinions on what the terms mean, but I just put it up to see if the overwhelming majority were more atheist than agnostic.

You're not getting the fact you can be an agnostic atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive see, so people who know what the words actually mean can't answer!

AhSureTisGrand

I'm choosing "prefer not to say" so i can vote without contributing anything useful

Genghiz Cohen

I'm not going to vote at all in case my vote is inadvertently useful.

KidKeith89

Doctor DooM wrote: »

You're not getting the fact you can be an agnostic atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive see, so people who know what the words actually mean can't answer!

Yeah, but I didn't wanna go into all the different definitions! I never said the two were mutally exclusive.. Thirty people picked 'Atheist' and only one person picked 'Prefer not to say', so obviously people knew what I meant

Improbable

The way I always state it when asked to clarify my position is that I am an atheist in so much as that I don't have any reason to be an atheist but that I admit I cannot know for sure that there is not, to the same degree that I cannot know there is not a FSM.

Doctor DooM

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Yeah, but I didn't wanna go into all the different definitions! I never said the two were mutally exclusive.. Thirty people picked 'Atheist' and only one person picked 'Prefer not to say', so obviously people knew what I meant

Not really, you'll never know how many people read the options and didn't bother to pick anything because there wasn't a choice to accurately represent themselves. Asking multiple choice questions is an art in and of itself

By the way, a number of christians, at least one pagan and at least 2 muslims regularly read the forum too.

strobe

Doctor DooM wrote: »

N

By the way, a number of christians, at least one pagan and at least 2 muslims regularly read the forum too.

There are two Buddhists and a Hindu too.

Turtwig

strobe wrote: »

There are two Buddhists and a Hindu too.

Hindu, awesome! Who is it?

Gregor Samsa

Malty_T wrote: »

Hindu, awesome! Who is it?

You (in a past life).

Max Power1

All atheists are actually agnostics.

Atheism would be (to be anyway) we cannot be sure whether or not a "god" exists however on the balance of probablity it is very unlikely.

(similar to the almighty teapot on the rings of saturn etc)

The Mad Hatter

Pretty much most of us here would fall somewhere in the bottom left square. What you're calling agnostic would be pretty much dead centre on the graph, which I think is pretty rare.

Gregor Samsa

Max Power1 wrote: »

All atheists are actually agnostics.

No, there are positive explicit atheists that claim "there is at least one god" is a false statement. I haven't come across many (any?) of them, though.

AhSureTisGrand

Does anyone know of any atheists who claim to know there are no gods?

eblistic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Pretty much most of us here would fall somewhere in the bottom left square.

Are you sure? Has there been a poll on that?
I'm not 100% certain, but I'd definitely be somewhere on the positive end of that axis.

Doctor DooM

eblistic wrote: »

Are you sure? Has there been a poll on that?
I'm not 100% certain, but I'd definitely be somewhere on the positive end of that axis.

Virtually every atheist I have talked to would say if they were faced with actual evidence of the existence of a god they'd accept it. That kinda makes them an agnostic atheist.

AhSureTisGrand

Being "somewhat gnostic" sounds to me like being "somewhat pregnant". If you aren't fully certain, then you aren't certain

eblistic

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Virtually every atheist I have talked to would say if they were faced with actual evidence of the existence of a god they'd accept it. That kinda makes them an agnostic atheist.

Sure, so I'm not suggesting there'd be many who would claim 100% certainty. It'd be interesting to get a handle on the degree of certainty out there though. If you don't believe in God with the same degree of certainty as the tooth fairy or unicorns, even though somewhat agnostic, I would have thought you're still pretty sure of that. So that would be the upper end of the certainty axis.

eblistic

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Being "somewhat gnostic" sounds to me like being "somewhat pregnant". If you aren't fully certain, then you aren't certain

You wouldn't be one for probabilities so?!

AhSureTisGrand

eblistic wrote: »

You wouldn't be one for probabilities so?!

If I were gnostic I wouldn't be

Max Power1

phutyle wrote: »

No, there are positive explicit atheists that claim "there is at least one god" is a false statement. I haven't come across many (any?) of them, though.

Thats a belief in itself then!

