That was beautiful, Les, thank you.  I especially liked her closing paragraph:

I don’t know the answer to fear of death, surprise surprise. But I find it interesting that religious people, who talk ceaselessly of finding in their religion a larger sense of purpose, a meaning greater than themselves, at the same time are the ones who insist their personal, copyrighted souls, presumably with their 70-odd years of memory intact, will survive in perpetuity. Maybe that’s the real ethic of atheism. By confronting the inevitability of your personal expiration date, you know there is a meaning much grander than yourself. The river of life will go on, as it has for nearly 4 billion years on our planet, and who knows for how long and how abundantly on others. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, and we, as matter, will always matter, and the universe will forever be our home.

Excellent is the correct word for it.  I find myself leaning more in this direction every day.  I was extremely troubled when attending a funeral recently to be called upon to come forward and be saved. So much so that I didn’t stay for the memorial service of my Grand-neice.  When I am here to pay my respects to someone I don’t want to be reminded that if I want to see them again I have to accept religion into my life. I respect your right to believe your way so I feel you should do the same.

Very interesting. She makes some good observations.

A couple of thoughts…

1. She brings an obvious and completely understandable bias to the table, so to speak. She’s upfront about it, too. Which is to her credit. Richard Dawkins is less intellectually honest about his. I’ve read some of his pseudoscience rants against Intelligent Design and they very much strike me as classic examples of the pot calling the kettle black. His approach to evolutionary science is the flipside of the same exact coin that ID is on. Yet, he seems quite blind to his own biases.

2. It seems to me that Atheism is inherently self-defeating. The intellectually honest approach, IMHO, would be agnosticism.

The Agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god, admits it and is apparently perfectly okay with that state. The Atheist denies the existance of the supernatural. Yet, it would require the Atheist to be omniscient (a fundamental attribute of “god") in order to be able to dismiss the possibility that there is a god or gods with any degree of reliability. In short, the Atheist takes a leap of faith equal to that taken by Theists… albeit in the opposite direction.

Seems to me that the point of atheism is to deny the existance of the supernatural until such time that the supernatural PROVES itself to exist.  Thus the difference between your agnostic and my atheist is that the agnostic acknowledges the possibility of the supernatural without proof, while the atheist is reallly just waiting for the the proof to show up.  Sort of the tree falls in the forest when no one is around, theists claim it makes a sound, agnostics claim it COULD make a sound, atheists say they didnt hear anything.

The Atheist still is adhering to a faith-based belief system. The Agnostic either isn’t sure or simply doesn’t care whether god exists or not. That takes no faith at all.

Basically, the Agnostic hops off of the faith-based belief system merry-go-round, leaving the Atheists and Theists to continue their ride. And of those riding, only the Theists need nothing more than faith. The Atheist needs faith and to assume one of the qualities of “god” in order to deny that “god” exists.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not making a value judgment about whether the Atheist’s beliefs are better, worse or the same as anyone else. I’m stictly speaking to the logic underpinning each belief system.

Kevin opines…

Richard Dawkins is less intellectually honest about his. I’ve read some of his pseudoscience rants against Intelligent Design and they very much strike me as classic examples of the pot calling the kettle black. His approach to evolutionary science is the flipside of the same exact coin that ID is on. Yet, he seems quite blind to his own biases.

Perhaps you can elaborate? I can’t recall anything Dawkins has said that would strike me as being pseudoscience. Biased perhaps, but far from being the flipside of the same coin as ID.

2. It seems to me that Atheism is inherently self-defeating. The intellectually honest approach, IMHO, would be agnosticism.

Agnosticism is just a weak form of atheism which is often considered the “wishy-washy” stance to take. There’s nothing inherently self-defeating about atheism.

The Agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god, admits it and is apparently perfectly okay with that state. The Atheist denies the existance of the supernatural.

Herein lies the problem with your statement. It is incorrect to say that the atheist denies the existence of the supernatural. All that being an atheist means is that you lack belief in God(s). It is the absence of belief.

It says nothing about your acceptance or rejection of concepts such as the “supernatural” or “paranormal” or your reasons for not holding a belief in God(s). There are atheists who do believe in other phenomena that would be considered supernatural such as psychic ability.

Yet, it would require the Atheist to be omniscient (a fundamental attribute of “god") in order to be able to dismiss the possibility that there is a god or gods with any degree of reliability. In short, the Atheist takes a leap of faith equal to that taken by Theists… albeit in the opposite direction.

