• sumYunDude

    Quote:
    “Remember, all propositions being made about the nature of reality are either true or not.”

    Ummmm… ever heard of wave particle duality?

  • CarlM

    “The answer is that you are an atheist with respect to that person's beliefs, not agnostic.”

    This is an example of what I meant when I said that you were misusing the term. Person A may not believe in the same God that Person B believes in, but if Person A believes in any God, then it is inappropriate to call him an atheist. This is a semantic point, but those are important in logical arguments. Atheism is not something that one has toward one particular God or another. It's an all-encompassing thing.

    … and while I'm writing in this (soon to be discontinued) thread …

    Your follow-up line to the above quote was:

    “My argument is that you should be up front about that.”

    I think that THIS line points to a disagreement that you have with many of the agnostics who have posted here. My response would be “why?” Several of us have posted (in varying ways) the sentiment that proving the existence or nonexistence of God may well be impossible. So, while it may be an interesting subject for discussion, it's not something that we feel motivated to study in any great depth. Nor do we feel motivated to share our doubts with others.

    Daniel, suppose you are at the funeral of a friend's mother. You see the grieving family and overhear someone saying, “She's in Heaven now reunited with her husband.” What could possibly be gained by interjecting with some diatribe about your opinion of the likelihood of this reunion? They take some comfort in their beliefs. Why would you take this away from them? This question remains equally valid (in my opinion) even away from that funeral setting. You don't know what comfort people are taking from their religious beliefs at any given moment. Is the “benefit” of sharing your doubt in the sanity of their position really so great?

    Please note that while I respect people's right to their religious beliefs, I do not believe that this gives them the right to interfere with the rights of others. For example, I believe that they have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, but they may not use public schools to proselytize. They certainly do not have the right to use science classes in public schools to teach things that are not science. (They ought not do this in private school science classes either, but they have the RIGHT to do that.)

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    I'd argue this is a matter of us not fully understanding the TRUE nature of the physics. We know the particle model is true, and we know the wave model is true.

    This is a matter of scientific agnosticism.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    The scope of atheism includes specific use of the word like this. Deists such as our founding fathers, for example, were widely considered atheists in their time because they didn't believe in the current version of God.

    As for your argument about not attacking the religious view of others because they're harmless, this is something I plan to address in a separate piece altogether so I won't do so here. Suffice it to say, I think you and those who take that line are ignorant to the extent that religion as a whole does hurt society.

    Your third point, about not infringing on the rights of others being where you draw the line, that's directly related to what I'll be writing on the topic. In short, that's already happening on a wide scale, and you're either ignorant of it or you are ignoring it.

    My very next piece, however, will re-address this issue of atheism vs. agnosticism, as I did a horrible job making the argument this time around.

  • http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/ Anon

    You can only be 100% certain of your current experience as it happens and as “experience”. You can't be 100% certain of what your experience implies or anything else (see You are totally incorrigible!). This means that everyone should be agnostic according to your scale unless you think you are God yourself. The atheists cannot be 100% atheist because God could be an implied by their experience and anything that is implied cannot be 100% certain. Everyone except fanatics has to live with some degree of uncertainty in interpreting the world.

    Are firm atheists fanatics? Probably, because they rely on materialism as an absolute argument against spirituality. (See Materialists should read this first)

    Whether, on the balance of experiences and learning, you decide that spirituality is relevant or irrelevant is more complex than believing or denying that a teapot might be orbiting the sun. I would classify many agnostics as heretics rather than atheists and heresy can be the beginning of new established religion.

  • CarlM

    “As for your argument about not attacking the religious view of others because they're harmless …”

    I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said .. and I've just reread what I wrote.

    Daniel, whenever you make an assertion about religion causing harm, replace the word “religion” with the word “handguns” and see if the argument sounds familiar. If it does, and if you don't believe that the logic works with that one-word replacement, then there may be something lacking with the logic.

    I don't think that anyone in this discussion has denied that there are religious people whose actions at times harm society. Certainly I have not denied that. But, I also don't deny that there are handgun owners whose actions at times harm society. Does it follow that HANDGUNS harm society? I know that your answer to that question is no. So, why do you believe that it follows that RELIGION harms society?

    My position is that you are aiming your attack at the wrong place. You believe that it is the religion that is a root cause of societal harm in exactly the same way that many believe that handguns are a root cause of societal harm, and you are using EXACTLY the same sort of logic to come to that conclusion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that your position about handgun abuse is probably that we should go hard after those who misuse handguns (that is, they use handguns in such a way that they interfere with the rights of others). I would ask why your position on religion is any different.

    I'm guessing that you'll assert that there is some sort of fundamental difference between the two cases, but I'm not at all convinced that there is.

    (By the way, I wouldn't mind a direct response to the three questions I asked in the “friend's mother's funeral” paragraph in a previous post.)

