Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Castaway · 11-10-2002, 09:18 PM

Why do you believe theists are bad? And bad in what way? Do you mean weak? Inferior? Evil? All of the above or something else entirely?

And are you sure you really believe theists are bad people? Is it possible that you said this because you were frustrated? Frustrated because some of the "strong atheists" condemn you for being an agnostic. I wish I understood your meaning and knew you and did not have to guess.

If you mean by "bad" people, people who are unthinking, uncritical or unintelligent, then I know many Christians who are good people. If you mean by bad people, people who are unkind, evil, unjust, immoral, then I know many Christians who are good people. I only know one atheist personally and he also meets my definition of a "good" person.

My point is that I believe it is wrong to condemn individuals, based on labels like agnostic and atheist. This is what the strong atheists have done to you, why do it to someone else? If it made you feel unliked, if it made you feel that you did not fit in, how would it make theists feel?

I think I agree with some of what you said in this thread, and I am grateful that you have helped me start to "think out loud" about my own beliefs. I agree with you that being an agnostic is not easy. Being certain in one's beliefs is easier, because it's a lot more comforting to choose. Certainty is easier than doubt. And when you choose, you have a group and the group will support you. You will have someplace to "fit in." When you choose to say you do not know and therefore are an agnostic, you can get hammered by both sides, theists and atheists. What's easy or cowardly about that choice?

I do not have a "label" at the moment. I do not know exactly where I stand. I have tried to sort through Starboy's "test" and the thread Brian linked and I find that even picking a category is tough.

I do not believe in god anymore but I have not ruled out the idea of a god or the possibility of a god, and I still have lingering "feelings", wishes almost, that a god exists.

I know it would be easier for me to communicate here, if I could pick a label but I have concluded that a label is not really important to me right now. If anything, I dislike the whole idea of groups and labels. If groups and labels led only to understanding and better communication, then they would be great, but why do they often led to feelings of superiority and then efforts at condemnation?

I did not expect to find this problem here, or at least not in this context. One of the reasons why I have so many problems right now with Christianity is its tendency to make people feel superior. You are saved; you are chosen; you are favored by god etc.

Why should an atheist believe s/he is a superior person to an agnostic or to a theist? Why should an agnostic feel superior to a theist or a atheist? Why should a theist feel superior to an agnostic or an atheist? How does feeling superior bring anyone closer to an answer to the important questions? What is God? Is there a God? Do you believe in God?

[November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Castaway to correct my misreference to LDC's test which should have been a reference to Starboy's test.]

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Castaway ]

Albion · 11-10-2002, 10:17 PM

I don't think lack of belief is exactly the same as active disbelief. I mean, for Starboy's two questions, I'd answer D to "Does God exist?" and N to "Do you believe God exists?" But that N would be a real active disbelief in particular cases (such as the irrational sadist of the literal Genesis) and more of a zero for the general case of belief in the possibility of a deity or deities.

Starboy · 11-11-2002, 12:09 AM

Albion,

The interesting thing about the table is that philosophical catagories don't begin to cover the range of answers. Each definition can be applied to several combinations. The classic philosophical definitions don't appear to be very useful. It is no wonder the whole thing is so confusing, it is because the terms are vague.

Starboy

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Walross · 11-11-2002, 12:18 AM

Seatless,

what exactly is cowardly about admitting that you don't know? Must we all reach conclusions whether or not we have enough information to properly do so? And, as LDC has pointed out, if agnostics get flak from both theists and atheists, how is it the "easy way out"? I sincerely doubt that there are many agnostics who hold that position out of some misguided hope that they can sneak into the afterlife should there turn out to be one. Most of the ones I've spoken to are agnostic because they feel it's the most reasonable position, and most of them have some pretty good arguements to that effect. As I said before (in slightly different form), what exactly is wrong with withholding judgement until all the facts are in?

Walross

Living Dead Chipmunk · 11-11-2002, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Why do you believe theists are bad? And bad in what way? Do you mean weak? Inferior? Evil? All of the above or something else entirely?

*blink*

Ok, maybe I'm speaking in a regional dialect of some sort and didn't realize it.

When I ask "Are agnostics as bad as theists", the question should probably read: "Do agnostics engage in activity X (believed by the community comprising the indigenous inhabitants of this site as undesireable) as often and/or as severely and/or to the same extreme as theists do? Activity X being defined in this particular case as allowing for the possibility of the existance of a higher power. In other words, is an agnostic just as guilty of of being theistic (the activity defined by my intended audience as undesireable) as a theist?"

But that wouldn't fit in the Topic line.