We’ve been over this (faulty) argument many times before here at SEB, but I’ll repeat it once again. 

Not believing the idea of God(s) to be true with any reliability doesn’t require being omniscient any more than not believing in the ideas of tooth fairies or the bogeyman does. Faith is belief without supporting evidence or proof. Atheism is the absence of belief. Trying to claim that atheism is a leap of faith is nonsensical and little more than an attempt to make the (lack of) reasoning by Theists seem… reasonable.

The Atheist still is adhering to a faith-based belief system.

A completely false statement to make. By definition there is no faith involved in being an atheist.

The Agnostic either isn’t sure or simply doesn’t care whether god exists or not. That takes no faith at all.

And neither does atheism. Atheists just decide there’s no point in being wishy-washy about it.

Basically, the Agnostic hops off of the faith-based belief system merry-go-round, leaving the Atheists and Theists to continue their ride. And of those riding, only the Theists need nothing more than faith. The Atheist needs faith and to assume one of the qualities of “god� in order to deny that “god� exists.

Again, completely not true. Absence of belief is not the same as belief nor is it an act of faith.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not making a value judgment about whether the Atheist’s beliefs are better, worse or the same as anyone else. I’m stictly speaking to the logic underpinning each belief system.

Alas, your argument is faulty.

Damnit you make a good arguement.  Not being an atheist, I do not know if they believe it requires faith or not.

Tell me, Kevin, do you believe that Zeus exists?  Odin?  Kali?  Do you spend any time wondering whether one of them is going to spank your butt in the afterlife for not worshiping them?

Being “agnostic” about everything from the existence of little green men to the divinity of Mr. Smee to my past life as Napoleon isn’t any different from just plain not believing in it.  I think atheism offends believers and they’d rather just convince everyone that they’re not “sure” and can never be sure—which leaves the door open a crack for your favorite deity.

If you’re agnostic about everything in the world, you probably spend a lot of time avoiding decisions of any kind.

Seems like we have another one. Or two.

Kevin:

I’ve read some of (Dawkin’s) pseudoscience rants against Intelligent Design

I rant against the ID pseudoscience myself.

It seems to me that Atheism is inherently self-defeating.

Care to elaborate what’s self-defeating about not affirming god’s existence until proven to one’s own satisfaction? Please note that not affirming is semantically different from denying.

The Agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god, admits it and is apparently perfectly okay with that state. The Atheist denies the existance of the supernatural.

Agnostics range from a simple “I don’t know” to “it’s principally unknowable”. Most atheists don’t deny the supernatural, they do not accept it until proven.

I’m not making a value judgment about whether the Atheist’s beliefs are better

Good, but you should first ascertain what an atheist’s beliefs actually are.

Spatula:

Thus the difference between your agnostic and my atheist is that the agnostic acknowledges the possibility of the supernatural without proof

Agnostics do no such thing. A statement about knowledge implies a statement about truth, which implies absolute or probabilistic proof, depending on the individual epistemology.

By the way, is it just me or do others tune out too when a poster starts with “The atheist...”?

I haven’t had a chance to read her lecture yet, but I read her book “Woman” on women’s biology.  I don’t agree with everything she said, but she made some very important points about the male bias in biological research...it’s a good read if you’re interested.

On agnostics:  Washing your hands of it all and saying you simply don’t know what to believe leaves you without an operable paradigm.  This may not be true for all agnostics, but it’s what bothers me about agnosticism.  It’s like an anthropologist saying that culture doesn’t exist because it’s idiosynchratic, and then not taking the extra step of saying that even though it’s idiosynchratic, it’s still valuable to study.
The agnostic has nothing to go on and can have no real stance on things like ID in the schools and abortion.  If you don’t know what to beleive, then isn’t it important to be open to every possibility?
Personally, I don’t know for certain that every part of my understanding is true.  But there is no way to know for sure, so I am going to stick with what seems logical and obvious to me.  I take on atheism not because I have completely denied the existence of god, but because it seems to me to be the best option at this time.

Perhaps I am confused? An agnostic does not allow for the possibility of god?  Guess I better go back and read my dictionary..

