Atheism, via infirmed choice or sheer laziness?

CiDeRmAn

Here's the thing,
I am an atheist, so far so good, get that out there to begin with.
Most of my friends would also consider themselves as atheists too.
Ok, no problems there.
Except where as I came to my atheistic position through thinking, reading, educating myself as to the true nature of the world around me and yet these friends of mine are simply lazy, never having questioned their faith or lack thereof until they were too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday.
I feel it undermines the legitimacy of my postion when those with a faith point to my supposed fellow travellers and point out their inability to debate their atheistic position, to defend their stand point.
Or is it that as an Atheist, it doesn't matter how weak the arguements of others are, its a unique individual point of view, independant of any dogma or scripture, not needing the existence of a brethren for support.
Did i just answer my own question?
Hell, am I in the right board in the first place?

Pherekydes

CiDeRmAn wrote:

I feel it undermines the legitimacy of my postion when those with a faith point to my supposed fellow travellers and point out their inability to debate their atheistic position...

Just because someone else can't defend their positions shouldn't affect your position. People who question your position because of your friends' inability are drawing conclusions where there are none to be drawn. And feeling that the legitimacy of your position is undermined by what people conclude about third parties, just because third parties are too lazy to think is wrong, too. (or illogical anyway)

Use your logic, man. (of course, if you do you'll find that God really does exist!!) :eek:

Manchegan

Originally posted by Slow coach
feeling that the legitimacy of your position is undermined by what people conclude about third parties, just because third parties are too lazy to think is wrong, too.

Out of interest, what if the third party was prominent life-long atheist Anthony Flew.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God, ABC News, December 9, 2004

biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

For the record, I believe agnosticism, that the existence or otherwise of God is unknowable, is by far more tenable.

Pherekydes

Manchegan wrote:

biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says

Flew could have worked that out when he was old enough to read. I don't buy that as the reason for his conversion. He was probably worried about ending up in hell (just in case it existed).

God may be unknowable, but one can still believe He exists.

neuro-praxis

I agree with CiDeRmAn: unthinking atheism is every bit as lacking in intellectual rigour as unthinking faith.

And Manchegan, how is agnosticism tenable? I am not challenging the belief: I'm simply asking what the sound reasoning is that the label you've given it implies.

Usually the philosophers who claim that God or "the mystical" is unknowable go on to say a whole lot about what they know about the unknowable nature of it all. Wittgenstein for example!

Interesting thread.

Manchegan

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
And Manchegan, how is agnosticism tenable? I am not challenging the belief: I'm simply asking what the sound reasoning is that the label you've given it implies.

Since Galileo, science and religion have been shown to be mutually exclusive, each consisting of fundamentally different building blocks, and bolstering one with the other is doomed to failure. Looking to science to "prove/disprove" the existence of God is akin to forcing a square peg through a round hole. Slow coach puts it best:

God may be unknowable, but one can still believe He exists.

BTW Slow coach, sounds suspiciously like you're calling Flew a lazy thinker.

Dades

I would suggest that lazy Athiests are in fact Agnostics. If that.

You tell a true Athiest by putting a person in a terrible situation with a potential horrific outcome, and see if they start to pray...

Me - well I guess you know where I stand...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Totally agree with "the Athiest" I normally say i'm athiest but now I realise I'm agnostic. Wouldn't say lazy though as it's only since I started doing science in school\college I've really rejected the bible\religion I was brought up in.

chewy

"never having questioned their faith or lack thereof until they were too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday.
I feel it undermines the legitimacy of my postion when those with a faith point to my supposed fellow travellers and point out their inability to debate their atheistic position, to defend their stand point."

i say it more to do them getting an age where they can decide whether they need to get up on sunday morning...

i say there as many lazy believers

Dades

I feel it undermines the legitimacy of my postion when those with a faith point to my supposed fellow travellers and point out their inability to debate their atheistic position, to defend their stand point.