Starboy · 11-11-2002, 08:44 AM

LDC:

So where are you on the table? You seem to be hinting that you are somewhere between 8 and 12 inclusive.

Starboy

Living Dead Chipmunk · 11-11-2002, 09:10 AM

I'd like to be a 6, but due to my own psychological weaknesses I'm probably an 8. I'm working on it, primarily by trying to convince myself that question B is irrelevant (and thus answering it with a C), only A matters, and that's definitely D

Starboy · 11-11-2002, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:
I'd like to be a 6, but due to my own psychological weaknesses I'm probably an 8. I'm working on it, primarily by trying to convince myself that question B is irrelevant (and thus answering it with a C), only A matters, and that's definitely D

IMO the only way to make B irrelevant is to adopt an entirely skeptical point of view. Then B is no longer about belief as is commonly understood but becomes a question about your current working hypothesis. IMO a rational person would never be able to answer Y or N to question A. This inabliltiy is a consequence of the apparently finite nature of existence.

Starboy

Gurdur · 11-11-2002, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seatless Bike:

For my two bits; As an explicit atheist, I hold that there is no god.

For an explicit atheist, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001471&p=" target="_blank">you yourself have some peculiar and unsupported beliefs</a>.

Quote:

For me to believe in any god, I need proof. What constitutes proof is myriad. However, I think most skeptics would agree on what kind of proof is needed.

What interests me is how some people can be all sceptical when it comes to gods, but not when it comes to Objectivism, which makes similar unsupported claims.

Quote:

The agnostic takes the easy way out with the statement that "since I can't know that a god doesn't exist, I will choose to believe that one may or may not". At best, this [lack of] belief system is cowardly, at best, self deceptive.

This is a misrepresentation of most agnostic positions, combined with the old old personal attacks and rhetoric.
I'm interested in just how you arrive at your own - IMHO - <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001471&p=" target="_blank">irrational beliefs and value judgments,</a> yet you claim to be an adequate judge of others.

Quote:

The agnostic, like an insurance policy holder, claims neither side in the case they are wrong when death comes. While better than the Christian, Islamic, Mormon, Celt, et al, the agnostic hopes to pry open the Pearly Gates should us atheists be awry in our physical beliefs.

You are either claiming an amazing omniscience over the reasoning of agnostics, or you are wilfully misrepresenting them.

Quote:

It's one side or the other. Either you believe or you don't.....

heh, heh, tell me why rationally <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001471&p=" target="_blank">you said here :</a>

Quote:

the piston has a more important job than the coolant tube.

Also tell me one other thing:
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/gardner.html" target="_blank">Martin Gardner is a famous agnostic fideist</a>. He has also accomplished far more in concrete ways for skepticism as a movement (including CSICOP) than many of his doctrinaire atheist detractors.

How would you explain this apparent contradiction ?

Oh, BTW, I'm a hard-line (very hard-line) atheist myself - so let's leave out the rhetoric, shall we ?

I just happen to think more tolerance and less dogmatism is necessary for a healthy atheism, and slamming agnostics is a silly and counter-productive enterprise.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

Castaway · 11-11-2002, 11:16 AM

Ah, Sitespeak. Thanks for the clarification, LDC.

Maybe those here who convinced you that speaking about the possibility of god was undesirable speech, have not carefully thought through their position. Why would having an open-mind be wrong?

If I understand what agnostic means, then to be an agnostic you must at least allow for the possibility of a god. Even if you believe the possibility is remote and unlikely, if you are an agnostic, you will still leave room in your mind for that possibility. If I am right, then how could being open-minded about the possibility of a god convert you to a theist or as you say be "as bad as a theist." :-)

Have atheists here decided that all agnostic speech is unwelcome? This sounds close-minded to me - like faith, like dogma. If being a freethinker is an admirable goal, then those who have made you feel your speech is unwelcome, are not freethinkers.

And BTW, LDC, I like your handle, it sounds like a good name for a band. :-)

