For instance; social issues such as euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion etc. It always seems the vocal religious right that pushes their moral high ground based of their teaching and scripture. Why does secular society bend to these moral police, when their morals are cherry-picked from ancient scriptures that, taken as a whole, are often very morally dubious!

"Thucydides: Religion is not a neutral force if it has people accept its beliefs and act in certain ways while remaining entirely unquestioning."

Agreed, but only if you also admit that materialism/atheism is just as dogmatic.

"It cannot be said that something might exist of there is no evidence to support this claim."

Yes it can. Because it could. I could have said, fifty years ago: "There might be Dark Energy"

I would have been justified despite a lack of evidence. Now there is evidence. I am still justified.

Additionally, Occam's Razor is itself dogma, a claim which cannot be claimed to be known in good conscience.

JECE I am especially troubled by the "you cannot say something might exist if there is no evidence for it" statement.


Think about it for a second.

Do you KNOW there is no such thing as a unicorn? No!

Reason why: there could be a unicorn living on a planet 50 parsecs from here.

There is no evidence for such but you are forced to admit that it is a possibility.

By extension, there could be a God. It is a logical possibility. Therefore you must admit that there may be a God despite no evidence.

Just like I admit there could be bigfoot, or the loch ness monster, or alien abductions.

They ARE possible. They SIMPLY are.

For reference see "Sextus Empiricus."

Basically my gripe with atheists is that they don't admit they are ramming ideology and dogma down people's throats as much as any religionist.

Atheist says: "There IS NO GOD. This is a FACT you MUST accept look at my EVIDENCE!"

Religionist says:" There IS a God! This is a FACT you MUST accept, look at my EVIDENCE!"

You, as an atheist will now say "yeah but one guy's evidence is good whereas the other's is shit."

This is where you are wrong.

All evidence you claim to rely on ultimately relies on sensory perception, which could be faulty.

Given this, your evidence could be wrong.

Given this, any number of scenarios besides what you claim to know could be the reality.

Therefore you are a dogmatist for you refusing to acknowledge this.

Just as the Muslim imam is a dogmatist for refusing to acknowledge it.

HOWEVER, if you are a theist who states as a caveat that he only "hopes" or "has faith" that God exists, or if you are an atheist who merely "thinks" "believes" or "suspects" there is no God but adds a caveat, "but I do not know," then you cease to be a dogmatist.

Then you are a just a hopeful, who has faith, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that whether you're a scientologist a Wiccan or an atheist.

A lack of evidence is *not* proof of a lack of existence. It is only proof of our current inability to observe, measure and record the evidence. Did the fish that have been discovered in the deepest depths of the ocean never exist until we managed to dive deep enough and find them? By your logic, they didn't. Were numerous astronomic bodies non-existant until we built space-based telescoped with the capability to measure their effects on the stars they orbit? By you logic they weren't. So we can't yet record evidence of God or of a soul. That does not mean they don't exist. Just that we need to continue to find new ways to explore the universe within and around us.

Put better, (not to hate, Draug):

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

As with most of the debates here, we are all using pretty wide brushes. Thucy, not all atheists are as dogmatic as you claim, as is with most religious people. But frankly, I don't give a shit what people believe in, as long it isn't doing any harm and they are not forcing it on anyone else.

I'm pretty low key about my atheism, primarily because my family is quite religious, but as I said above, faith, or lack of, shouldn't be flaunted around as some sort of badge.

Nice and succinct, Thucy. I just wanted to provide examples to refute that flawed theory the atheists so often trot out.

I want to distinguish between the definition of dogma and the connotation of dogma:

Definition: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

Connotation: Someone being really abrasive and basically yelling at you "I'm wrong and your right so shape up and agree with me."

If you are an atheist or a religionist who does not meet the criteria describe above, if you are one who, when pinned down, agrees that they claim to *know* one way or the other if God is real or not, then you are by DEFINITION a dogmatist.

A dogmatist, by definition, is someone who claims they know something.

So just because you don't force your ways on someone does not mean you're not a dogmatist.

Just want to clear that up.


Soo.... in that sense, atheism is no more harmful than religion if you go by the assumption that, as JECE said:

"Religion [or atheism] is not a neutral force if it has people accept its beliefs and act in certain ways while remaining entirely unquestioning."

Of course JECE is implying that instead of being a neutral force, it is a negative force.

I just want to point out that, while I don't claim to know whether that is negative or positive, atheism is clearly just as dogmatic as theism.


Moving on now to texasdeluxe who mentioned proofs in the God delusion against agnostics.

Let me give you a "proof" of my own that undoubtedly supersedes whatever Dawkins put out:

1) You can't know anything.
2) If you can't know anything, anything could be possible, since you have no way of knowing what is impossible of possible.
3) If anything is possible, God is possible.

You may say: but logic proves that there cannot be a God.