The idea that someone should have to defend a disbelief is inherently ridiculous. The onus is always on the individual who claims that something exists.

If someone (e.g. a Christian) asks me why I'm an atheist I say;

"I'll tell you why I'm an atheist if you can explain to me why you're not a Hindu."

Hehe

RampagingBadger

The Atheist wrote:

The idea that someone should have to defend a disbelief is inherently ridiculous. The onus is always on the individual who claims that something exists.

I think that says it all really. You become a better christian by studying the bible and doing good works. Once you're an athiest you're an athiest. Why on earth would the fact that someone came to that position out of lack of interest in any way impinge on your faith (or lack of it). No offence mate but your point is illconceived in the extreme. Feel free to contradict me with a reasoned arguament.

Dades

RampagingBadger wrote:

No offence mate but your point is illconceived in the extreme. Feel free to contradict me with a reasoned arguament.

Who are you talking to Badger, me or the OP?!

I think you're talking to the first poster... Damn - I was looking for an argument!

*Mildly confused*

Zombienosh

is this a case of.... "you're not a true atheist, im a better one than you" ?

lol

grow up man.

bob*

I would suggest that lazy Athiests are in fact Agnostics.


Thats like saying all devout christains are jews by default - theyre just tacked the whole christ thing on the end of judaism .

Agnostics have more in common with any religion that they do with Atheists .

Dades

bob* wrote:

Agnostics have more in common with any religion that they do with Atheists .

I disagree.

Theists, Agnostics and Atheists all have one thing in common - a take on religion.

Theists and Atheists have definitive belief in a god and definitive belief in no god.

Agnostics believe there may be 'something', but that we simply don't know. To suggest that Agnostics have more in common with those who suscribe to old fables that they believe to be false doesn't sit with me. They reject the same gods as an Atheist, the only difference is that they hedge their bets as to the existence of one.

And is a Christian not just an updated Jew like their savior himself?
*Shrug* I'm not qualified on this topic

A.S.H.

The Atheist wrote:

They reject the same gods as an Atheist, the only difference is that they hedge their bets as to the existence of one.

I was raised a Christian by parents but by a certain age decided that the god they were raising me to believe wasn't the definitive one as such I decided to try out Atheism, however I jumped over to Agnosticism After a few moments the reasons being that I believed there must be something and also I'd rather face whatever it is when I die and go "well at least I didn't believe in the other buggers,eh" than realise I backed the wrong one. and Atheism just smacks of closing of all options

galactus

Manchegan wrote:

Originally posted by Slow coach
feeling that the legitimacy of your position is undermined by what people conclude about third parties, just because third parties are too lazy to think is wrong, too.

Out of interest, what if the third party was prominent life-long atheist Anthony Flew.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God, ABC News, December 9, 2004

biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

For the record, I believe agnosticism, that the existence or otherwise of God is unknowable, is by far more tenable.

Surely agnosticism itself is a theism?

I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING


This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity o the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.


Quoted from "Cosmic Trigger" by Anton Ellis Williams
http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml

Dades

ash wrote:

I decided to try out Atheism, however I jumped over to Agnosticism After a few moments the reasons being that I believed there must be something and also I'd rather face whatever it is when I die and go "well at least I didn't believe in the other buggers,eh" than realise I backed the wrong one. and Atheism just smacks of closing of all options

Welcome to Pascal's Wager.

A real Athiest doesn't concern themself with closing the options. They have no choice. You either believe something or you don't. What an Atheist won't do is "choose" to believe something that they know isn't true - no matter what the alleged conseqences. If they did believe it - they wouldn't be Atheists, now would they?

Re galactus:
Don't know whether I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing - but I don't believe agnosticism to be a theism.
The beliefs of an agnostic are too undefined. It's more a rejection of theism than anything else.

ecksor

bob* wrote:

Agnostics have more in common with any religion that they do with Atheists .