Gee… maybe I shoulda looked before kicking over that hornet’s nest? Nah… that would be totally out of character for me. LOL

Okay, where were we? Oh yeah…

An Atheist, by definition, is one who believes (ie. to accept as true, genuine, or real) that there is no deity. In other words, an Atheist believe that there in fact is no diety. Yet, that position can’t possibly be quantified without possessing omniscience. It is a statement of faith, pure and simple.

Interestingly enough, the adjective form of “agnostic” is defined, in part, as “undogmatic.”

As for Dawkins… I’m not interested in debating the relative merits of his positions beyond the following. I used to debate Creation v. Evolution and even though it’s been several years since I quite, I find that I still am burnt out on the subject. Suffice to say that I entered a Creationist and exited an IDer. I was convinced (relatively quickly too) that Creationism isn’t science. But, on the Theory of Evolution I’m agnostic.

Dawkin’s rant/rebuttal to Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” contained an attempted explanation on how the eye could have evolved via strictly naturalistic mechanisms. But, what it boiled down to was “poof, time did it.” In fact that’s what the most advanced current TOE explanation of eye evolution boils down to.

Many of the more sarcastic proponents of Evolutionary Theory that I debated with were fond of summing up the Creationist theory as “poof, god did it.” Which, frankly, is what it boils down to. But, so too does Dawkins explanation of eye evolution, albeit with the substitution of “time” for “god.” Thus, my quip about it being pseudoscience.

BTW, I like your blog here, Les. I’ve had you blogrolled over at my other project (http://theindependentvoter.com/indiecastle.html) for a while now. I can’t say that I read you regularly. But, I do stop by from time to time and I invariably enjoy reading what you post here.

Kevin and spatula:

You are both atheists… You do not believe that Zeus is truly the king of the gods.  You do not believe in Jupiter, Odin, Brahama, Shiva, etc… You are both atheists to N-1 religions, where N represents the total number of religions that have ever existed.  I too am an atheist, I’m just an atheist to N religions.  Just one more than you… I don’t believe Jesus was the son of God anymore than I believe Heracles was the half-god son of Zeus.

spatula: An agnostic does not allow for the possibility of god?

Agnostics fall into a spectrum ranging from “I don’t know that god exists” to “it is principally unknowable whether or not god exists”. Regardless, there is nothing that prevents an agnostic from holding an unjustified belief in god.

Kevin: Gee… maybe I shoulda looked before kicking over that hornet’s nest? Nah… that would be totally out of character for me. LOL

So much for first impressions, eh.

An Atheist, by definition, is one who believes (ie. to accept as true, genuine, or real) that there is no deity.

The minimum qualification an atheist has to meet is to not affirm that god exists, which is semantically different from denying that god exists. If you are here for a serious discussion, stop beating this straw man.

Suffice to say that I entered a Creationist and exited an IDer.

Okay, that was (involuntarily?) funny.

Getting back to the original article, I think I agree with her.  It just seems wrong to teach children that there is a god, because they are young and naive and will believe anything, and once the damage is done it is not likely to be undone.  Hell I probably would be an atheist if I hadnt been raised a christian, but my beliefs were so ingrained into me as a child that I cannot let go of them now.

my beliefs were so ingrained into me as a child that I cannot let go of them now.

Spatula, it is refreshing to hear you say that.  Few will be so honest - they’d rather twist themselves into philosophical pretzels than just be straight about it. Thank you.

Kevin begins again…

An Atheist, by definition, is one who believes (ie. to accept as true, genuine, or real) that there is no deity. In other words, an Atheist believe that there in fact is no diety.

That only defines some atheists, not all. Allow me to quote from the alt.atheism FAQ:

“What is atheism?”

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism”.

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of ‘god’: Whether they are ‘atheists’ or not is a matter of debate. Since you’re unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it’s not a very important debate…

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. “Weak atheism” is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. “Strong atheism” is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are “strong atheists”. There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

“But isn’t disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn’t exist?”

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

Yet, that position can’t possibly be quantified without possessing omniscience. It is a statement of faith, pure and simple.

Absolute knowledge is not necessary to not believe in God(s) any more than absolute knowledge is needed to not believe in the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. I’ll say it again: Absence of faith is not synonymous with having faith. You may as well say that not having bubble gum is the same as having bubble gum and you’d make about as much sense.

