Agnostics vs. Atheists?

[PainRack]

So... 'New Atheism' is just talking about your atheism? Treating it as a worldview to be shared instead of a dirty secret?

The article made the distinction of saying that New Atheism must actively combat religion, as it is capable of doing harm. This as opposed to Stephen Goald who advocated that science and religion can co-exist peacefully as they deal with seperate things.

[mr friendly guy]

Of course Gould himself was an atheist. He just didn't seem to use his atheism to combat religion unlike Dawkins. His statement about science and religion not contradicting is blatantly absurd since also tries to explain the observable universe like science does, and religious proponents eg Creationists conflict with scientific theories with their "theories".

[Darth Wong]

Two points here:

1) Most atheists identify themselves as "agnostics" in order to avoid the very real social consequences of identifying yourself as a member of the last totally acceptable target of overt discrimination in America. This widespread behaviour helps to perpetuate this status, because people literally don't realize how many atheists exist. They can comfortably convince themselves that atheists are exceedingly rare and perhaps freakish, because they've never known one; they've only known agnostics. So there is a certain self-interest in accusing agnostics of being cowardly atheists; in many cases they are, and it arguably hurts atheists as a social group.

2) People who truly believe in the tenets of agnosticism as laid out by Huxley are anti-scientific idiots. If they understood science at all, they would understand that you cannot just arbitrarily add unmeasurable terms into scientific theories, and God is as unmeasurable as it gets. How could the scientific method even deal with the idea of God? How does God get past the part about confirming theoretical predictions through observation and/or experiment?

PS. Anybody who quotes Kuhn as disproof of the reliability of science is an idiot. This is a person whose argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would lead inexorably to the outcome that the Sun is just as likely to rise in the West tomorrow as the East. It is an argument based upon a false dilemma fallacy in which all knowledge is divided into two categories: absolutely true or not absolutely true, with no finer graduations.

[Adrian Laguna]

2) People who truly believe in the tenets of agnosticism as laid out by Huxley are anti-scientific idiots. If they understood science at all, they would understand that you cannot just arbitrarily add unmeasurable terms into scientific theories, and God is as unmeasurable as it gets. How could the scientific method even deal with the idea of God? How does God get past the part about confirming theoretical predictions through observation and/or experiment?

This here is interesting. You see, in a previous discussion I read, I got the distinct feeling that you thought agnosticism was more irrational than what one would call moderate theism. From reading this, I get the feeling that you would have no problem with people who are agnostic "just because that's what I believe". Same as you seem have no problem with people who believe in God "just because", and don't try to justify their beliefs by making a mockery of logic.

[Darth Wong]

2) People who truly believe in the tenets of agnosticism as laid out by Huxley are anti-scientific idiots. If they understood science at all, they would understand that you cannot just arbitrarily add unmeasurable terms into scientific theories, and God is as unmeasurable as it gets. How could the scientific method even deal with the idea of God? How does God get past the part about confirming theoretical predictions through observation and/or experiment?

This here is interesting. You see, in a previous discussion I read, I got the distinct feeling that you thought agnosticism was more irrational than what one would call moderate theism.

It is, because it claims to have a logical basis, whereas moderate theism admits it doesn't.

From reading this, I get the feeling that you would have no problem with people who are agnostic "just because that's what I believe". Same as you seem have no problem with people who believe in God "just because", and don't try to justify their beliefs by making a mockery of logic.

That's a contradiction in terms. Agnosticism defines itself by its refusal to acknowledge that either atheism or religion can claim logical superiority, when in fact one of them can. You can't say that you're an agnostic just because you believe in agnosticism, because agnosticism itself is a logical argument, first promoted by Huxley in the 19th century.

[K. A. Pital]

Agnosticism defines itself by its refusal to acknowledge that either atheism or religion can claim logical superiority

Indeed. While it's obvious that in practice, most people who call themselves "agnostics" clearly acknowledge superiority of atheism to religion, they do not understand what the hell "agnosticism" means.

A-gnosis. A big "No" to knowledge.

And a system which thinks that knowledge of God-existence is in principle impossible and one should therefore _not_ derive logical conclusions from existing knowledge _is_ flawed.

[Adrian Laguna]

That's a contradiction in terms. Agnosticism defines itself by its refusal to acknowledge that either atheism or religion can claim logical superiority, when in fact one of them can. You can't say that you're an agnostic just because you believe in agnosticism, because agnosticism itself is a logical argument, first promoted by Huxley in the 19th century.

Couldn't a person decide that there is not enough evidence to justify the existence of God but decided, for whatever reason, to not reject the possibility entirely? We're not talking about logical arguments here, but rather something along the lines of hoping that just maybe there's a God after all, even if logic says otherwise. I don't see how that's much different than a religious person who makes no attempt to justify their beliefs with logic. However, your last sentence seems to imply that agnosticism is very narrowly defined, and the person I'm describing would not be an agnostic.

[Darth Wong]

Couldn't a person decide that there is not enough evidence to justify the existence of God but decided, for whatever reason, to not reject the possibility entirely?