How do you conclude that? My take on it is that the theists and the atheists both claim to know something but never seem to have a satisfactory way of demonstrating that what they know is true. From my point of view both groups have made a leap of faith and have equally little to do with agnostics (although most theists make rather more specific leaps of faith but it would be nice to have this discussion just the once without people getting distracted by specific religions).

I consider myself agnostic. Not because I'm hedging my bets but because I genuinely don't see any way of knowing one way or another.

elivsvonchiaing

ecksor wrote:

How do you conclude that? My take on it is that the theists and the atheists both claim to know something but never seem to have a satisfactory way of demonstrating that what they know is true. From my point of view both groups have made a leap of faith and have equally little to do with agnostics (although most theists make rather more specific leaps of faith but it would be nice to have this discussion just the once without people getting distracted by specific religions).

I consider myself agnostic. Not because I'm hedging my bets but because I genuinely don't see any way of knowing one way or another.

Hmm have to salute this! We have reached an age where truly we know nothing. I'm not a nihilist or anything - but we don't know if we're not running on a tera-peta-flop server in the 12th century - in the exhibit - if Pyro systems hadn't saved the library of Alexandria!

It seems unlikely but "I think therefore I am backed-up" seems more all-embracing to me!

Crucifix

I've always disliked Pascal's Wager. Surely an omnipotent being would know if you were just pretending.

Dades

Crucifix wrote:

I've always disliked Pascal's Wager. Surely an omnipotent being would know if you were just pretending.

Absolutely.

I guess that's part of the wager. I'll choose to believe in case there is a god, and hope that he won't mind that I'm actually sceptical.

The thing is once you choose to believe something you may well eventually convince yourself it is true. Problem solved.

ailbheol

Atheism means literally "no religion" and is pretty much based on a person's rejection of all the religious doctrines that they have knowledge of and also the rejection of belief in the existence of god. I suppose you could call it lazy in a way and i would venture that a lot of so-called "atheists" would probably switch to agnosticism if they took the time to research and think about religions and beliefs. it's easy to say what you don't believe in but much harder to define what you think is real. also atheism has become trendy (you only have to look at the numeber of usernames that contain the word "atheist" to see this phenominon in action) and associated with anarchy and subversity and so is seen as cool. people are too quick to lable themselves as atheists.

Dades

I agree with a lot of what you've said, ailbheol.

The word atheist is bandied about, misinterpreted and used interchangably with the term agnostic. But in such circumstances we're not really talking about true atheists, merely those who are adapting the monikor for whatever reason.

However the original "lazy" tag should be applied only to those who take the term lightly, not those who have reached their inevitable destination though literature, discussion, experience and an open mind. A real atheist doesn't choose to be one. (Though they can choose their username!)

About which is harder to deal with, the default 'setting' for most people is "Theist", as is programmed by parents and society. Therefore more of a leap is required to become a true atheist and reject the accepted notions. It is following the path of least resistance that steadies the religious ranks, whereas a true leap of 'faith' is required to step away from it all.

galactus

I disagree with a lot of what The Atheist said.

How can you equate having an open mind with being an atheist? Surely being an atheist is in itself a belief system.

Posters may find (and probably already have read) Russell's definition of agnostic.

Also have a quibble with your signature - "Faith is the belief in something you can't prove" seems more valid.

Finally - define "God". Is your idea of a God the same as mine?

Dades

galactus wrote:

I disagree with a lot of what The Atheist said.

How dare you! Thou shalt be smote down!

How can you equate having an open mind with being an atheist? Surely being an atheist is in itself a belief system.

Are you suggesting that all atheists have closed minds? I don't think that's reasonable at all. A true atheist reaches their conclusion after careful examination of all manners of spirituality. My point above was that in order to break free of the accepted theastic notions an open mind is required to begin with. Most theists are simply following the line of their parents or society, and I doubt have ever considered the validity of other religions.