I say: if you cannot know anything you also cannot know if logic is always correct or consistent. For reference see Descartes' "evil deceiver."

So.... yeah. I'm an agnostic, and I'm not budging. And I'm not going to pull any punches on atheists either, who often comfortably assume that agnostics are their allies. I for one am not any more than I am Rick Warren's ally.

...and with that, Thucy has taken everything I could ever have to say on the subject.

OK. Thucy is my hero. Even as a deist with Christian leanings, his views and explanations strike home for me. I believe what I believe but cannot know any of it as an irrefutable fact anymore than I can know his Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (rAmen) does or doesn't exist or am athiest can know God doesn't exist.

Oh, and unicorns exist just as Santa does. For as long as little girls dream about them, they exist in those dreams.

Agnostics are wishy-washy. You're pretty much saying 'I really don't believe in God, but I'd like to keep that option open, just in case.' The argument: 'you can't know anything' is a really boring one to make.

I am in fact God. I know everything. Sometimes I lose at Dilpomacy and make typos just so I feel mortal. You can't be certain that I am not telling the truth. Since there is a possibility that I am God, you can't know that I don't know anything (and everything). Therefore your 'dogma' that 'you can't know anything' is possibly false. Maybe you are God and are just screwing with us.

Or I'm just some guy from Toronto who plays online board games, and when all possible evidence suggests one outcome I accept that outcome as truth. Otherwise your life has even less meaning than my meaningless life, because you spend the whole time wondering if you even exist. Are you sure that you do?

Now if after weighing the evidence you decide you believe God exists, well then at least you're picking a side. Agnostics are just wishy-washy.

The trouble with our friend from Toronto is that is he who would have believed in the flat Earth, discounted the theory that the Earth went round the sun or that the continents move. The 'evidence' would have left him marooned with what his eyes saw - optics. Doubt, however, might have given him 'vision'. And, in the final analysis, that is how we move on. It is uncomfortable, but it is actually the true scientific method and, in fact, Dawkensian dogmatism is anathema to this.

I believe that it is highly unlikely that a God exists. Organized religion, and therefore God, is simply a means of manipulation of the populace by kleptocrats. No, you can't know anything, but saying God exists is like saying Santa exists. There is a VEEEEEERRRRRRRYYYY slim chance that one does exist, but our understanding is simply a construct, and therefore probably false. There has to be some point at which you have to draw the line between philosophy and cold, hard science. Prove to me, in any way, that God exists, and that any place could support one, and that he is able to subsist, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I'll think of all religious people as deluded idiots who go around believing things without proof like 2-year olds. And don't you dare cite the Bible. That book is so screwed up. First, if God's so all-knowing, why harsh, retributive punishments and inequality in the old testament and then a change in the new, like the omniscient deity changed his mind. Then there are factual inconsistencies.

Religion is also detrimental to society. You've got a bunch of deluded religious freaks impeding scientific progress (in developed countries; stem cell research and abortion much?) and starting wars and conflicts(in unstable regimes) How is people living with a delusion good? Because we will all go to heaven and be happy ever after? That's another horrible part of it. THERE IS NO HEAVEN, said with as much certainty (about .0000001% chance that there is) as that there is no God. Some people who I've met do nothing because "our time here is just waiting to go to heaven." AAAAAGH! You can't live life without accepting final death. I agree with existentialists' ideas of freedom. You cannot be free unless you alone are responsible for your actions. Religious people are led around like sheep by their belief that god or Jesus has given them a destiny. WE choose our path in life, we choose our essence.

Also, I take the challenge. Society did not develop because of religion.

I have to say that I am uncomfortable about a God being unlikely. For example there is -
the argument from first cause. Here the divine explanation is at least as good as any alternative based on the 'atheist belief system' and, in my view, superior.

I find that rejecting the existence of a higher power or cosmos to be very ignorant, closed-minded, and prideful. I am not religious, that's just a personal belief of mine.

Sorry Thucy, I don't buy it. Why should I, as an atheist, be under any obligation to prove that god doesn't exist?

I say there is nothing, because there is no evidence that there is something. If you think there is something, prove it. If you can't, leave me alone.

@ fulhamish:

"I have to say that I am uncomfortable about a God being unlikely. For example there is - the argument from first cause. Here the divine explanation is at least as good as any alternative based on the 'atheist belief system' and, in my view, superior."

No it isn't, because it's not a full explanation. Let me ask you an important question:

If god created the universe, then who created god?

(What I mean, by the way, is that if you argue that there must be a god because everything needs to have been 'caused' by something else, then that's no argument at all, because god would ALSO need to have been 'caused', and whatever caused god would need to have been caused by something else, ad infinitum. The argument from first cause is internally flawed.)