As for Dawkins… I’m not interested in debating the relative merits of his positions beyond the following. I used to debate Creation v. Evolution and even though it’s been several years since I quite, I find that I still am burnt out on the subject. Suffice to say that I entered a Creationist and exited an IDer. I was convinced (relatively quickly too) that Creationism isn’t science. But, on the Theory of Evolution I’m agnostic.

Then you should study the theory a bit more and perhaps you’ll find you can make a decision on it’s accuracy.

Dawkin’s rant/rebuttal to Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box� contained an attempted explanation on how the eye could have evolved via strictly naturalistic mechanisms. But, what it boiled down to was “poof, time did it.� In fact that’s what the most advanced current TOE explanation of eye evolution boils down to.

Again, sounds like you need to study up a bit more. Time’s influence in Evolution is limited to the fact that it takes quite a bit of its passage for change to occur in more complex animals. It’s the influence of environment and any changes in said environment that influence Evolution, not time.

Many of the more sarcastic proponents of Evolutionary Theory that I debated with were fond of summing up the Creationist theory as “poof, god did it.� Which, frankly, is what it boils down to. But, so too does Dawkins explanation of eye evolution, albeit with the substitution of “time� for “god.� Thus, my quip about it being pseudoscience.

Somehow I think you’re not grasping Dawkin’s rebuttal as well as you think you are. For starters Dawkin’s rebuttal says nothing of the sort. It does attempt to answer the popular Creationist question of, “Speaking as a physicist, I cannot believe that there has been enough time for an organ as complicated as the eye to have evolved from nothing. Do you really think there has been enough time?” And it goes on to describe a study by Swedish scientists Dan Nilson and Susanne Pelger in which they used a computer model to see how long in geologic time it might take an eye to evolve into a design that is often cited as being irreducably complex.

And so to the question of how long all this evolutionary change might have taken. In order to answer this, Nilsson and Pelger had to make some assumptions about genetics in natural populations. They needed to feed their model plausible values of quantities such as “heritability.” Heritability is a measure of how far variation is governed by heredity. The favoured way of measuring it is to see how much monozygotic (that is, “identical") twins resemble each other compared with ordinary twins. One study found the heritability of leg length in male humans to be 77 per cent. A heritability of too per cent would mean that you could measure one identical twin’s leg to obtain perfect knowledge of the other twin’s leg length, even if the twins were reared apart. A heritability of 0 per cent would mean that the legs of monozygotic twins are no more similar to each other than to the legs of random members of a specified population in a given environment. Some other heritabilities measured for humans are 95 per cent for head breadth, 85 per cent for sitting height. 80 percent for arm length and 79 per cent for stature.

Heritabilities are frequently more than 50 percent, and Nilsson and Pelger therefore felt safe in plugging a heritability of 50 per cent into their eye model. This was a conservative, or “pessimistic”, assumption. Compared with a more realistic assumption of, say, 70 per cent, a pessimistic assumption tends to increase their final estimate of the time taken for the eye to evolve. They wanted to err on the side of overestimation because we are intuitively skeptical of short estimates of the time taken to evolve something as complicated as an eye.

For the same reason, they chose pessimistic values for the coefficient of variation (that is, for how much variation there typically is in the population) and the intensity of selection (the amount of survival advantage improved eyesight confers). They even went so far as to assume that any new generation differed in only one part of the eye at a time: simultaneous changes in different parts of the eye, which would have greatly speeded up evolution, were outlawed. But even with these conservative assumptions, the time taken to evolve a fish eye from fiat skin was minuscule: fewer than 400,000 generations. For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.

In the light of Nilsson and Pelger’s results, it is no wonder “the” eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom. There has been enough time for it to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage. Assuming typical generation lengths for small animals, the time needed for the evolution of the eye, far from stretching credulity with its vastness, turns out to be too short for geologists to measure! It is a geological blink.

As you can see, he’s not saying “poof, time did it” as you claim, but merely answering the question of has enough time passed for something as complex as the eye to evolve from scratch.

grrrrrr

I always find it disturbing when a fundy turns up with my name. People keep saying “Kevin said this or that” and I want to scream “I did not!”

sigh.

Fundy? Moi? LOL nothin’ like an Ad Hominem to make a guy feel welcome.

BTW, if you’re interested in furthering your education you might dig into the difference between “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals.” While there is some slight overlap between the two, evangelicals are the real target of virtually every accusation of “fundy” that I’ve ever seen. Particularly if science is involved.