No doubt there are atheists that have closed their minds for what ever reason, but no more than you'll find in any other grouping - religious or otherwise.

Also have a quibble with your signature - "Faith is the belief in something you can't prove" seems more valid.

The unthinkable suggestion in my sig is that deep down many followers know that the myths they follow are simply that. But for reasons of comfort, acceptance or convenience choose to believe. I understand your point of view - but it's my sig.

Finally - define "God". Is your idea of a God the same as mine?

The most important point of all.

I guess I consider a "GOD" as a creator figure. An omnipotent being, who is "hands on" when it comes to his/her creation.

I'm not an expert in world religions, but my perception is that every god figure is "involved" in the society that worships it. In short the god can be called upon to act through prayer, or can be angered, pleased, appeased etc.

That is my perception of a GOD. And is that which I cannot believe to exist.

davej

ecksor wrote:

I consider myself agnostic. Not because I'm hedging my bets but because I genuinely don't see any way of knowing one way or another.

I concur with ecksor on this matter. Confirmed Atheists and Theists both hold their beliefs on faith, as neither position can ever be proved. There is no empirical evidence that can ever put the matter beyond doubt.

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Or is it that as an Atheist, it doesn't matter how weak the arguements of others are, its a unique individual point of view, independant of any dogma or scripture, not needing the existence of a brethren for support

Atheism is a dogmatic* position to take too.

davej


*dogmatic=Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Dades

davej wrote:

Atheism is a dogmatic* position to take too.

davej

*dogmatic=Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Spoken like a true believer.

By what do you define a postion? A belief is not an assertion of fact. A true belief is something personal that only the individual can understand. That goes for all beliefs. The fact that you are threatened by somebody elses beliefs smacks of insecurity.

Anybody who claims they know something to be fact, atheist, or theist, is misguided.

ecksor

I agree with davej, but I don't find your beliefs threatening so I don't know why you think he is threatened. Your arrogance on this matter is pretty hard to deny considering your justification for your signature.

"Atheist of theist" - Do you believe that everyone falls into those two groups despite the assertions by some (myself included) that some people fall into neither?

Also, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence there. Do you regard atheism as disbelief in the existence of gods or do you regard atheism as the belief that there is no god? If you differentiate between those positions, can you elaborate on why you differentiate between those positions?

davej

The Atheist wrote:

Spoken like a true believer.

By what do you define a postion? A belief is not an assertion of fact. A true belief is something personal that only the individual can understand. That goes for all beliefs. The fact that you are threatened by somebody elses beliefs smacks of insecurity.

Anybody who claims they know something to be fact, atheist, or theist, is misguided.

I would not say that that i feel threatened by peoples' beliefs per se. However I do feel very secure in my knowledge that people with dogmatic beliefs may attempt to impose their values on me. So contrary to your conclusion, any such threat would certainly not be grounded in any personal insecurity over my position on matters.

The scholarly debate over the existance of God is an antinomy

I am not hedging my bets because the "game" is null and void.

In terms of belief:

The idea that someone should have to defend a disbelief is inherently ridiculous.

It is simply arrogance to assume that not believing in God is the "default" position. Your disbelief is someone elses belief. They could equally argue that it is ridiculous that they should have to defend their disbelief of no God.

<edit> just noticed ecksor made a similar point</edit>

I see little difference between a commited well read atheist and those commited theists who have read the literature/philosophy and are fully aware of the political history of the church etc and yet still believe in God through faith.

davej

pickarooney

If you had nobody to tell you about God's existence, could you still believe in it?

Dades

This is priceless - I've never been called arrogant before in my entire life.

I took exception with DaveJ who basically labelled all atheists as arrogant in their beliefs. I don't generally go about spouting off on the subject - there's too much resistance in society and you don't want to step on peoples toes. But I've obviously made the mistake of thinking you could state your beliefs in a philosophy forum without being labelled "arrogant".