11-10-2002, 09:18 PM	#21
Castaway Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Midway Posts: 47	Why do you believe theists are bad? And bad in what way? Do you mean weak? Inferior? Evil? All of the above or something else entirely? And are you sure you really believe theists are bad people? Is it possible that you said this because you were frustrated? Frustrated because some of the "strong atheists" condemn you for being an agnostic. I wish I understood your meaning and knew you and did not have to guess. If you mean by "bad" people, people who are unthinking, uncritical or unintelligent, then I know many Christians who are good people. If you mean by bad people, people who are unkind, evil, unjust, immoral, then I know many Christians who are good people. I only know one atheist personally and he also meets my definition of a "good" person. My point is that I believe it is wrong to condemn individuals, based on labels like agnostic and atheist. This is what the strong atheists have done to you, why do it to someone else? If it made you feel unliked, if it made you feel that you did not fit in, how would it make theists feel? I think I agree with some of what you said in this thread, and I am grateful that you have helped me start to "think out loud" about my own beliefs. I agree with you that being an agnostic is not easy. Being certain in one's beliefs is easier, because it's a lot more comforting to choose. Certainty is easier than doubt. And when you choose, you have a group and the group will support you. You will have someplace to "fit in." When you choose to say you do not know and therefore are an agnostic, you can get hammered by both sides, theists and atheists. What's easy or cowardly about that choice? I do not have a "label" at the moment. I do not know exactly where I stand. I have tried to sort through Starboy's "test" and the thread Brian linked and I find that even picking a category is tough. I do not believe in god anymore but I have not ruled out the idea of a god or the possibility of a god, and I still have lingering "feelings", wishes almost, that a god exists. I know it would be easier for me to communicate here, if I could pick a label but I have concluded that a label is not really important to me right now. If anything, I dislike the whole idea of groups and labels. If groups and labels led only to understanding and better communication, then they would be great, but why do they often led to feelings of superiority and then efforts at condemnation? I did not expect to find this problem here, or at least not in this context. One of the reasons why I have so many problems right now with Christianity is its tendency to make people feel superior. You are saved; you are chosen; you are favored by god etc. Why should an atheist believe s/he is a superior person to an agnostic or to a theist? Why should an agnostic feel superior to a theist or a atheist? Why should a theist feel superior to an agnostic or an atheist? How does feeling superior bring anyone closer to an answer to the important questions? What is God? Is there a God? Do you believe in God? [November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Castaway to correct my misreference to LDC's test which should have been a reference to Starboy's test.] [ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Castaway ]</p>

11-11-2002, 12:09 AM	#23
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Albion, The interesting thing about the table is that philosophical catagories don't begin to cover the range of answers. Each definition can be applied to several combinations. The classic philosophical definitions don't appear to be very useful. It is no wonder the whole thing is so confusing, it is because the terms are vague. Starboy [ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

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

11-10-2002, 10:17 PM	#22
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I don't think lack of belief is exactly the same as active disbelief. I mean, for Starboy's two questions, I'd answer D to "Does God exist?" and N to "Do you believe God exists?" But that N would be a real active disbelief in particular cases (such as the irrational sadist of the literal Genesis) and more of a zero for the general case of belief in the possibility of a deity or deities.

11-11-2002, 12:18 AM	#24
Walross Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 1,569	Seatless, what exactly is cowardly about admitting that you don't know? Must we all reach conclusions whether or not we have enough information to properly do so? And, as LDC has pointed out, if agnostics get flak from both theists and atheists, how is it the "easy way out"? I sincerely doubt that there are many agnostics who hold that position out of some misguided hope that they can sneak into the afterlife should there turn out to be one. Most of the ones I've spoken to are agnostic because they feel it's the most reasonable position, and most of them have some pretty good arguements to that effect. As I said before (in slightly different form), what exactly is wrong with withholding judgement until all the facts are in? Walross

11-11-2002, 08:44 AM	#26
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	LDC: So where are you on the table? You seem to be hinting that you are somewhere between 8 and 12 inclusive. Starboy

11-11-2002, 09:10 AM	#27
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	I'd like to be a 6, but due to my own psychological weaknesses I'm probably an 8. I'm working on it, primarily by trying to convince myself that question B is irrelevant (and thus answering it with a C), only A matters, and that's definitely D

11-11-2002, 11:16 AM	#30
Castaway Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Midway Posts: 47	Ah, Sitespeak. Thanks for the clarification, LDC. Maybe those here who convinced you that speaking about the possibility of god was undesirable speech, have not carefully thought through their position. Why would having an open-mind be wrong? If I understand what agnostic means, then to be an agnostic you must at least allow for the possibility of a god. Even if you believe the possibility is remote and unlikely, if you are an agnostic, you will still leave room in your mind for that possibility. If I am right, then how could being open-minded about the possibility of a god convert you to a theist or as you say be "as bad as a theist." :-) Have atheists here decided that all agnostic speech is unwelcome? This sounds close-minded to me - like faith, like dogma. If being a freethinker is an admirable goal, then those who have made you feel your speech is unwelcome, are not freethinkers. And BTW, LDC, I like your handle, it sounds like a good name for a band. :-)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.