  • Blair

    To be frank, with all of your logical deductions and word definitions you may be 'technically' correct about the usage of the term atheist/agnostic..BUT I have to ask 'why bother?'

    You basically want all agnostics to declare themselves 'weak atheists'. But why? It seems retarded to me to have a 'weak' atheist and a 'strong' atheist term and to get rid of the agnostic term…considering how different weak and strong atheists' beliefs are. It just confuses people.

    So I guess that basically I'm just saying that while you may be 'technically' correct..it just seems highly impractical and confusing. It would be much better if the 'weak' atheists would call themselves agnostics…and let the ones who firmly reject the idea of God be called atheists.

  • Blair

    Or better yet…just drop the whole labeling altogether and when someone asks you what you believe, just say “I have yet to see any proof of God, but am open to the possibility” or say “I reject the idea of a higher being”..or whatever you do believe in.

  • http://www.myspace.com/wickedlauren Lady Lauren

    CarlM: “You guys can play with semantics as much as you'd like, I'll stick to using the dictionary versions of words.”

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Dictionaries differ to much and each has seperate outside influence. To speak accurately about atheism, why don't you try:

    http://www.atheists.org/

  • http://www.myspace.com/wickedlauren Lady Lauren

    CarlM: “You guys can play with semantics as much as you'd like, I'll stick to using the dictionary versions of words.”

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Dictionaries differ to much and each has seperate outside influence. To speak accurately about atheism, why don't you try:

    http://www.atheists.org/

  • gruesome_hound



    Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
    I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
    Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.

    Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
    I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
    Similarly, I am atheist about any kind of invisible animals or visible or invisible unicorns existing on the earth, but I am agnostic about the possibilities that such creature may live on an unknown planet of an unknown remote paralell universe.

    I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
    So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.
    #
    Realist
    November 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am

    @Gruesome_hound

    So the Glenn Beck argument?

    “I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.”

    Prove it doesn’t exist? For something to be widely believed as truthful or justified one must prove its existence, not disprove its existence.

    All I know is that if there is a God and I’m wrong…. I don’t like that SOB anyways. Any Deity capable of fixing the world’s problems (like most religions flaunt), and doesn’t help the poor mistreated starving children that do believe in him, isn’t worthy of my praise. Let alone my undying worship and obedience.

    That and religions have been coming and going far before the “major” religions.


    The problem of Dawkin's diagram is that he assumes we have enough elements to judging the probability of everything, but this is overly simplistic.
    Even in science, there are many fields where the few data available fit equally well the different models aiming at making sense of them, in such cases there is no way to assign probability of the validity of one model.
    For philosophical or metaphysical theories, the likelihood are even much harder to determine, in the state of our present knowledge, I would say this is completely impossible.

    At the same moment I am writing that, suppose there is an intelligent lizard man situated in a parallel universe which is using a computer very similar to my except it is triangular and contains only 30 tastes on the keyboard.

    I clearly have an “absence of belief” in him, but I also don't believe with an huge likelihood (say, more than 80%) that it does not exist because I have no evidence, I simply don't know the probabilities, because I have not enough elements to establish them.

  • Anna

    I often forget that I am a minority in this country because I think so little about religion. It plays no role in my life, except to provide an occasional “WTF????” moment when I hear people I can otherwise relate to “admit” their god-fearing ways, or when I hear something particularly asinine on TV.

    When the issue comes up I plainly state that I'm an atheist and have been shocked at how surprised others sometimes are….maybe it's hard for people to get their minds around the fact that I am a kind and moral person without an assist from a higher power. Maybe because I am a young female and my lack of desire to blend in and not cause “conflict” is shocking in itself?

    RE: atheism as a “belief”–while I agree that it's not in itself a belief, it does play a role in shaping ones worldview…which is probably what many religious folks are trying to talk about when they say “belief”. I suspect that few people define that term before trying to draw parallels between themselves and atheists like us. Cool blog, thanks.

  • Anna

    I often forget that I am a minority in this country because I think so little about religion. It plays no role in my life, except to provide an occasional “WTF????” moment when I hear people I can otherwise relate to “admit” their god-fearing ways, or when I hear something particularly asinine on TV.

    When the issue comes up I plainly state that I'm an atheist and have been shocked at how surprised others sometimes are….maybe it's hard for people to get their minds around the fact that I am a kind and moral person without an assist from a higher power. Maybe because I am a young female and my lack of desire to blend in and not cause “conflict” is shocking in itself?

    RE: atheism as a “belief”–while I agree that it's not in itself a belief, it does play a role in shaping ones worldview…which is probably what many religious folks are trying to talk about when they say “belief”. I suspect that few people define that term before trying to draw parallels between themselves and atheists like us. Cool blog, thanks.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs