Silent Acorns

Oily Winkles,

I'd say that you are either a Deist or an Atheist, depending on whether or not you beleive that a creator God exists.

Also, It's important to emphasize Family Man's point that only a small portion of atheists claim that "no God's exist". The basic Atheist position is that the level of evidence for the existence of all gods (from Allah to Zeus) is on the same level as the evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, Leprecauns, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, i.e. there is none. We therefore conclude that these gods are most likely to be the products of human ingnorance and fantasy. Some of us would replace "most likely" in that last sentence with "certain", but they are relatively rare.

There are also a great many of us who would say that the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is logically impossible, and therefor does not exist. However, they do not deny the possability that a less personal, or less powerful god might exist.

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in any gods.

diana

As PsychoEconomist already said, I think this thread will do better in General Religious Discussions.

I'd like to try to answer your question, though.

It might help to understand that everybody seems to have a slightly different definition of "atheist" and "agnostic." Mine are very simple:

atheist: one who is not a theist; lacking a belief in god(s)
agnostic: one who does not know a god exists; lack of knowledge of god(s)

Both seem to come with big ol' buttloads of connotations, but if we just look at the words themselves with their purest definitions for a moment, you might note that the two can (and often do) apply to the same person.

Belief is distinguished from knowledge in that belief talks of things we accept in the absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary (thanks, Thomas Metcalf, for the improvement on my definition). Knowledge is something that you can scientifically demonstrate.

Considering this, I suggest that we are all agnostics (in the pure sense of the word). In this sense, the word agnostic is an unfortunate waste of syllables and only confuses issues, as it is no more a discriminating label than human.

A theist is one who believes in a god, of course. Anyone who cannot claim that belief (and I include people who, when asked, say, "I don't know....") is by default atheist. This simply means you remain to be convinced.

Your discussion with Family Man is a good example of why I do not define "athiesm" as "a belief in no gods." I think the opposite of belief in gods is lack of belief in gods--not a belief in no gods. I've seen too many people get pulled through the shredder for making statements like "Gods don't exist," because theists routinely counter with the requirement that we back up our positive claim.

A gent we call "Koy"--but with a fairly longer appellation--will probably be by to quibble with my thoughts as presented in the last paragraph. You can look forward to it.

d

Shake

Welcome Olly!

Hey, have you tried the Belief-O-Matic yet? It seems to be fairly accurate, or at least you'll have some other ideas to check out.

Philosoft

Welcome, Olly Wrinkles. I think you are constrained by something of a misconception. While it's probably true that some atheists hold very dogmatic opinions about the non-existence of God, atheism does not require it as a prerequisite. Many, if not most atheists who frequent this board call themselves "weak" atheists. They characterize their position as an almost passive lack of belief in God or gods rather than an active denial of existence. We tend to favor the former as a "default," as it is much more inclusive. I am of the opinion that very few of the much-maligned dogmatic atheists actually exist.

The important thing to understand is that your unwillingness to completely eliminate God from the realm of possible existence should not be an impediment to calling yourself an atheist. There are numerous (mainly deistic) God-concepts that are prima facie unfalsifiable. Inasmuch as they are also unprovable, they tend to generate very little pointed discussion. Even so, most atheists have no problem allowing a non-zero probability of some god's existence.

Hope this helps.

Jamie_L

Actually, I think believing the search for proof of God is futile is pretty much the definition of agnostic. It's my understanding that agnostic means you believe knowledge about the existence of God is unknown and unknowable. It doesn't mean still deciding, it means accepting that it's impossible to decide.

So, I second the notion that you seem to be agnostic.

And remember Monty Python's endorsement: "There's nothing an agnostic can't do when he doesn't know if he believes in anything or not."

Jamie

Koyaanisqatsi

Hello and welcome and diana is right (sor of ); I will quibble. I of course define "quibble" as to demonstrate invalidity

I am one of those "strong" atheists (an irrelevant designation, but nonetheless, labels, labels, labels).

Let me see if I can demonstrate why. The only reason there is any discussion regarding this topic at all is based on one initial fallacy: that an unsupported positive claim made by somebody millenia ago was indoctrinated (largely through a threat for non-belief) into a particular tribe or group of people in order to control that tribe or group of people.

