Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heart-shattered · 01-12-2002, 06:00 PM

If "atheist" and "agnostic" were terms applied to Santa Claus rather than God, which would you be? Personally, I'd have to admit to being a "Santa Claus agnostic" who goes around claiming that "Santa Claus doesn't exist." After all, how do we really know? (BTW, I'm not talking about the "literal Santa Claus", but the metaphoric one. You know. The one that Amos believes in. )

We can't apply these terms to Santa Claus because we know he doesn't exist. We know it is a myth that we intentionally tell children then negate it when they grow older. Now, if only we could do the same with gods.

The important distinction between gods and Santa Claus is that a god serves a purpose while Santa does not. This universe came into being someway, whether by the act of a supreme being or by uninitiated reasons.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Down ]

ksagnostic · 01-12-2002, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Down:
Why is it that atheists and agnostics bicker over their respective views on the question of god? To me, it is a pointless question.

I consider myself an 'agnostic atheist.' That is, I reject god and religion, but I do not claim knowledge to the nonexistence of gods.

This being said, I don't know why the difference should matter (of course, atheists and agnostics may argue over it for intellectual enrichment) and why agnostics should be dubbed 'cowards' for not going all out and wholeheartedly rejecting gods.

I merely admit that I don't know everything. I disbelieve in gods, but I can't prove it--but that's not what is important. I shouldn't have to disprove a positive, because the positive claim must be supported by evidence. With god, of course, this is not the case. But I refuse to say that I am 100% sure that no god exists, because until we have a better knowledge and understanding of the origin of the existence of the universe I refuse to completely rule it out.

Religion is a different issue, of course. Religion is mostly contradictory and malevolent in it's nature, and I can say for sure that religion is total nonsense.

I sometimes wonder if those who call themselves "strong" atheists do so not because they know that gods don't exist, but rather that they despise the idea so much that they feel better thinking that they know gods do not exist. As much as we may despise the idea, our opinions should not determine to us what really is the case. Until a god is proven or disproven otherwise, I refuse to take a position at either end of the rope when it comes to the question of god.

H.P. Lovecraft is often quoted to support the "strong" atheist position. He says that the possibility of theism being true is so microscopically small that it must be false. I can agree with this--but there is still that small possibility that a god may exist.

Unless, of course, you would define an atheist as one who merely disbelieves in gods. If this is the definition, then I would consider myself an atheist, but if the definition that everyone likes is "one who knows gods don't exist," then count me out.

Ok, so I refuse to go out on a limb and claim I know gods don't exist. So what? I still live a secular life, and that is all that should matter.

I agree with much of what you say. I technically meet the definition of "weak atheist" in most respects, although admittedly I could be called a "strong atheist" when it comes to most well defined historical god characters. However, the reason I meet these definitions is because I am an agnostic. So why bother to call myself anything else? Other than agnostic, that is.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

Prince Ashitaka · 01-12-2002, 08:49 PM

Thanks for that information on strong atheism Makai! I guess I AM a strong atheist to certain types of god.

(BTW, do you capitalize Atheism? Or do you not capitalize atheism? Thanks!)

- Prince Ashitaka -

MadKally · 01-12-2002, 09:01 PM

Quote:

originally posted by heart-shattered:
Why is it that atheists and agnostics bicker over their respective views on the question of god? To me, it is a pointless question.

I consider myself an 'agnostic atheist.'

You think people bicker and you came up with 'agnostic atheist'? WTF?

Here's the Lovecraft quote:

Quote:

"I certainly can't see any sensible position to assume aside from that of complete scepticism tempered by a leaning toward that which existing evidence makes most probable. All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world , or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligble moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

--H.P. Lovecraft

I'm an atheist

Heart-shattered · 01-12-2002, 09:05 PM

You think people bicker and you came up with 'agnostic atheist'? WTF?

You have revealed your narrow knowledge of the subject.

An 'atheist agnostic' is a term that I did not make up. I first discovered the term when reading Geroge H. Smith, and there are many individuals who are familiar with the term. Perhaps you haven't heard so yet. There are two kinds of agnostics - theist agnostics and atheist agnostics. For example, there was once a German philosopher that was a theist agnostic (though I forgot his name) and there are some who are agnostic atheists--agnostics who still disbelieve in gods, which include me.