I've tried insofar as possible to answer any point raised in a genial manner and welcomed any further interest in the thread. I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm just posting. Lets face it - the philosphy section isn't exactly kicking. And I was posting as "The Atheist" before I even knew there was a philosophy forum.

It is simply arrogance to assume that not believing in God is the "default" position.

Actually this is the opposite of what I said.

I see little difference between a commited well read atheist and those commited theists who have read the literature/philosophy and are fully aware of the political history of the church etc and yet still believe in God through faith.

Great - we agree on something.

For ecksor

Also, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence there. Do you regard atheism as disbelief in the existence of gods or do you regard atheism as the belief that there is no god? If you differentiate between those positions, can you elaborate on why you differentiate between those positions?

Uh okay it's been a long week - but I don't differenciate. If there isn't one - then none exist as far as I can see.

Back to vous

Dades

pickarooney wrote:

If you had nobody to tell you about God's existence, could you still believe in it?

You could - but how would you know what to believe?
Depends where you are. You're likely to believe different things if you wake up in Utah, Mecca, Calcutta or on a desert island.

ecksor

The Atheist wrote:

This is priceless - I've never been called arrogant before in my entire life.

That hardly proves anything.

I took exception with DaveJ who basically labelled all atheists as arrogant in their beliefs. I don't generally go about spouting off on the subject - there's too much resistance in society and you don't want to step on peoples toes. But I've obviously made the mistake of thinking you could state your beliefs in a philosophy forum without being labelled "arrogant".

Stating your own beliefs is fine but I came to the conclusion that you are demonstrating arrogance becuase when it was pointed out that your signature makes no sense, you justified it on the basis that many groups of people are deluding themselves. To me that suggests that you believe that you have examined the matter so conclusively that there's no way that those people you refer to could have reached a different conclusion unless they're denying the truth. You also seem to be saying that it took some independence of thought to become atheist while theists are often following the path of least resistence. These things suggest a certain amount of arrogance to me. If this is not the case then please explain.

I've tried insofar as possible to answer any point raised in a genial manner and welcomed any further interest in the thread. I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm just posting.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with your posts. I don't know how you justify some of the comments that I would regard as being arrogant, but I don't personally regard "arrogance" as an insult in all contexts. It was merely an observation based upon your objection to the use of the word. If you can argue your case well here then I don't care how arrogant you are.

For ecksor
Uh okay it's been a long week - but I don't differenciate. If there isn't one - then none exist as far as I can see.

Back to vous

The only reason I ask is because it appeared to to me as if you were differentiating between belief and disbelief, but as another person said one person's belief is another person's disbelief. I wasn't sure if you were differentiating, so I felt it best to ask before proceeding. Don't forget, earlier you said

The idea that someone should have to defend a disbelief is inherently ridiculous. The onus is always on the individual who claims that something exists.

Do you not regard disbelief of existence to be belief in non-existence? If you do, then why do you not feel as if you have to defend your belief but that the onus is upon the believers in existence? Now, don't get me wrong, within the realms of science, I would agree with you 100%, but in something like this I'm not so sure of the logic and I would like to hear your views upon that.

Is it fair to say that you believe that there is no god but that you don't know that there is no god?

If that is the case (it seems to be the most consistent reading of your posts so far although see my later question about what you know isn't true) then why don't you know? How could you ever find out? If you can't ever know, then why do you not regard yourself as agnostic?

I'm not trying to convert anyone either (I don't know if that word even applies here), I'm just wondering where you draw the line.

To put in some context, let me offer some comments upon some things you said earlier:

[apparently regarding the difference between agnostics and atheists]
You tell a true Athiest by putting a person in a terrible situation with a potential horrific outcome, and see if they start to pray...

I don't pray nor am I inclined to pray. Prayer in a terrible situation would make no sense to me since I may be praying to nothing. Either there is no god, in which case it's obviously wasted effort, or there is a god, but I have no way of knowing if he/she/it bothers to listen to prayers or cares about me. Since I've never seen any evidence regarding the non-existence or existence of a god (or what the nature of a god would be) then it doesn't seem logical to pursue that course of action since I have no reason to think that it would succeed. However that doesn't make me an atheist.