"I am in fact God. I know everything. Sometimes I lose at Dilpomacy and make typos just so I feel mortal. You can't be certain that I am not telling the truth. Since there is a possibility that I am God, you can't know that I don't know anything (and everything). Therefore your 'dogma' that 'you can't know anything' is possibly false. Maybe you are God and are just screwing with us.

Or I'm just some guy from Toronto who plays online board games, and when all possible evidence suggests one outcome I accept that outcome as truth. Otherwise your life has even less meaning than my meaningless life, because you spend the whole time wondering if you even exist. Are you sure that you do?

Now if after weighing the evidence you decide you believe God exists, well then at least you're picking a side. Agnostics are just wishy-washy."

Rusty, agnostics are not at all wishy-washy. This a stereotype and I will argue this point until I am dead. I am not agnostic because I "can't decide" I am agnostic because it is the right thing. I am agnostic because I hold VERY STRONGLY (not wishy-washily) that I, and you, cannot know about whether there is a God. (Or anything else, for that matter).

So all your claptrap about you being God, seemed to be meant to "corner" me into saying "yes I agree that is possible."

Well no cornering has occurred because I agree that is possible without shame. When I say "you don't know anything" I do so with full understanding of the implications of that statement. So yes Santa could exist. Yes there could be intelligent life on Mars. Yes Xenu could be the One True God. Yes you could be the One True God. Yes Cthulhu could lurk at the bottom of the ocean. Yes the laws of physics may not apply universally. Yes I may not exist. Yes you may not exist. Yes logic may be an illusion which is unreliable. Yes causality may be an illusion which is unreliable. Yes yes yes.

When I say you don't know anything, I'm not just being a prick. I really really believe it. To dismiss it as a "boring" thing to say is absolutely disgusting, especially since it is true.

What I hear when you attack me for being and wishy washy is an ad hominem attack that you use to make yourself feel better. Because I find that often atheists are the ones who are most uncomfortable with the idea of admitting they don't really know there's no God.

And I guess that's understandable. Because after the atheists have the most to lose if they're wrong. The religionists just fear their existence being snuffed out, whereas an atheist has quite a lot to fear.

However I should add that this dichotomy, the dichotomy of Pascal's Wager, is nonsense. It does not allow for what many would consider "ridiculous" or "unlikely" scenarios (I of course maintain that one cannot have any grounds for determining if something is ridiculous or unlikely). One such scenario is one where there is a God, and he sends all believers to hell and all atheists to heaven.

And so on. When nothing is known, as I said, the possible scenarios of what reality actually is are endless. That means anyone's ideas about it could be wrong, or right.

But it also means that none of the people with those ideas can know whether they are wrong or right. So if they claim that they do, they are dogmatists.


Also, arya, you claim you know there is a slim chance God or Santa exists? You don't, so you can't claim to know what is more likely.

Jamie, I'm not asking anyone to prove anything, I just want you to admit that you don't know there is no God.

The distinction is between strong and weak or positive and negative atheism. I take issue with "strong" atheists. And theists for that matter.


Now to Arya and the "challenge" lol:

Society did develop because of religion. The original cities and first nations larger than family groups were based around, basically, a priest. A holy man or medicine man who said he could commune with God.

It was only through common beliefs like these that people were able to come together who otherwise shared no significant connection (i.e. not family members).

Without groups larger than family groups you have no civilization.

On a broader note, the capacity of religion throughout history to bestow a common belief system on people's has created a homogeneity, which though today is repugnant, at the time allowed that group to advance.

Genghis Khan said "be of one mind and one *faith*... that you may conquer your enemies." (emphasis added)

This is not to mention all the specific examples in history of a single person, a mover and shaker, who was clearly motivated by religion. People who, without their religion, may never have acted at all.

Joan of Arc, Patrick Henry, Newton (who was also an alchemist), I could go on.

But the point is that societies, here meaning organized groups of people, first emerged because of two things:

religion and agriculture. and language i guess if you want to be a pedant.

The first societies, indeed the first *great* societies were all theocracies.

Akhnaten, the priests in the ziggurats in Mesopotamia, the Mayan temples (who, because of their religion, also essentially independently founded astronomy), writing which was developed at first by priests for priests, theocracies throughout history have often been the most effective and cohesive forces in history, the Muslim caliphate being a good example.


So yeah. I acknowledge that all that said you may still disagree but I hereby challenge you to ask yourself if this is not because of a deep-seated pre-existing bias. Because, if you want to question my motives, you should just know that my parents are Christian but my friends and brother are all atheists. So I don't particularly have a leaning.

Oh and before anyone else says it:

"You can't know anything" is not dogma, because I do not claim to know that either.

I have a 13 page personal philosophy which expounds on these ideas completely, but I won't bore you all by posting it.

You seem pretty certain for a guy who doesn't know anything.

And I agree. Technically, literally, we can't 'know' anything for sure. But then there's no point in discussing it, so it's a boring stand to take.

