@Fasces

"I am agnostic and think Atheists are worse then the fundamentalist Christians, because both of them place most of their decisions in the blind faith of their leaders... faith based"

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what atheism means. There is only one position that all atheists ascribe to, and that is that claims for the existence of a higher power have not met their burden of proof. Most atheists are not gnostics, meaning we don't claim to KNOW their is no God. If you are only talking about gnostic atheists, then yes, I think many of your claims are true. But there is no faith required to be a skeptic, in fact they are quite mutually exclusive.

Check out this graph if you are confused by what I mean re: atheism vs agnosticism. Most people don't realize this, but they are compatible terms. I, for example, am both.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/


At its most broad definition, and the definition most avowed atheists ascribe to, the only belief we hold is that we reject the assertion that there is a God. We do not reject the possibility. You, fasces, claim to be an agnostic. Are you also agnostic as to the existence of pink unicorns and leprechauns? If the answer is no, then you are probably an agnostic atheist and didn't even realize it!

@PE and others... this picture that is commonly painted of Dawkins-as-idol is really ludicrous. Nobody feels that way and nobody blindly follows him. I enjoy Dawkins and Hitchens because they brilliantly argue the logical case - far better than I could ever hope to. I do not agree with everything they say and I'm not required to in order to maintain my atheism.

Fasces, I thought of a better way to phrase my question to you:

If I assert to you that there is a God, do you accept that claim? If not, then you are an atheist by its most general and widespread definition.

Threadjack in 3...2...1...

@ ILN: "What of it?? Its a fact, like 2 + 2 = 4. no conclusions this time, libie."

If your comments have no particular point, don't bother posting them, factual or not.

Atheism's no more a monolithic movement than is Christianity. Christianity encompasses everything from Eastern Orthodox to Unitarian Universalists, and that's a huge span. Likewise, Atheism spans the whole range from what I like to call Evangelical Atheism (the angry activist type that wants to convert everyone and stamp out religion entirely) to Liberal Secular Humanists like me that encourage ecumenical dialogue, and think believers and non-believers can coexist. There's a huge range here, and to characterize us as "Dawkins and co" really oversimplifies the real situation.

For me, I'm an atheist because I literally do not understand the concept of religious belief in a god. I cannot concieve of such a thing as "God" as Christians express it. Asking me "do you believe in God?" is las meaningful a question to me as asking me "do you qwfwe3 ~ggu'ghung in fxgarth?"

@YJ,
"If I assert to you that there is a God, do you accept that claim? If not, then you are an atheist by its most general and widespread definition."

A truer test of the most widespread definition would be not whether one *accepts* the claim, but whether one *rejects* the claim.

There are, by most reckonings, four ways to respond to the question of whether there is a god:
-One may accept, in which case one is either religious or theistsic.
-One may reject, in which case one is an atheist.
-One may neither accept nor reject, but merely say that one is undecided, in which case one is agnostic.
-Or one may refuse to consider the question, stating that the question of god's existence or non-existence is of little consequence, as is the case with many agnostics and most secular humanists, those who believe there may well be a creator god, but who do not believe that there is an interventionist or sustainer god.

I suppose that the fifth way to respond would be to endlessly question the question, asking what definitions of "god" and "is" and "claim" and "accept" the questioner is using. This, however, is obnoxious, and amounts to a philosophical filibuster.

Where does that leave me, hecks? I question the question, because I don't understand it. I appear to be incapable of understanding what is actually meant by "God" as most Christians I have spoken to seem to conceive of "Him".

I'm not artificially taking that position in order to filibuster. I honestly don't get it. I've tried, but I honestly cannot conceive of what sort of a thing "God" could possibly be. Unless I can conceive of what people even actually mean by "God", how can I answer the question of whether or not I would be capable of believing in the existence of such a thing?

Hecks: you are conflating two ideas.

Rejecting the theistic claim that there is a God is NOT the same thing as asserting that there is not one.

If you do not accept a claim, then by definition you reject it. There is no in-between. You are doing the same thing fasces was, which is trying to present agnosticism as a type of "middle ground," when in reality it is addressing an entirely different question.

for instance, I do not accept the claim that there is a God.
Likewise, I do not accept the claim that there are no Gods.

By definition then, I reject both claims. Even though one of them must be right, neither has met its burden of proof.

I am still an atheist, because I reject the first claim.
I don't know if they have a word for a person who rejects the second.

@YJ,
I disagree strongly with your assertion that if you do not accept a claim then by definition you reject it.