Not that it’s anyone’s business. But, I was raised evangelical. In fact it was on the heterodox fringe of the evangelical camp. Most genuine “fundies” would probably be genuinely offended at your lumping me in with them.

That said… I can relate to Spatula’s comment about how he was raised. I operated on my parent’s belief system until my late 20’s when I found that I needed to figure out what *I* believe. Which I did. And it bears a passing resemblence to my parent’s belief system. I haven’t been to church in years. But, therein lays a difference between my belief system and my parent’s.

GeekMom, two points…

First, the hornet’s nest quip was a lame attempt at self-deprecating humor which apparently fell flat. Ya win some and ya lose some. C’est la vie. I was just trying to introduce some joviality to take the edge off of any combativeness that might arise from my challenged y’all’s belief system. Which is to say that I meant well.

Secondly, the definition I posted for “atheism” was verbatim what Merriam Webster says it means. If you see it as a strawman, take it up with the experts.

And, correct me if I’m wrong here… but, isn’t not affirming that god exists a bare minimum threshold for an Agnostic? The minute that a self-proclaimed agnostic affirms the existance of god, they cease to be agnostic. N’est pas? Suspecting that god might maybe exist, or wondering if god might maybe exist are fundamentally different positions than affirming that god does in fact exist. Which is how we distinguish between agnostics and theists.

With all due respect to those on the various sides who have studied the meanings of these words far longer and in far greater depth than I… It seems to me that either 1.) some of you here who are claiming to be atheists are in reality agnostics… or 2.) the English language is far less stable and unified than outfits like Merriam Webster would have us believe and/or their definitions need to be updated or are otherwise incomplete.

Les, with all due respect… that alt.atheism FAQ is illogical. They say that some “atheists” only disbelieve in certain gods while maintaining belief in other gods. That’s psychobabble nonsense. If I believe in any god, regardless of which or whose, I am by definition a theist, not an atheist.

If by, “Absolute knowledge is not necessary to not believe in God(s),” you mean to draw a distinction between denying the very existance of X, and denying the divinity/supernaturalness of X… then I think we’ve found some common ground. I hadn’t ever considered drawing that distinction before. But, I can see how the same phrase could have two different meanings. If I were to claim to be god and you denied my claim without denying that I exist, you would be meeting a definition of “atheist” which certainly wouldn’t require omniscience.

Hmmm.... whether that’s what you meant or not, it’s given me something to ponder.

No, I’m wrong about that last bit. If I claimed to be god and you denied my claim to divinity without denying my existance, you still would have no way of knowing that I wasn’t merely masking my divinity in your presence. Thus, you would still have to be omniscient to be able to dismiss my claim to divinity with full certainty. That or a crude experiment with a .44. So there I go again answering my own challenge.

So then if the .44 didn’t work and you still denied my claim to divinity, then you’d be implying your own omniscience. Right?

Damn… it’s late. This’ll all make more sense in the morning I’m sure.

Kevin,

There’s a difference between “Fundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” as well.  One is a noun referring to a specific denomination.  It’s true that often Fundamentalists are less fundamentalist than Evangelicals (though oddly enough Fundamentalism is categorized as a subclass of Evangelism).  However, fundamentalist is an adjective describing a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

My point is often when we say “fundamentalist” we’re using the adjective not the noun.

Also, since we’re talking about what various terms mean “illogical” doesn’t mean what you’re using it to mean.  That usage was coined by Star Trek.  “Illogical” literally refers to the form of a set of sentences, more specifically to sets of sentences that are incoherent.  I don’t think that you mean that the site is incoherent, just poorly argued, the proper term to describe that is “unsound”.

In regards to your last post.  One wouldn’t have to assert one’s omniscience to deny your claim of divinity.  One would only have to claim that one is correct in a single case, which doesn’t require omniscience.  Indeed, I think I can justifiably claim that China has over 1 billion people living within its borders even though I never checked.  This claim doesn’t require me to claim that I am omniscient.

Kevin replies with…

Secondly, the definition I posted for “atheism� was verbatim what Merriam Webster says it means. If you see it as a strawman, take it up with the experts.