Apparently you do claim to have some knowledge, as opposed to just belief, regarding god(s) because you said

What an Atheist won't do is "choose" to believe something that they know isn't true - no matter what the alleged conseqences.

What is it that you know isn't true, and how?

Dades

Bejasus ecksor it's Friday and I've a bottle of wine in the fridge.

You also seem to be saying that it took some independence of thought to become atheist while theists are often following the path of least resistence. These things suggest a certain amount of arrogance to me. If this is not the case then please explain.

Yes I do believe many religious followers are taking the path or least resistance. So I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Do you not regard disbelief of existence to be belief in non-existence? If you do, then why do you not feel as if you have to defend your belief but that the onus is upon the believers in existence? Now, don't get me wrong, within the realms of science, I would agree with you 100%, but in something like this I'm not so sure of the logic and I would like to hear your views upon that.

I guess I look at everything as you would with science. Many things that were unexplained for millenia were ultimately explained this way. I don't believe science will explain the bigger questions during your life, mine, or maybe ever, but that doesn't change the way I approach a decision.

Is it fair to say that you believe that there is no god but that you don't know that there is no god?

If that is the case (it seems to be the most consistent reading of your posts so far although see my later question about what you know isn't true) then why don't you know? How could you ever find out? If you can't ever know, then why do you not regard yourself as agnostic?

My understanding of an agnostic is one who believes in the existence of a "higher power", but also that we know nothing of the truth of it.

If I am an agnostic by virtue of the fact that I believe there is no such "higher power", but cannot ever know this to be true, then does that not make everybody agnostic? Nobody can know if their god really exists thus making them agnostic too? I would have thought your "title" depends on what you believe, rather than what you can prove.

Lastly I have to admit my sig is misleading. The word "know" doesn't really belong in general cases. What it really jabs at is those (and there are many) who choose to believe in something for the reasons other than that they believe it to be the truth.

galactus

The Atheist wrote:

My understanding of an agnostic is one who believes in the existence of a "higher power", but also that we know nothing of the truth of it.

Cool! I get to quote myself:

galactus wrote:

Posters may find (and probably already have read) Russell's definition of agnostic.

leeroybrown

davej wrote:

Atheism is a dogmatic* position to take too.

I definitely agree. Atheism has more in common with religious belief than Agnosticism has. I consider myself to be Agnostic because I'm extremely sceptical of the existance of a God. A sceptic is by definition one who is open to persuasion. Conversely, a true Atheist has belief that there is no God in precisely the same way as the most religious believe in God.

Also, I think if you explained the definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism to people who claim to be Atheists many would have to admit that they have ill-defined themselves.

Cathy

Stephen F. Roberts said:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

It's a quote I've always liked

ecksor

The Atheist wrote:

My understanding of an agnostic is one who believes in the existence of a "higher power", but also that we know nothing of the truth of it.

Hm ... I think your understanding is flawed.

Zombrex

leeroybrown wrote:

I definitely agree. Atheism has more in common with religious belief than Agnosticism has. I consider myself to be Agnostic because I'm extremely sceptical of the existance of a God. A sceptic is by definition one who is open to persuasion. Conversely, a true Atheist has belief that there is no God in precisely the same way as the most religious believe in God.

It really puzzles me when people say Atheism is like a religion. That is rather flawed reasoning.

An Athesist doesn't believe in God any more than he/she believes in dragons or the tooth fairy, because there is no reason to.

It is not a religious choice to not believe in God. It is by definition a lack of belief in a supernatural power.

ecksor

Well, I don't know why you are puzzled here because he didn't say that atheism was like a religion, he said it had more in common with religious belief than agnosticism does [*]. In the context of this argument where the crucial point seems to be what people claim to know and what they believe then I think he has a point.

An Athesist doesn't believe in God any more than he/she believes in dragons or the tooth fairy, because there is no reason to.

I think you could say the same about many agnostics.


[*] Put another way, I could probably find similarities between the manchester united fan club and religious movements without coming to the conclusion that Roy Keane is our saviour. Then again, many people revere him in a similar way, so make what you will of that example.

Dades

Atheism is like religion in that it's at least a definitive point of view.

A Theist believes in the existence of a god(s).
An Atheist believes a god or gods do not exist.
An Agnostic doesn't claim to believe either way.

Ecksor - that definition of an Agnostic differs from what I've alway thought BTW. If an agnostic is someone who simply believes that we cannot know - well lets face it we are all agnostics. Nobody can genuinely claim to know for sure (though many do). We may believe one way or another, but we cannot know.

Put another way, I could probably find similarities between the manchester united fan club and religious movements without coming to the conclusion that Roy Keane is our saviour. Then again, many people revere him in a similar way, so make what you will of that example.

I've always thought this a good analogy. If you're born in Manchester chances are you'll support whichever club your family supports. If your Dad is a Man City supporter - you will be too. Similarly if you born in Utah to mormons, or in Dublin to Catholics - chances are you'll follow their team too. The point is most religious beliefs aren't chosen - you're born into them.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Cathy - I've always liked that quote too.

ecksor

Which definition? On this thread you appear to be saying that they don't believe either way but that they also believe in the existence of a "higher power". In the same sentence you say that (by a definition involving knowledge) we're all agnostics, but then admit that there are people who are not. One could take the view that all knowledge is conjecture and then I'd get to secretly label everyone an agnostic, but that may not correspond with their own ideas of what they know and don't know. I'm really finding it difficult to pin down what exactly it is that you think since you seem to me to be constantly contradicting yourself. Some of my earlier questions might help to resolve the confusion.

Dades

ecksor wrote:

I'm really finding it difficult to pin down what exactly it is that you think since you seem to me to be constantly contradicting yourself.

Think about what, exactly?

ecksor

See anywhere that I have pointed to an apparent contradiction. You did help to slightly clear up some of the mire in your last post but then appeared to contradict yourself again. I thought my last post highlighted two of those possible contradictions. I think that most of my confusion is coming from your use of the words "belief" and "know", since you use the word "know", but then you also seem to claim that it's basically not a useful word since we can claim that nobody can know anything and that belief is the defining factor. If you think that knowledge is conjectural, but still find that "know" is a useful word then I would like you to explain in what circumstances and for what meanings it is useful.

It's also not always clear what definitions of atheist, agnostic and theist you are working from. Your last set of definitions seem to not include the "hedging of bets" that you originally claimed that agnostics had or the "we believe but we don't know" stance that you attributed to them either. Also, your definition of Atheist and your earlier statement that you don't differentiate betweetn belief in the lack of gods and the lack of belief in gods means that the question of why you think that the onus of proof is on the theists still isn't clear.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly trying to trip you up since I believe there are probably logically consistent answers to the questions that I'm putting to you and I'm keen to hear them, but so far it seems a bit muddled.

Altheus

/me puts hand up... Lazy Agnostic, informed humanist :P

Dades

ecksor wrote:

I think that most of my confusion is coming from your use of the words "belief" and "know", since you use the word "know", but then you also seem to claim that it's basically not a useful word since we can claim that nobody can know anything and that belief is the defining factor. If you think that knowledge is conjectural, but still find that "know" is a useful word then I would like you to explain in what circumstances and for what meanings it is useful.

I think you're referring to my sig again, yeah? I must find out again to who I can attribute that quote. Yes it sounds inconsistent in the context of the discussion at hand but it's just a sigline, and it's just a quote I like. And I don't feel like changing it to a picture of The Hoff like a few around here...