If "control" is too strong a word, substitute "guide." All cults are little more than instructions on how a particular tribe or group of people should behave, so, in essence and its heart, this discussion is really about laws; moral laws at that, but also the precursor to what we commonly refer to as "jurisprudence."

Lacking sufficient justification for an individual to impose such personal opinions, gave birth to the God concept; a "super natural" being that has the power to objectively establish the authority of the individual to impose personal opinions on group behavior.

In other words, a myth. Since that initial claim has never been demonstrated to be anything other than what it is ("myth"), why then accept that it is true or even "could be" true? A tautology that I am fond of repeating (ad nauseam) is: a fictional creature does not factually exist.

Holden Caulfield from The Cather in the Rye, for example, does not factually exist (i.e., is not a non-fictional being), yet nowhere in that novel does J.D. Salinger even intimate that this is the case, which means that anyone of the mind to could indeed argue that since it hasn't been proved that Holden Caulfield does not factually exist, he therefore "might" exist.

That is the reasoning behind what you are saying and that is the reason why, IMO, it is flawed from the git-go.

The fact that an author (or authors) has claimed that a being they created nonetheless factually exists is not sufficient evidence to accept that claim in the slightest and, without such evidence, effectively renders the claim void.

There is no more justification, therefore, to say, "Holden Caulfield could exist and I don't rule out that possibility," yes? It wouldn't matter one iota that the entire world throughout all of recorded history believed in Caulfieldism (to coin a phrase), there still would be no justifiable reason to believe such a creature could exist.

Now, if you have compelling evidence to demonstrate that Holden Caulfield was not merely a fictional creation of J.D. Salinger, then by all means present it and we'll debate its merits. That is, after all, the burden of proof of the one making such a positive claim and the constant call of atheists around here toward any theists that come into the fray.

What is your evidence? Absent such evidence, however, there is no reason at all for anyone to accept that Holden Caulfied could exist; certainly no compelling reason to take such a position, even if, as I said, the entire world swears on the novel that they have actually experienced Holden Caulfield in their lives.

So, to reiterate, until such time as a claim is demonstrated to be true, it is, effectively, an irrelevant claim devoid of substantive content.

Since the theists claim is that a fictional character from ancient mythology is actually a non-fictional being and that, further, one must believe in this on faith alone, well, you see how seriously devoid of substantive content such a claim truly is, which, in turn, renders it an effectively void (or empty) claim.

Why then should anyone remain in a state of uncertainty regarding the claim? There's no basis for certainty and no basis for uncertainty; there is only an unsupported (and fantastic) claim that, when substituted as I have done here with any other fictional character, effectively without merit (setting aside the number of adherents to the claim regardless).

Once you factor in, however, the underpinnings to the claim being accepted (i.e., threat of eternal punishment for disbelief and the irrational declaration that one must believe on faith alone) it is rather easily revealed as the cult control nonsense it truly is.

southernhybrid

Here's one dictionary definition of agnostic that I usually like to use for those who call themselves agnostics.



1. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

You sound like you might be comfortable in that category.

We could just call you a humanist or just a freethinker since you don't accept traditional religion.

I usually think of myself as a strong atheist because the idea that a god exists is nonsense to me. It's not that important to me to have a label though. Whatever you/we decide you are, welcome to the II. Hope you enjoy it here.

Philosoft

[hijack]
Quick point-of-order. Koy has been proven wrong thusly: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=46839
[/hijack]

Bumble Bee Tuna

Koy, you kick ass. As does strong atheism. Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with saying you "believe' something that is so probably false. I "believe" that leprechauns don't exist. I don't have evidence, just probability. I don't "know" anything and I think God's existence falls well beyond the ranges of probability for me to believe. I "believe" things that science dictates though there's actually a small probability that it's all just some big fake to make it look like those things are true.

-B

Koyaanisqatsi

I love you Philosoft, but in a manly way, not to be confused with NAMBLA.

So would that be the son of the father of the holy ghost of Caulfield?