Merriam/Webster is but one source. Depending on which sources you reference you’ll find that the definition varies. Personally, I think Michael Martin gives the most logical definition for the word in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification:

If you look up ‘atheism’ in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘not’ and ‘theos’ means ‘god.’ From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

And, correct me if I’m wrong here… but, isn’t not affirming that god exists a bare minimum threshold for an Agnostic? The minute that a self-proclaimed agnostic affirms the existance of god, they cease to be agnostic. N’est pas? Suspecting that god might maybe exist, or wondering if god might maybe exist are fundamentally different positions than affirming that god does in fact exist. Which is how we distinguish between agnostics and theists.

Again, depends on whose definitions you’re using. If you go with Huxley’s, he came up with the term, then it’d be the following:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [”Agnosticism”, 1889]

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. [”Agnosticism and Christianity”, 1889]

So, no, according to the main who coined the term you don’t have to affirm one way or the other to be an agnostic. All you have to be is unwilling to claim definitively without adequate reason to do so.

With all due respect to those on the various sides who have studied the meanings of these words far longer and in far greater depth than I… It seems to me that either 1.) some of you here who are claiming to be atheists are in reality agnostics… or 2.) the English language is far less stable and unified than outfits like Merriam Webster would have us believe and/or their definitions need to be updated or are otherwise incomplete.

Congratulations. You’ve just had an epiphany that many linguists go through very early on in their studies: Language and words are slippery things to try and nail down. The word “Fag,” for example, means many different things today than it did in the past. Go ahead, look it up in the dictionary and see if what you find agrees with how it’s commonly used today.

As for whether some atheists are really agnostics, again that depends on whose definitions you’re using. Because I will admit that there is a possibility that a God or Gods could exist a lot of folks like to think that I’m agnostic probably because they hold a hope that that would mean I could someday see the light, but the truth is that while I do admit the possibility I also assert that the probability of that possibility is so astonishingly unlikely that I have no good reason to begin to believe the possibility as being true. Thus I have no belief in the idea of Gods and I am an atheist as a result.

Les, with all due respect… that alt.atheism FAQ is illogical. They say that some “atheists� only disbelieve in certain gods while maintaining belief in other gods. That’s psychobabble nonsense. If I believe in any god, regardless of which or whose, I am by definition a theist, not an atheist.

There’s nothing illogical about it. There are indeed some atheists who only disbelieve in certain gods. In general, they tend to disbelieve in the Gods as currently defined by recognized religions, but they’re not necessarily certain that there are no gods at all. My daughter falls into this category. She doesn’t buy the concept of God as defined by any of the major religions she’s been exposed to, but she’s not quite ready to rule out the possibility that a God might exist.

If you really wanna get technical about it, and others have pointed this out before, a Christian is an atheist with regards to all other religious belief systems. There is a reason why Radical Muslims refer to Christians as “infidels” and it’s because from their standpoint you believe in a false God and are therefore an unbeliever in the True God and thusly an infidel. Likewise many Christians consider Muslims to be unbelievers and so on. For centuries it would’ve been considered heresy to pretend that the God the Jews believed in was the same as the God Christians or Muslims believed in (and the same was true for the others). It’s only recently that folks have tried to do the warm-and-fuzzy it’s-all-the-same-god-just-differing-opinions approach because it’s no longer acceptable to just go out and kill anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Or at the least, impractical.

If by, “Absolute knowledge is not necessary to not believe in God(s),� you mean to draw a distinction between denying the very existance of X, and denying the divinity/supernaturalness of X… then I think we’ve found some common ground. I hadn’t ever considered drawing that distinction before. But, I can see how the same phrase could have two different meanings. If I were to claim to be god and you denied my claim without denying that I exist, you would be meeting a definition of “atheist� which certainly wouldn’t require omniscience.

No, I’m wrong about that last bit. If I claimed to be god and you denied my claim to divinity without denying my existance, you still would have no way of knowing that I wasn’t merely masking my divinity in your presence. Thus, you would still have to be omniscient to be able to dismiss my claim to divinity with full certainty. That or a crude experiment with a .44. So there I go again answering my own challenge.

So then if the .44 didn’t work and you still denied my claim to divinity, then you’d be implying your own omniscience. Right?

Let me see if I can provide you with a good example to make my meaning clear. Let’s say I claim that I believe to know that Diminutive Underwear Trolls of a Curious Shade of Blue exist which go around and occasionally loot underwear from the dresser drawers of unbelievers. When questioned on why no one has ever seen such a creature I claim that it’s because they can’t be seen unless you believe they exist and because I believe in them I have seen them myself and even had a nice conversation or two over a cup of hot chocolate, of which they are particularly fond. You now have a few choices available: You can decide you have no good reason not to believe me and accept what I say as true. You can decide you have no good reason to believe me and reject what I say as true. You could assume I’m bat-shit crazy and just ignore me. You… you get the picture.