Your last set of definitions seem to not include the "hedging of bets" that you originally claimed that agnostics had or the "we believe but we don't know" stance that you attributed to them either.

I wasn't trying to define anything - more just to allude to the similarities between the first two. Definitions of any of the three require more than a few words each.

Also, your definition of Atheist and your earlier statement that you don't differentiate betweetn belief in the lack of gods and the lack of belief in gods means that the question of why you think that the onus of proof is on the theists still isn't clear.

Once again you're losing me here... you are going to have to expand on this. I believe in the lack of gods? I have a lack of belief in gods? To put it simply I believe all GODS are a human conception and therefore are myth along with hobbits and centaurs. I can't help that belief.

Re the onus of proof; if I claim that there is an invisible goat standing beside me - would you expect me to back this up - or do you think the onus is equally on the you to show that the invisible goat does not exist? (For that matter do you believe in the lack of an invisible goats, or do you have a lack of belief in the goat?!)

If somebody claims something that cannot be seen or touched exists the burden of proof lies with them. That's the way it is in law, in science and with me.

I'm beginning to understand why I used to think philosophy a pointless waste of breath

ecksor

The Atheist wrote:

I think you're referring to my sig again, yeah?

No. You made reference to groups "knowing" outside of your signature. As I already quoted:

The Atheist wrote:

What an Atheist won't do is "choose" to believe something that they know isn't true - no matter what the alleged conseqences.

The Atheist wrote:

I wasn't trying to define anything - more just to allude to the similarities between the first two. Definitions of any of the three require more than a few words each.

Ok, but I still can't quite pin down what you mean when you say certain words, and it still isn't clear which definition you referred to a few posts back. I'll come back to this in my last paragraph.

Once again you're losing me here... you are going to have to expand on this. I believe in the lack of gods? I have a lack of belief in gods? To put it simply I believe all GODS are a human conception and therefore are myth along with hobbits and centaurs. I can't help that belief.

You've already stated that you don't differentiate, which lead me to conclude something else from your stance, but as you said you're not following what I'm trying to say.

Re the onus of proof; if I claim that there is an invisible goat standing beside me - would you expect me to back this up - or do you think the onus is equally on the you to show that the invisible goat does not exist?

I was asking you to explain your line of reasoning about this. It's pretty clear that my thinking on this matter is not similar to yours (and goats have nothing to do with this, I don't find it to be a suitable analogy) so my answer doesn't shed any light upon your answer. However, you do answer the question later on so I'll deal with it there.

(For that matter do you believe in the lack of an invisible goats, or do you have a lack of belief in the goat?!)

Why are you asking me this? You've already stated that you don't see any difference in those two stances and I am happy to go along with that. I merely asked you because I thought that you might have been differentiating, hence the question about onus of proof since belief and disbelief are essentially the same by your thinking.

If somebody claims something that cannot be seen or touched exists the burden of proof lies with them. That's the way it is in law, in science and with me.

Personal preference then (since this is neither law or science). Fine, although some reasoning for it in this instance, considering the things I have pointed out, would have been nice.

I'm beginning to understand why I used to think philosophy a pointless waste of breath

This (or any other) philosophical discussion won't go anywhere if we can't clearly communicate to each other what basis we are approaching the topic at hand and what precisely we mean when we say certain things. As far as I can tell, there is an interesting discussion to be had, but we haven't actually started it because we can't get ourselves to that point. If, as you say, you're not trying to define any terms, then it's not possible to know what you mean. I don't know what you mean therefore I can't discuss this with you.

On that note, I shall have to retire from this attempt to discuss.

Dades

ecksor wrote:

On that note, I shall have to retire from this attempt to discuss.

All very formal, but I can't say I'm not relieved.

And I'll resist the custom to say something smart to finish it.

'Till next time.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

galactus

ziggy67 wrote:

I agree with The Atheist when he says that we are all basically agnostic- we cannot definetively know whether a god exists or not.

In fact he was saying that there is no god.