Agnostics are wishy-washy because they don't believe in God either, but don't have the confidence in their beliefs to come out and say it.

My argument is, that based on my understanding and acceptance of the universe as I know it, a Christian 'creator-of-the-universe' God does not exist. Men have (probably) been on the 'moon' and have 'photographs' or the 'planet'. Our entire universe may be growing on an old tooth in Lisa Simpson's bedroom, but that doesn't really concern me. I can extrapolate my scientific understanding of my current situation, and say 'I don't believe that to be true.'

lol @ dismissing a decisive argument against one's side by saying that argument's stance is boring

There is a point in discussing it because it has very important implications for a religious discussing in particular.

Namely that, if you agree you can't know anything for sure, then it is very irresponsible to take a certain stance of God's nature and/or existence anyway.

Also an agnostic can technically *believe* in God, (or believe that there is no God), but what they cannot do is claim to know it.

This is called fideism.

Thus if you acknowledge that you *believe* there is no God (and you can give whatever reason you like for your belief) then I have no quarrel with you. You're free to believe whatever you like, since all things are based on belief, more so in a world where nothing is known!

But if you continue to maintain you know there is no God and those theists are wrong because they don't know what you know, then there is a serious problem.

Same goes for a theist, as I continue to say.

If it seems I am bashing atheists here it is only because there aren't any theists on this thread. I would say the same sorts of things to Crazy Anglican or Jason or whoever.

I am being a little bit facetious in my dismissing your stance as 'boring'. I do ultimately agree with you that we can't 'know' anything for sure, unless of course one of us actually is God. I'm pretty sure I'm not, but I guess I can't be certain.

However, I believe, in my heart of hearts (my soul?), that there is no God. I am an atheist because I do not believe in God. Douglas Adams described himself as a Radical Atheist, to emphasize that he really means it. He put some thought into it, and decided that based on everything presented and his understanding of the universe, God does not exist. I would agree.

So Thucy, we agree we can't know anything. I'm putting it out there that I don't believe. What do you 'believe' to be 'true'? And if you say that you don't believe anything because you don't believe in truth, then I will contend that that is a boring conclusion.

"Religion is the only known contagious psychosis."

This statement alone should be sufficient to make you doubt whether it's a psychosis or even a neurosis.

Okay, Rusty, I'll give you a quick breakdown what I think about all that, about what I 'believe' on faith.

As you may have guessed I'm a skeptic. But you didn't ask what I know you asked what I believe.

It's pretty simple. I start from the skeptical framework of knowing nothing but add an important addendum.

I *do* know what appears to me to be the case. Meaning I know that it appears that I exist and have a body and so on.

I call this, for convenience, "The World of Appearances." You might refer to it as "the real world."

That's fine. So I, for no other reason that I want to, accept the world of appearances at face value.

That basically makes me a normal person. Lol. There are important differences because of the skepticism, but I won't go into it.

Religion, though, is a very contentious topic. One where the whole "I'll accept the world of appearances" framework kind of falls apart. Because the central question in the debate is:

Do you *believe* there is anything beyond the world of appearances?

This question raises my fundamental skeptical belief. I immediately say: there *can* be. (Because there can.) But then I may be pressed as you just have Rusty.

At that point.... I will genuinely tell you I choose to suspend judgment. I neither believe there is a God, nor that there is not one.

I do not live religiously, because I find that the existence of or non-existence of God does not necessarily say anything about how one should live. I go to church irregularly because it is my culture, and I value many things about it.

So I don't really *act* like there's a God.

But you might say I *hope* there's a God.

In fact, let me let you in on a personal secret. I have often, and do often pray a very simple prayer. Of late it is the only prayer I find it worthy to pray. I call it the Skeptic's Prayer:

"God, if you are real, and know everything, then you know that I don't know anything for certain. If you are all-powerful, you could presumably change that. So God, I ask you to please make certain of something. Please show me beyond all doubt that you are real. Amen."

Nothing has happened as yet. What that means is not something I can comment on, because there are a number of possible explanations.

So all in all, Rusty, I am *genuinely* an agnostic, in that, I am waiting for God to answer that prayer. If he never does, I will live as a humanist my whole life.

What makes me different from an atheist though is that I do not, and will never say there is no God. And I also maintain that religion is certainly not a net negative force in human affairs.

That's about as short as I can make it.

"And I also maintain that religion is certainly not a net negative force in human affairs"

I disagree. With money being a close second, religion is the root cause of nearly every human conflict in the history of civilization and is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

It not only causes more misery than good, it creates intellectually lazy people.

"The first societies, indeed the first *great* societies were all theocracies."

They were theocracies because those who were smart enough to understand the seasons and the stars could predict things like where the sun would set...aka Stonehenge. All you had to do then is equate your predictions to gods will. Viola! A priest is made...and so it goes...