You could claim for example, "I have ten thousand dollars in my wallet right now!". That's quite a claim, and I'd be unwilling to accept it at face value.
At the same time, I have no idea what your financial position is. You may well be a wealthy man for whom ten thousand dollars is not a lot of money. Thus I have no basis for rejecting your assertion.
Rather, I would reply that though I am deeply skeptical of your claim, I lack sufficient evidence or context to either accept or reject your claim that you have ten thousand dollars in your wallet.

"If you do not accept a claim, then by definition you reject it."

That is actually a false statement. There are three states: accept, continue to research/scepticism, or reject.

Damn, ninja'd by hecks.

@YJ,
Though it's a semantic disagreement, I nevertheless disagree with your characterization. If I did not accept the claim that there is a god and did not accept the claim that there are no gods, I would not then be rejecting both claims. Rather, I would be rejecting *neither* claim.

And YJ, if you don't accept the first but don't accept the seond either, you are by definition, an agnostic. If you reject the first, then by definitoion you accept the second, making you an atheist.

YJ - you are agnostic. Not accepting that there are absolutely no gods leaves an opening for their existence, even if you reject that to. A true atheist leave no wiggle room.

@YJ....and...possible proof of god? A strange civility has befallen former enemies? Huh? Huhhhh??? How 'about that, bud?

@krellin - That's just mass hysteria and mental illness possibly caused by a virus (or an alien invasion of body snatchers). that ain't God.

@Krellin & @Draug,
"....and...possible proof of god? A strange civility has befallen former enemies? Huh? Huhhhh??? How 'about that, bud?"

Actually, I take some credit for the new air of civility around here. That aint god, that's Hecks.

OK, as far as the agnostic/atheist confusion all 3 of you are experiencing, please do read the link I posted. I'm not going to keep spelling it all out for you until you can either agree with the definitions of "theist" and "gnostic" I have posited or tell me why they are not good. I do agree we all probably MEAN the same thing but the use of proper verbiage does become important.

@draugnar can you show me where your claim that there are "three states" comes from? My understanding is that, "skeptical" and "rejection" are actually the same thing. Again, rejecting a claim tells you nothing about whether you assert the converse claim.

@hecks same thing, really. Your rejecting my fat-wallet claim does not mean that you are actively asserting that I am wrong/mistaken/lying. Rejection does not mean you are convinced my wallet is NOT fat. You don't need a basis for rejecting my claim. I made a claim, so the burden of proof is in me. The default position is skepticism, or rejection.

@YJ Bahhh!!!! I'm adopting classic Liberal argumentation strategies and redefining the terms to fit my agenda... :P Be damned with you and your link! Bwaaa ha ha ha ha!

(See what I did there...be damned...as in...you know? Ohnevermind...)

@YJ,
I disagree. Merriam-Webster defines reject as, "to refuse to accept, *consider*, submit to, take for some purpose, or use." I may be refusing to accept your claim, but I am not refusing to consider it. Thus, it can be said that while I am not accepting your claim, I am likewise not rejecting it.

The bonus to thinking this way is that it becomes very easy to change your mind. To all claims, you can say, "I reject this claim pending further evidence." You can maintain this position comfortably, keep an open mind, and still not feel stupid when/if it turns out that eventually there is enough evidence to accept the claim.

@hecks

You are saying the exact same thing I am. Rejection does not mean refusal to consider. Rejecting a claim does not mean rejecting the possibility the claim is true.

Here is the real, serious question for the Christian (of which I consider myself a tottering, back-slidden member of said group...): What flipping difference does it make if he is atheist or agnostic? Either way once old YJ takes his last and starts to rot, he'll transport directly to hell to burn for eternity in horrible misery. God don't give much of a crap about the nuances of his disbelief, so why do we?

In truth, the distraction of arguing such a silly point is a victory for the Devil, because he has you arguing flip sides of evil, instead of espousing the truths of God.

Well played, you Yellow devil! Well played!!!

@krellin:

I actually wondered the same thing, because I always considered myself an "agnostic" in very much the same way fasces does, until this very chart was presented to me, and then I realized I was an atheist all along. I'm OK with any definition you want to present for atheism and agnosticism, but it's important that everybody understands and agrees so we know what we're talking about.

Don't ask me. I do actually consider myself atheistic. (I prefer to be called a Secular Humanist rather than a capital-a Atheist. I'll explain why if anyone's interested. But I'll admit to being atheistic.)

I'm reasonably well convinced that there's no god. Would I rule out the possibility? No, not entirely, but I'm convinced enough that I'm willing to call it a belief that there's not a god rather than a skepticism that there is.