Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would be atheism instead. Anything short of that is agnosticism or theism.
In practice, there are no atheists, because it is impossible to prove atheism. So 'atheists' are either agnostics or theists.
What are you talking about? There are no atheists? What? Impossible to prove that I don't have a belief in god? Do you want to hook me up to a lie detector and ask me if I have a belief in god? Will that prove it to you? It doesn't even make any sense to ask someone to prove atheism. Atheism isn't claiming anything that needs to be proved in the first place. We're not claiming that gods do not in fact exist. How should we know? There could be hundreds of gods out there! We just do not have a belief in any.
In terms of formal proof, that is true. In terms of formal proof, everyone is agnostic. But not all proof is formal.
You should read more of my posts.
I would agree that we all are "really" agnostic in that we don't have knowledge of god (we are also either atheist or theist in terms of belief). However, I find quite a number of christians who do claim to have knowledge "gnosis" (proof; personal revelation) of god (not that I would necessarily agree with their "proof"). Heck, many of them claim to have a personal relationship with god/jesus! However, I really think many are either using the word wrongly, or they are equating having a personal feeling/experience as "knowledge".
On the other hand, most atheists are in fact agnostic, meaning that they do not have a belief in god but do not claim to have knowledge that god does in fact exist/not exist. If something is supernatural, it is defined as "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man". How could an atheist (or really anyone for that matter) claim that something outside of their knowledge or experience does/doesn't exist? How can you have knowledge about something defined specifically as being "outside the knowledge of man"?
Only those who make claims of knowledge (strong/gnostic atheists and strong/gnostic theists) have the burden of proof to prove their claims.
Since the majority of atheists are NOT claiming knowledge, we have nothing to prove. We merely do not believe the theists’ claims that their deity exists. Now if most theists admitted that they had no knowledge of god and didn't know for sure whether or not he existed, but they still believed in him......then there would be nothing to prove or argue about. Isn't that why they call it a leap of "faith"? People can believe whatever they want, right or wrong. It doesn't matter. But when you claim that you know that your god does (or doesn't) exist as a fact, then you have the burden of proof to back up your "knowledge" claims.
This is largely an argument over semantics. Look at it this way, most people who claim they are atheist do so because they have no belief in any god, period. Yet they generally do recognize that there's really no way to know whether or not there are any gods (agnosticism).
You can go on viewing atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive, but you are using the term differently than most self-proclaimed atheists do. Like many others, I just don't see how "on the fence" can be a belief position; how do you simultaneously half-believe and half-disbelieve? In reality, you either believe or you don't. If you are unsure and so you are withholding belief, then simply, you don't believe (you are technically an atheist).
This is largely an argument over semantics. Look at it this way, most people who claim they are atheist do so because they have no belief in any god, period. Yet they generally do recognize that there's really no way to know whether or not there are any gods (agnosticism).
You can go on viewing atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive, but you are using the term differently than most self-proclaimed atheists do. Like many others, I just don't see how "on the fence" can be a belief position; how do you simultaneously half-believe and half-disbelieve? In reality, you either believe or you don't. If you are unsure and so you are withholding belief, then simply, you don't believe (you are technically an atheist).
For some people, I think the argument is political. I remember Dawkins saying that agnosticism is a cowardly position, and that agnostics should have the guts to admit they're atheists and thus strengthen the atheist movement. It reminds me of the argument some gays used to make that people who claimed to be bisexual were really gay, and they should admit it and give strength to the gay movement. I don't agree with either assertion; I think there's room for a gray area.
For me, it's a matter of semantics. I'm an atheist when it comes to the existence of an anthropomorphic god, but agnostic when it comes to the existence of some overarching higher-level order and perhaps intelligence to the universe. For me to call myself an atheist on the latter, I'd have to be convinced that all so-called paranormal phenomena can be attributed to the mind playing tricks, because current science can't otherwise explain them. That eventually may be proven to be the case, but I'm not yet convinced either way. So I don't think of it as half believing and half not believing, but as not having a firm belief either way.
It's similar to my thoughts about the economic bailout in the US: the fact that I'm not fully convinced that it was the best approach doesn't make me a disbeliever by default, because I'm not convinced that letting the banks and auto makers fail would have been the best approach, either.
For some people, I think the argument is political. I remember Dawkins saying that agnosticism is a cowardly position, and that agnostics should have the guts to admit they're atheists and thus strengthen the atheist movement. It reminds me of the argument some gays used to make that people who claimed to be bisexual were really gay, and they should admit it and give strength to the gay movement. I don't agree with either assertion; I think there's room for a gray area.
For me, it's a matter of semantics. I'm an atheist when it comes to the existence of an anthropomorphic god, but agnostic when it comes to the existence of some overarching higher-level order and perhaps intelligence to the universe. For me to call myself an atheist on the latter, I'd have to be convinced that all so-called paranormal phenomena can be attributed to the mind playing tricks, because current science can't otherwise explain them. That eventually may be proven to be the case, but I'm not yet convinced either way. So I don't think of it as half believing and half not believing, but as not having a firm belief either way.
You seem to be under the false impression that atheists can't believe in the supernatural. We can and many do.