MadKally · 01-12-2002, 09:12 PM

Ahhh Mr. Athee,
Perhaps you haven't heard of a strong atheist. That's what I am. I gave up all childhood myths along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Heart-shattered · 01-12-2002, 09:46 PM

Perhaps you haven't heard of a strong atheist. That's what I am. I gave up all childhood myths along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Sorry, atheism deals with gods, not with fairy tales. I gave it all up long ago as well, but you seem to think that you know no god exists.

MadKally · 01-12-2002, 10:52 PM

Sorry, atheism deals with gods, not with fairy tales.

a = absence of

theism with an 'a' in front of it means absence of theism. To me, god is the biggest fairy tale of them all..

Orpheous99 · 01-13-2002, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Down:
Why is it that atheists and agnostics bicker over their respective views on the question of god? To me, it is a pointless question.

I consider myself an 'agnostic atheist.' That is, I reject god and religion, but I do not claim knowledge to the nonexistence of gods.

This being said, I don't know why the difference should matter (of course, atheists and agnostics may argue over it for intellectual enrichment) and why agnostics should be dubbed 'cowards' for not going all out and wholeheartedly rejecting gods.

I merely admit that I don't know everything. I disbelieve in gods, but I can't prove it--but that's not what is important. I shouldn't have to disprove a positive, because the positive claim must be supported by evidence. With god, of course, this is not the case. But I refuse to say that I am 100% sure that no god exists, because until we have a better knowledge and understanding of the origin of the existence of the universe I refuse to completely rule it out.

Religion is a different issue, of course. Religion is mostly contradictory and malevolent in it's nature, and I can say for sure that religion is total nonsense.

I sometimes wonder if those who call themselves "strong" atheists do so not because they know that gods don't exist, but rather that they despise the idea so much that they feel better thinking that they know gods do not exist. As much as we may despise the idea, our opinions should not determine to us what really is the case. Until a god is proven or disproven otherwise, I refuse to take a position at either end of the rope when it comes to the question of god.

H.P. Lovecraft is often quoted to support the "strong" atheist position. He says that the possibility of theism being true is so microscopically small that it must be false. I can agree with this--but there is still that small possibility that a god may exist.

Unless, of course, you would define an atheist as one who merely disbelieves in gods. If this is the definition, then I would consider myself an atheist, but if the definition that everyone likes is "one who knows gods don't exist," then count me out.

Ok, so I refuse to go out on a limb and claim I know gods don't exist. So what? I still live a secular life, and that is all that should matter.

Agnostics see both theists and atheists as being wrong since there can be no evidence either way on the question of the existence of god(s).

Demiurge · 01-13-2002, 04:24 AM

Of everything I've read on this thread so far, Lovecraft put it best, and clarified the matter for me.

Like him, I'm "technically" an agnostic, in the sense that when push comes to shove I have to admit I can't decisively prove no god(s) exist. I can't display a total negation of god-concepts.

I just don't find any beliefs in deities, ghosts, the supernatural or anything similar to be warranted. I don't find the "positive" evidence to be enough to give serious consideration that such things exist. At least the UFOers have some grainy videotapes... Religious types just have hope and a book. To consider that supernatural intervention happened requires extraordinary proof for me to even consider it -- I do not find the Bible extraordinary -- it's just words on paper. Just like I don't consider the ILIAD "evidence" that Athene is real and took a human form to interact with Achaian and Trojan warlords.

I do, however, know other human beings exist (sans hyperbolic doubt), and I am continuously astounded by the capacity of human imagination, deception and self-delusion. Let's all admit, there have been some pretty charismatic liars and myth-makers among us. That doesn't rule out that there really are supernatural things... but, I find that to be the most likely source of all supernatural and religious claims. The fact that it usually plays into our deepest hopes and fears adds to its strength of appeal as well. But all of that tends to draw one away from the actual examination of the evidence itself, and a rational examination of it. Science, on the other hand, is often boring, attentive to details, and requires a lot of patience, trial and error, and often painstakingly slow progress. My suggestion is that we focus on science and being decent to one another, and live our lives, and if there is a god, it can make itself known to us if it wishes, in some dramatic, unambigous, and well-documentable way. Unless, of course, being mysterious is important to it for some reason.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Demiurge ]