Based on the logic you’re using, though, you can’t deny the existence of said Underwear Trolls unless you have some form of omniscience because it’s possible that somewhere “out there” they might actually exist no matter how many times you count the underwear in your dresser drawer.

Clearly, though, the idea of Underwear Trolls is absurd and you probably wouldn’t worry too much that you’re not omniscient when deciding to deny their existence. The simple fact that I am the only person claiming to have seen such trolls and the fact that you have never had any experiences that would begin to suggest that such creatures exist would probably be enough justification for you to make a decision in the negative. As the number of people who believe in said trolls and claims their existence scales up then you might be more reluctant to deny their existence outright, but you probably still wouldn’t buy into the concept without what you would consider a good reason to do so.

None of that decision making process requires omniscience to undertake. By the same token, neither does atheism.

It seems to me that these are political arguments, and not really logical, scientific, or philosophical. In the ‘70’s, Proctor and Bergman of the Firesign Theater reminded us “everything you know is wrong.” I would look at that statement very seriously against the backdrop of the history of science.

Sure, maybe the theories are converging on a one to one model of the manifold of experience, but I’m not holding my breath. Also, I know of no serious physicist who believes in a personal god. Whatever they may think about ID, etc.

I think serious scientists are very clear about what science does and does not tell us. It tells us little to nothing about how to live, IMO. For that, there’s politics, an intellectual universe of discourse of its own, no more or less valuable than logic, science, philosophy, etc., though it easily co-opts and smuggles from these disciplines to its own ends.

When I make a declaration of my beliefs, it is for political ends, and I use all sorts of human capacities to strive for efficacy. Including my emotional affiliative “beliefs.” Otherwise, I spend my time thinking, not knowing. To know is to foreclose. But, making good guesses, with your eyes open, pays off. In life, as in poker.

Kevin: LOL nothin’ like an Ad Hominem to make a guy feel welcome.

Nothing like starting out by pontificating about “The atheist...” to ensure a warm welcome.

BTW, if you’re interested in furthering your education you might dig into the difference between “fundamentalists� and “evangelicals.�

Interestingly enough, he prompts us to further our education on terms that describe his own position, while himself refusing to venture beyond a dictionary for different views.

my challenged y’all’s belief system

You challenged a straw man.

Secondly, the definition I posted for “atheism� was verbatim what Merriam Webster says it means. If you see it as a strawman, take it up with the experts

We are the experts.

isn’t not affirming that god exists a bare minimum threshold for an Agnostic?

No. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, atheism a statement about belief. Even absent knowledge, an agnostic can believe in god’s existence.

Les: As for whether some atheists are really agnostics,

I describe myself as an apathetic agnostic atheist: I don’t know, I don’t believe, I don’t care.

And what Les said. Before wasting time pondering god’s existence, one has to define god and god’s existence - which is typically a show-stopper. It is perfectly reasonable to reject definitions that lead to logical contradictions and take the strong atheistic position regarding specific gods, like the Abrahamic gods. They may still exist, but then their worshippers got the definition wrong.

Completely ignoring the discussion above, one comment on the story itself:

First, she said, you don’t have to waste Sundays going to pray. Also I’d rather do things myself than have somebody else do them for me. If somebody gets sick, I wouldn’t just pray to god he or she gets better, I would try to buy some medicine for them, to help them get better.

I don’t consider church services on Sunday to be a waste (though I once did).  I get a lot out of them.

And while there are Christians who would disagree, this Christian thinks one of the points of praying for someone to get better is to also remind you that you *should* go out and buy them some medicine (or offer other material aid).

And as to Momma’s statement:

I was extremely troubled when attending a funeral recently to be called upon to come forward and be saved. So much so that I didn’t stay for the memorial service of my Grand-neice.  When I am here to pay my respects to someone I don’t want to be reminded that if I want to see them again I have to accept religion into my life.

That was completely inappropriate, IMO, of the minister.  It doesn’t surprise me (and I can even force myself to see the perspective), but I’d be offended even if I were there and considered myself “saved” (as I was at a wedding I went to that included the same sort of side show).