KidKeith89

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Virtually every atheist I have talked to would say if they were faced with actual evidence of the existence of a god they'd accept it. That kinda makes them an agnostic atheist.

But until that day comes I'll say I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God

Doctor DooM

KidKeith89 wrote: »

But until that day comes I'll say I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God

But you're actually an agnostic atheist.

KidKeith89

Doctor DooM wrote: »

But you're actually an agnostic atheist.

Well, to me I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God.

ShooterSF

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Well, to me I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God.

And you are! A different subject though is do you claim to know god doesn't exist? If not youre agnostic too!

(You may also be ignostic as pointed out recently to me)

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

KidKeith89

ShooterSF wrote: »

And you are! A different subject though is do you claim to know god doesn't exist? If not youre agnostic too!

(You may also be ignostic as pointed out recently to me)

Well to be honest I didn't think this thread would turn out the way it did. Atheism isn't something I read a lot into, it does interest me though to a certain extent. As I was saying, I know there are many terms - agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, etc. I suppose technically I'm an agnostic atheist, according to you guys, but if someone were to ask me I'd say I'm an atheist because I reject the existence of a deity. The whole claim to knowledge thing, to me, is a whole different argument that I didn't wanna get into. I'm sorry if I confused people, but you can see where I'm coming from - I just wanted to see if there were more people on this forum that didn't believe in God than those who say, "I don't know".

axer

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Well to be honest I didn't think this thread would turn out the way it did. Atheism isn't something I read a lot into, it does interest me though to a certain extent. As I was saying, I know there are many terms - agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, etc. I suppose technically I'm an agnostic atheist, according to you guys, but if someone were to ask me I'd say I'm an atheist because I reject the existence of a deity. The whole claim to knowledge thing, to me, is a whole different argument that I didn't wanna get into. I'm sorry if I confused people, but you can see where I'm coming from - I just wanted to see if there were more people on this forum that didn't believe in God than those who say, "I don't know".

Yes, I think the poll was not worded well. 2 or 3 years back I posted here not fully understanding what atheistim and agnostism actually mean after the thread I understood the terms better. Back then I thought I was an agnostic.

Now I would describe myself as an atheist (but agnostic) since I see no evidence to suggest there is a god/creator etc. thus I don't belief in a god/creator etc but I cannot make a definitive statement that there is no god - all I can say is considering what we know it is highly unlikely (but still possible).

ShooterSF

KidKeith89 wrote: »

Well to be honest I didn't think this thread would turn out the way it did. Atheism isn't something I read a lot into, it does interest me though to a certain extent. As I was saying, I know there are many terms - agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, etc. I suppose technically I'm an agnostic atheist, according to you guys, but if someone were to ask me I'd say I'm an atheist because I reject the existence of a deity. The whole claim to knowledge thing, to me, is a whole different argument that I didn't wanna get into. I'm sorry if I confused people, but you can see where I'm coming from - I just wanted to see if there were more people on this forum that didn't believe in God than those who say, "I don't know".

I see where you're coming from. I would definitely think there are more atheists here than people on the fence on the issue.
I hope you don't think of us as bunch of narky bastardos now but mis-labeling is rife in society and it's a big problem; So, many of us attack any further misunderstandings. You see if I tell someone I'm an atheist and they misunderstand what that means or they tell me they're a catholic when they don't believe most of what catholicism teaches we have big problem as labels like these are used like a shortcut for one or more beliefs and if one person misunderstands the label being used someone is likely to get beliefs they don't actually agree with associated with them.

KidKeith89

ShooterSF wrote: »

I see where you're coming from. I would definitely think there are more atheists here than people on the fence on the issue.
I hope you don't think of us as bunch of narky bastardos now but mis-labeling is rife in society and it's a big problem; So, many of us attack any further misunderstandings. You see if I tell someone I'm an atheist and they misunderstand what that means or they tell me they're a catholic when they don't believe most of what catholicism teaches we have big problem as labels like these are used like a shortcut for one or more beliefs and if one person misunderstands the label being used someone is likely to get beliefs they don't actually agree with associated with them.