Quote:
It's similar to my thoughts about the economic bailout in the US: the fact that I'm not fully convinced that it was the best approach doesn't make me a disbeliever by default, because I'm not convinced that letting the banks and auto makers fail would have been the best approach, either.
If you do not hold the positive belief in the economic bailout as the best thing, then this makes you an "atheist" or "a-bailoutist" by default. You do not have to "disbelieve" in the bailout or actively believe in some kind of alternative to the bailout, you just have to be without an active/positive belief in the superiority of the economic bailout to be labeled as an "a-bailoutist".
You seem to be under the false impression that atheists can't believe in the supernatural. We can and many do.
No, I'm not under that impression. I think most atheists would agree that there's no such thing as the "supernatural" -- it's just a handy term for natural events that we don't yet understand. And while I grant that the vast majority of atheists would change their beliefs about something if presented with evidence to the contrary, there do seem to be some who pooh-pooh all so-called supernatural phenomena. It's the difference between "There appears to be something going on here that we can't yet explain, so it bears further study," and "There is no known mechanism by which this could occur, so it has to be fraud, self-delusion, or misinterpretation of something else." It's a variation of that anecdote about the head of the US Patent Office who, in 1910, stated that it should be shut down, because everything that could be invented already had been invented. When anyone starts a thread about some supernatural topic (e.g., ghosts, reincarnation, UFOs, clairvoyance), there are certain people who will always post something to the effect of, "There is zero evidence to support this. It's all anecdotal. We know of no way it it could occur. It therefore all has to be in people's heads." I usually pipe in with something about how quantum physics might someday explain it, so there might be more to it than people's minds playing tricks, but we don't know yet.
What does that have to do with the definition of atheism? Maybe nothing. But if there does turn out to be some means by which the organized energy that comprises consciousness can remain intact apart from the physical body, not only would it explain a lot of supernatural phenomema, but it also would lend weight to some of the non-anthropomorphic concepts of God (e.g., that energy is organized on progressively higher levels, and God is the highest level). I can conceive of the possibility of such a God, if you even want to call it that, although I doubt I could comprehend the aspects of such a God, because my consciousness would be one small part of it.
Quote:
If you do not hold the positive belief in the economic bailout as the best thing, then this makes you an "atheist" or "a-bailoutist" by default. You do not have to "disbelieve" in the bailout or actively believe in some kind of alternative to the bailout, you just have to be without an active/positive belief in the superiority of the economic bailout to be labeled as an "a-bailoutist".
That's the heart of my point. I maintain that there's a difference between "I believe that the bailout will not work," "I believe that the bailout will work," and "I believe that there's a 50-50 chance that the bailout will work." The arguments in favor of the bailout make sense to me, but so do the arguments against it. It's so complex, and each position is based on a large set of assumptions, most of which are untestable and are based on similar things that have happened in the past: "I can point to a case where something similar worked." "Well, I can point to a case where something similar failed." Ronald Reagan once said that most of the major decisions at the Presidential level came down to 51% vs. 49% in his mind, and I can well believe it.
So regardless of the technical meanings of words based on their Greek roots, I think that having a word (agnostic) that expresses a position somewhere between two extremes (theist and atheist) is useful. Or to use another analogy, "Did you or did you not run that stop sign, Mr. HonuMan? You either did or you didn't. There is no middle position." "Well, your honor, it depends on what you mean by 'run.' Did I pass through the intersection without applying my breaks? Yes. Did I do so willfully and intentionally? No. At that time of afternoon, with the sun at a low angle and the water on the road after the rain, and the tree branch that had fallen 30 feet in front of it, the stop sign wasn't visible to me until it was too late to stop."
So regardless of the technical meanings of words based on their Greek roots, I think that having a word (agnostic) that expresses a position somewhere between two extremes (theist and atheist) is useful. Or to use another analogy, "Did you or did you not run that stop sign, Mr. HonuMan? You either did or you didn't. There is no middle position." "Well, your honor, it depends on what you mean by 'run.' Did I pass through the intersection without applying my breaks? Yes. Did I do so willfully and intentionally? No. At that time of afternoon, with the sun at a low angle and the water on the road after the rain, and the tree branch that had fallen 30 feet in front of it, the stop sign wasn't visible to me until it was too late to stop."
But once "run" is defined, you can say "yes" or "no" to the question of "did you run the stop sign?" Or more accurately analogous, "do you believe that you ran the stop sign?"
Once "God" is defined, I can say whether or not I believe in it. Theism generally defines "God" in a way that I can say "I don't believe in that," such as a "personal god".
But in the end, whatever definition they give I can say "yes" or "no" to "do you believe in my version of God?" If I don't know enough about it to make a decision, then my answer is "no" until I am convinced otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are no atheists? What? Impossible to prove that I don't have a belief in god? Do you want to hook me up to a lie detector and ask me if I have a belief in god? Will that prove it to you? It doesn't even make any sense to ask someone to prove atheism. Atheism isn't claiming anything that needs to be proved in the first place. We're not claiming that gods do not in fact exist. How should we know? There could be hundreds of gods out there! We just do not have a belief in any.