01-12-2002, 06:00 PM	#11
Heart-shattered Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: USA Posts: 43	If "atheist" and "agnostic" were terms applied to Santa Claus rather than God, which would you be? Personally, I'd have to admit to being a "Santa Claus agnostic" who goes around claiming that "Santa Claus doesn't exist." After all, how do we really know? (BTW, I'm not talking about the "literal Santa Claus", but the metaphoric one. You know. The one that Amos believes in. ) We can't apply these terms to Santa Claus because we know he doesn't exist. We know it is a myth that we intentionally tell children then negate it when they grow older. Now, if only we could do the same with gods. The important distinction between gods and Santa Claus is that a god serves a purpose while Santa does not. This universe came into being someway, whether by the act of a supreme being or by uninitiated reasons. [ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Down ]</p>

01-13-2002, 04:24 AM	#20
Demiurge Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Butler Posts: 67	Of everything I've read on this thread so far, Lovecraft put it best, and clarified the matter for me. Like him, I'm "technically" an agnostic, in the sense that when push comes to shove I have to admit I can't decisively prove no god(s) exist. I can't display a total negation of god-concepts. I just don't find any beliefs in deities, ghosts, the supernatural or anything similar to be warranted. I don't find the "positive" evidence to be enough to give serious consideration that such things exist. At least the UFOers have some grainy videotapes... Religious types just have hope and a book. To consider that supernatural intervention happened requires extraordinary proof for me to even consider it -- I do not find the Bible extraordinary -- it's just words on paper. Just like I don't consider the ILIAD "evidence" that Athene is real and took a human form to interact with Achaian and Trojan warlords. I do, however, know other human beings exist (sans hyperbolic doubt), and I am continuously astounded by the capacity of human imagination, deception and self-delusion. Let's all admit, there have been some pretty charismatic liars and myth-makers among us. That doesn't rule out that there really are supernatural things... but, I find that to be the most likely source of all supernatural and religious claims. The fact that it usually plays into our deepest hopes and fears adds to its strength of appeal as well. But all of that tends to draw one away from the actual examination of the evidence itself, and a rational examination of it. Science, on the other hand, is often boring, attentive to details, and requires a lot of patience, trial and error, and often painstakingly slow progress. My suggestion is that we focus on science and being decent to one another, and live our lives, and if there is a god, it can make itself known to us if it wishes, in some dramatic, unambigous, and well-documentable way. Unless, of course, being mysterious is important to it for some reason. [ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Demiurge ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2002, 08:49 PM	#13
Prince Ashitaka Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USA Posts: 498	Thanks for that information on strong atheism Makai! I guess I AM a strong atheist to certain types of god. (BTW, do you capitalize Atheism? Or do you not capitalize atheism? Thanks!) - Prince Ashitaka -

01-12-2002, 09:05 PM	#15
Heart-shattered Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: USA Posts: 43	You think people bicker and you came up with 'agnostic atheist'? WTF? You have revealed your narrow knowledge of the subject. An 'atheist agnostic' is a term that I did not make up. I first discovered the term when reading Geroge H. Smith, and there are many individuals who are familiar with the term. Perhaps you haven't heard so yet. There are two kinds of agnostics - theist agnostics and atheist agnostics. For example, there was once a German philosopher that was a theist agnostic (though I forgot his name) and there are some who are agnostic atheists--agnostics who still disbelieve in gods, which include me.

01-12-2002, 09:12 PM	#16
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	Ahhh Mr. Athee, Perhaps you haven't heard of a strong atheist. That's what I am. I gave up all childhood myths along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

01-12-2002, 09:46 PM	#17
Heart-shattered Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: USA Posts: 43	Perhaps you haven't heard of a strong atheist. That's what I am. I gave up all childhood myths along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Sorry, atheism deals with gods, not with fairy tales. I gave it all up long ago as well, but you seem to think that you know no god exists.

01-12-2002, 10:52 PM	#18
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	Sorry, atheism deals with gods, not with fairy tales. a = absence of theism with an 'a' in front of it means absence of theism. To me, god is the biggest fairy tale of them all..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.