Yeah I see what you mean I didn't mean for the poll to be misleading, it was just for my interest really. No I don't think of you as a bunch of narky b**tards, just people who feel strongly about their beliefs

mikhail

And this thread is why I reject philosophy, and all its onanastic works. The OP asked a simple question, clearly using the common meaning of terms, common meanings we all understand. Instead of answering his perfectly reasonable question, we have a three page lexicographical argument, one we have had many times before, like a bunch of filthy nerds.

axer

mikhail wrote: »

And this thread is why I reject philosophy, and all its onanastic works. The OP asked a simple question, clearly using the common meaning of terms, common meanings we all understand. Instead of answering his perfectly reasonable question, we have a three page lexicographical argument, one we have had many times before, like a bunch of filthy nerds.

How are agnostic atheists supposed to answer the question? Its not a multiple choice poll.

mikhail

axer wrote: »

How are agnostic atheists supposed to answer the question? Its not a multiple choice poll.

axer

mikhail, I guess you have been unable to comprehend that the initial question does not make sense. You still haven't answered my question without being a d!ck.

GO_Bear

Gnostic Atheist Optimist

sensibleken

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Does anyone know of any atheists who claim to know there are no gods?

I do. As for how, your mind is not prepared for it yet. In order to understand it you will need to go through several stages of initiation before revealing all. All I ask is for a donation not less than €10,000 (for you know, publishing and shoes and stuff) for each level

seamus

mikhail wrote: »

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

I would post a facepalm in response to yours, but I prefer something constructive.

Imagine someone posted a poll which asked about sexuality and the three options were,

- I am gay
- I am female
- I prefer not to say

So some people can answer the poll, but overall the options are insufficient to provide any meaningful information.

In reality there is no atheist -v- agnostic divide or debate. Agnostic is the word which has been incorrectly hijacked by theologians to refer to anyone who's dropped off the religious map because, "He's just unsure" makes them more comfortable than, "He doesn't believe in God", because it gives the impression that Agnostics are just doubters who will eventually come back into the religious fold, whereas atheists are the die-hard satanists who are unsaveable.

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

I would post a facepalm in response to yours, but I prefer something constructive.

Imagine someone posted a poll which asked about sexuality and the three options were,

- I am gay
- I am female
- I prefer not to say


So some people can answer the poll, but overall the options are insufficient to provide any meaningful information.

I view it more as a case of a poll asking for your gender: male/female, and a long argument arising over the meaning of gender labels, the relative importance and significance of physical characteristics, genetics, hormone levels, personal identity, and how much of a moron the OP is for not allowing an option for transgender. Yes, all of that is technically correct, but the OP asked an innocent question which we can clearly answer.

As I posted earlier, the OP meant to ask "Do you believe in God?" Yes/No/Don't know, but because he used language which would be perfectly acceptable outside this forum but here is technically imprecise, he's been sat on and a tedious argument has arisen.

As for my facepalm, I have clearly stated my problems with the response to this poll, and I feel perfectly entitled to express frustration when someone continues exactly the same line of questioning. For what it's worth, the post that post replied to wasn't stand-alone, so I don't feel axer is terribly daft for his inane answer, but I don't apologise for suggesting that maybe he might have noticed my earlier post in a mere 3-page thread before replying with exactly the same question half the posts in the thread already pose.

axer

mikhail wrote: »

I view it more as a case of a poll asking for your gender: male/female, and a long argument arising over the meaning of gender labels, the relative importance and significance of physical characteristics, genetics, hormone levels, personal identity, and how much of a moron the OP is for not allowing an option for transgender. Yes, all of that is technically correct, but the OP asked an innocent question which we can clearly answer.

Nobody suggested the op was a moron in fact I thought people were being quite polite giving their reasons as to why the poll question is flawed and educating the OP on the subject.

mikhail wrote: »

As I posted earlier, the OP meant to ask "Do you believe in God?" Yes/No/Don't know, but because he used language which would be perfectly acceptable outside this forum but here is technically imprecise, he's been sat on and a tedious argument has arisen.

I didn't realise that you were the OP so why should anything change just because you say something. Are you special or something?

mikhail wrote: »

As for my facepalm, I have clearly stated my problems with the response to this poll, and I feel perfectly entitled to express frustration when someone continues exactly the same line of questioning.

