Atheism = Farce!

[B_crackoff]

This is true. Many people have never even heard of the word agnostic so they don't even realise that there's another category they can belong to. Another problem is that if you choose to call yourself agnostic it means you will have to keep explaining yourself over and over again (because so many people have never heard of the word agnostic). It's less effort to just say you're an atheist.

I'd say if people didn't know what an agnostic was then they're too stupid to have an opinion either way!:wink:

Frankly, who the fuck knows.

I saw that Bible bashing Richard Dawkins on TV last night, spewing his God hating, & God believer venom out, with all the bile of a doomsday prophet, despite the inherent problems with his irrational political history metaphors, & the entire mythos scientists come up with to try to explain away facts.

There's just no way of knowing if it's true - he should frickin know that!

I'd advise anyone who has an interest in evolution to read Stephen J Goulding, the late American expert (& quite wryly humorous), to understand why there is no consensus on much evolutionary theory, & understand that the theory side taught in the US is far more considered, & less fundamentalist than dotty Dawkins.

Dawkins literally believes in evolution as a purposeful progression, despite the fact it clearly remains inert & regresses too. He has a messianic devotion to a thing he has never observed, because as yet, we have never observed anything change species.

He also ignores interdependent species relationships, the effect of sentience, & has bizarre ideas that design structures evolved individually, not out of necessity, & has full FAITH that all the missing links will be found.

Unremitting belief in anything is farcical. God, evolution, climate change ....

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I'd advise anyone who has an interest in evolution to read Stephen J Goulding ...

Um, it's Stephen Jay Gould.

Dawkins literally believes in evolution as a purposeful progression, despite the fact it clearly remains inert & regresses too.

'Purposeful'? Do you have a link for this? My guess is that's precisely what he doesn't believe.

 

[Pendlum]

I'm agnostic. I cannot prove to you the Great Pumpkin exists and you cannot prove to me that it does. And yeah, Atheism is kind of a religion in its own right.

That's the Jupiter's teapot argument, which is one I like. The flying spaghetti monster is an extension of that. So do you really think there is a chance that The Great Pumpkin exists?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

That's the Jupiter's teapot argument, which is one I like. The flying spaghetti monster is an extension of that. So do you really think there is a chance that The Great Pumpkin exists?

According to the teapot argument, he might think there is a (nearly infinitesimally slight) chance that The Great Pumpkin exists.
Which would make him an agnostic on that point.
Even though a nearly infinitesimally slight chance is close to zero.

 

[Pendlum]

There may be an impossibly low chance of there being a tea pot orbiting Jupiter, but I still don't believe it. I used to be agnostic, but I decided I didn't like the complacency in it. Just because I accept that there is a chance for some things doesn't make me stop not believing in gods etc. That's exactly why we are saying this guys article is BS. Saying you have to absolutely know there is no teapot is the same thing as saying you have to know for sure that there is no God. It is an impossible standard.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There may be an impossibly low chance of there being a tea pot orbiting Jupiter, but I still don't believe it. I used to be agnostic, but I decided I didn't like the complacency in it. Just because I accept that there is a chance for some things doesn't make me stop not believing in gods etc. That's exactly why we are saying this guys article is BS. Saying you have to absolutely know there is no teapot is the same thing as saying you have to know for sure that there is no God. It is an impossible standard.

And this is the point, Atheism isn't knowing for certain that god does not exist it's simply not seeing any reason to believe he does exist.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

There may be an impossibly low chance of there being a tea pot orbiting Jupiter, but I still don't believe it. I used to be agnostic, but I decided I didn't like the complacency in it. Just because I accept that there is a chance for some things doesn't make me stop not believing in gods etc. That's exactly why we are saying this guys article is BS. Saying you have to absolutely know there is no teapot is the same thing as saying you have to know for sure that there is no God. It is an impossible standard.

Which is why some people, such as Bertrand Russell, had difficulty deciding whether they were agnostics or atheists.
Russell felt like an atheist, but he could not with certainty dismiss that last particle of possibility, however small, that there is a god.
So among philosophers, he was inclined to say he was an agnostic.
With approximately zero belief in god ... but not quite zero.

And this is the point, Atheism isn't knowing for certain that god does not exist it's simply not seeing any reason to believe he does exist.

If you want to take that definition, I have no problem with it.
But what then is the difference in meaning between 'agnostic' and 'atheist'?
After all, an agnostic sees no reason to believe that god exists either.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

If you want to take that definition, I have no problem with it.
But what then is the difference in meaning between 'agnostic' and 'atheist'?
After all, an agnostic sees no reason to believe that god exists either.

Well agnostics simply do not know whether to believe god exists or not.

Atheists disbelieve that god exists. They do not equivocate on the matter of believing god exists. Which is not to say they know he does not exist.

 

[mitchymo]

Well agnostics simply do not know whether to believe god exists or not.

Atheists disbelieve that god exists. They do not equivocate on the matter of believing god exists. Which is not to say they know he does not exist.

I don't believe God exists. That doesn't mean i am right.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't believe God exists. That doesn't mean i am right.

Well then technically that makes you an agnostic. In that you admit the possibility that despite not believing in god yourself, he might still exist. :smile:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Well agnostics simply do not know whether to believe god exists or not.

I think most agnostics don't believe that god exists, but don't feel they know that he doesn't.

 

[Pendlum]

Which is why some people, such as Bertrand Russell, had difficulty deciding whether they were agnostics or atheists.
Russell felt like an atheist, but he could not with certainty dismiss that last particle of possibility, however small, that there is a god.
So among philosophers, he was inclined to say he was an agnostic.
With approximately zero belief in god ... but not quite zero.

That is sort of how I feel, except despite me not being able to prove it and knowing that there is an incredibly small chance, I'm certain there is no god etc. It seems odd to be certain but accepting being able to be wrong at the same time, maybe even impossible. But god is, in my opinion, impossible to prove/disprove. So realistically everyone should be agnostic. So knowing I can't possibly prove it, I just have to go with what I feel. If you wanted to get technical, you could call me an atheist-agnostic. But I much prefer calling myself an atheist because it illustrates my non belief, and it seems redundant to say "but I could be wrong" by saying agnostic because, everyone should say that. It would be like if I introduce myself, I say "Hi, I'm Pendlum, and I'm human." That's how it feels to me at least.

If you want to take that definition, I have no problem with it.
But what then is the difference in meaning between 'agnostic' and 'atheist'?
After all, an agnostic sees no reason to believe that god exists either.

It is a very fine line. And there are different levels of each. Like I can only assume there are some agnostics who really think there is a chance that one of the religions are right, and there are probably several that still think they are garbage. It may not be the official definition, but when I was identified agnostic this is how I defined it. I still didn't believe any of the religions were right, but I did think there was a fair chance that there was still some sort of higher power that I couldn't be aware of, and that had some kind of influence. Obviously I couldn't be sure. But anyway, I feel that being agnostic requires giving some kind of credible chance in god/higher power/etc. Again, this probably doesn't fit the official definition.

 

[mitchymo]

Well then technically that makes you an agnostic. In that you admit the possibility that despite not believing in god yourself, he might still exist. :smile:

I know. :smile:

I was pointing out that you said agnostics don't know whether to believe or not which is incorrect as agnostics hold a belief on the theism.

Although your comment can be attached to a type of agnostic (ignostics), the majority of agnostics don't have the uncertainty which your statement implied.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I think most agnostics don't believe that god exists, but don't feel they know that he doesn't.

That's as may be, but that doesn't mean that to be an Atheist you have to know that god does not exist, since in any case that would be impossible. It merely means that Atheists do not need to ask the question once their disbelief in god is established.

I don't see any reason to even wonder if god exists or not, since I disbelieve in him, because in an atheist's perspective God only exists because people believe he does, indeed this is part of the basis of faith. Therefore disbelieving in god leaves one free from the speculation about god altogether.

If god exists to you, it is because you believe he does, you cannot prove he exists to me, and since I disbelieve in god I have no reason to ask you for proof that he does or does not exist. Indeed I have no reason to even wonder.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

That's as may be, but that doesn't mean that to be an Atheist you have to know that god does not exist, since in any case that would be impossible.

Well, maybe this is where we say 'bingo,' and atheism, in a hard sense, becomes incoherent and impossible.
I dunno.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I know. :smile:

I was pointing out that you said agnostics don't know whether to believe or not which is incorrect as agnostics hold a belief on the theism.

Although your comment can be attached to a type of agnostic (ignostics), the majority of agnostics don't have the uncertainty which your statement implied.

But your version of agnosticism is very shacky really in that you cannot completely believe that god does not exist while admitting you might be wrong, right? Ultimately it's the same as admitting you don't know if he exists or not.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well, maybe this is where we say 'bingo,' and atheism, in a hard sense, becomes incoherent and impossible.
I dunno.

Well not really, I mean let us say you and I are standing in a park and you point to the tree standing next to us and say "I believe that tree exists" I have every reason to believe the tree exists too since I can see it, you are not imagining the tree or asking me to imagine it also. If I refused to believe the tree existed I would be being contrary and incoherent since all evidence suggests that the tree does exist and your belief in it is justified.

However if you point to empty space in the park where no evidence for a tree can be found and say "I believe there is a tree there" you cannot prove this to me, I cannot disprove your faith in the existence of that tree and yet I am perfectly justified in disbelieving that a tree exists in the place you tell me it does.

I do not need to know absolutely that it does not exist because there is no evidence it does and no way of proving the issue either way. Therefore speculation on my part is not necessary nor is it necessary for me to absolutely disprove your belief in order to be totally justified in not sharing it. I see no tree therefore I do not believe in the tree.

I do not need to know there is no tree or that there is a tree because I never believed in the tree in the first place.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

If you, Phreeley Ph. Phrankshmeiler, admit you can't know that X is true, then can you claim, in a hard sense, to believe it?
I don't think so.
So you have only relatively strong belief that X is true.
Which means, to me, that your case is captured by the word 'agnostic.'
[You know who you are, Phreeley.]

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

If you, Phreeley Ph. Phrankshmeiler, admit you can't know that X is true, then can you claim, in a hard sense, to believe it?
I don't think so.
So you have only relatively strong belief that X is true.
Which means, to me, that your case is captured by the word 'agnostic.'
[You know who you are, Phreeley.]

One can't know that what other's believe to be true is not true absolutely, but one can be absolutely sure of what one believes and disbelieves in oneself.

 

[Pendlum]

I think relatively strong belief isn't a strong enough phrase to describe how much I believe that x is true. :tongue: I admit, technically I'm an agnostic. But for all practical purposes I am an atheist.