Oh, didn't realise that just because you say something means it is true. Maybe you were completely wrong in your assertations. If you get that frustrated maybe you should take a break and calm down before you post so that you don't behave like a d1ck.

mikhail wrote: »

For what it's worth, the post that post replied to wasn't stand-alone, so I don't feel axer is terribly daft for his inane answer, but I don't apologise for suggesting that maybe he might have noticed my earlier post in a mere 3-page thread before replying with exactly the same question half the posts in the thread already pose.

Or maybe that most people still don't agree with your assertation even if you do, wow, mention it twice - it doesn't make it any more true. Or maybe people don't take too much head what you post in the first place thus it doesn't matter how many times you post it. Just some possibilities.

mikhail

Axer, I think you're being quite the hypocrite here. You've repeatedly called me a dick. (I'd report your posts for this reason, but I seem not to be that much of a dick.)

You've also misrepresented my argument (e.g. where exactly did I imply anyone was "suggesting the OP was a moron", and that's just the first line of your last post.)

If my being frustrated that my pointing out what I perceive as flaws in an argument or suggesting it's misplaced only to be replied to with the exact same argument makes me a dick, so be it.

What's more, that makes half the regulars this forum dicks - the exact same frustration is evident in any number of threads here. But apparently it's okay when we're frustrated with a religious person who ignores what we've written and just repeats his position to us after we've questioned it.

axer

mikhail wrote: »

Axer, I think you're being quite the hypocrite here. You've repeatedly called me a dick. (I'd report your posts for this reason, but I seem not to be that much of a dick.)

Nope, I said your behaviour was that of one. I dont think you are one though that is why I am surprised by your behaviour.

mikhail wrote: »

You've also misrepresented my argument (e.g. where exactly did I imply anyone was "suggesting the OP was a moron", and that's just the first line of your last post.)

In the first paragraph of this post.

mikhail wrote: »

If my being frustrated that my pointing out what I perceive as flaws in an argument or suggesting it's misplaced only to be replied to with the exact same argument makes me a dick, so be it.

No I would think it is the misplaced facepalm image that does that or the calling me daft and my post innane. Maybe I am being daft not to report that.

mikhail wrote: »

What's more, that makes half the regulars this forum dicks - the exact same frustration is evident in any number of threads here. But apparently it's okay when we're frustrated with a religious person who ignores what we've written and just repeats his position to us after we've questioned it.

Except your argument is very weak but yet called those that had responded politely and educationally as filthy nerds.

robindch

Deep breaths everybody.

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

Deep breaths everybody.

Noted.

In the first paragraph of this post.

Touché. To return to my point (bad example aside), you've misrepresented me, e.g. implying that I don't understand the objections being raised in the thread, when in fact I fully understand the objections, but think they don't warrant a degree of hair-splitting which lead to ShooterSF suggesting the replies made everyone here look like "narky bastardos".

No I would think it is the misplaced facepalm image that does that or the calling me daft and my post innane. Maybe I am being daft not to report that.

I think I worded the line badly, but the line where I used the word "daft" is meant to say that I didn't think the post reflected too badly on you. However, I should clarify: I do think your subsequent post, which clearly indicates you didn't bother to read the thread and my previous post, does reflect badly on you.

I did say your post was inane, and I said why. I have stated an objection to an unhealthy obsession with a narrow definition of a couple of terms. You reply to one of my posts by restating that obsession. This is practically the dictionary definition of inane, and I stand by my statement. If you have a problem with that, I refer you to your own wisdom:

axer wrote: »

Nope, I said your behaviour was that of one. I dont think you are one though that is why I am surprised by your behaviour.

I said your post was inane. Obviously, not actually calling you inane means you can't take offence to it.

Except your argument is very weak

"Oh, didn't realise that just because you say something means it is true." (That's your quote again, by the way.) No one has answered the argument. That's irritating. If it's weak, don't call it weak, say why it is weak.

but yet called those that had responded politely and educationally as filthy nerds.

As an unrepentant nerd myself, I was using the term wholly tongue-in-cheek. No offence was intended, except to those of you who need a shower!