That person would not really be an agnostic. He would just be "undecided". Agnosticism is quite specifically the belief that we CANNOT KNOW whether there is a God because there is no logical way to arrive at such a determination. This is quite simply wrong.

We're not talking about logical arguments here, but rather something along the lines of hoping that just maybe there's a God after all, even if logic says otherwise. I don't see how that's much different than a religious person who makes no attempt to justify their beliefs with logic. However, your last sentence seems to imply that agnosticism is very narrowly defined, and the person I'm describing would not be an agnostic.

Precisely. Most of the people who call themselves "agnostics" actually aren't. They may be closeted atheists, or doubting Christians, or generic undecideds.

[Adrian Laguna]

Well, that clears up the confusion I had about the subject. I was equating "undecided" with "agnostic", and they are actually not the same. This also explains your hostility towards agnosticism, by definitiion it relies upon faulty reasoning masquerading as logic.

[Medic]

Oh, it's a faith to conclude, pending evidence to the contrary, that magical men that make universes and star in bibles are made up? Because there's an absence of evidence and such knowledge is impossible to know without being omniscient or something? Well, that must mean the agnostics are able to show how they know it to be unknowable, and how they've read every single strongly atheistic argument. Oh wait, they've not and yet they've made a conclusion without total knowledge and chastised atheists for supposedly doing the exact same thing? -- *snip amusing pic*

[Medic]

Oh, it's a faith to conclude, pending evidence to the contrary, that magical men that make universes and star in bibles are made up? Because there's an absence of evidence and such knowledge is impossible to know without being omniscient or something? Well, that must mean the agnostics are able to show how they know it to be unknowable, and how they've read every single strongly atheistic argument. Oh wait, they've not and yet they've made a conclusion without total knowledge and chastised atheists for supposedly doing the exact same thing? -- *snip amusing pic*

POS, inerrant click right there; I was gonna say, you R.U. Serious and Battlehymn Republic all touched on something that irks me: cause of the negative stereotypes about atheism, I've come to the conclusion that the people arrive to their conclusions about it are "if I were an atheist then I'd be [x]."

It seems more prevalent in theists than agnostics; in Christians you get this visceral, knee-jerk attitude about atheism leading to a moral vacuum, even though it doesn't actively promote anything [and maybe that's why]. It's probably just a function of including morality under the umbrella of God [remove one and POOF there goes the other] but agnostics seem fond of the opposite cause of ascribing to atheists a faith-based, evangelical streak. And if you include the faith aspect to atheism, it's indistinguishable from theism in it's character.

It reminds me of Dawkins commenting on the failure to distinguish between Einsteinian religion and a personal God. Almost all of the shit-flinging around the idea of god is a whole host of moronic ideologies that unfairly unify a bunch of different ideas. An ideological lifeview describes x, y, and z but if you remove the ideology, then you remove x, y, and z, and that these tenants can't belong to anyone else's lifeview or ideology.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's why Dawkins has a spectrum for atheism in his latest book and why he doesn't discuss the likes of Buddhism or Taoism because they are more a life philosophy, rather than an irrational worshipping of a sky pixie. Most people here would be the strong atheists (something like a 6 or 7 on his scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being total blind faith).

[WarHawk]

Couldn't a person decide that there is not enough evidence to justify the existence of God but decided, for whatever reason, to not reject the possibility entirely?

That person would not really be an agnostic. He would just be "undecided". Agnosticism is quite specifically the belief that we CANNOT KNOW whether there is a God because there is no logical way to arrive at such a determination. This is quite simply wrong.

We're not talking about logical arguments here, but rather something along the lines of hoping that just maybe there's a God after all, even if logic says otherwise. I don't see how that's much different than a religious person who makes no attempt to justify their beliefs with logic. However, your last sentence seems to imply that agnosticism is very narrowly defined, and the person I'm describing would not be an agnostic.

Precisely. Most of the people who call themselves "agnostics" actually aren't. They may be closeted atheists, or doubting Christians, or generic undecideds.

How can you logically prove that there is no god?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You can disprove God by looking at his characteristics. Many of them are logically impossible or even downright meaningless.

You cannot disprove any metaphysical God, though, but that's silly. You can't disprove that little invisible, undetectable gnomes don't live in your aeorta either. The probability is, notwithstanding, quite low.

You can ne'er absolutely disprove anyway. You don't need to, though. God is no different from any other mythological belief or human fabrication. Why do we treat that seriously, but not lepreuchans or the X-Men?

[Tolya]

To proclaim scientific knowledge as ultimate truth is to make the same, offensive, gnostic error that religious fundamentalists do. Dawkins should know better.

This little gem caught my eye and since Im still learning to properly recognize logical fallacies, then I'll give it a try.

The main problem with this is comparing scientific knowledge to any belief (be it God, pink dragons or Romulan Warbirds).

Scientific method is not a belief in the ultimate truth. If "ultimate truth" exists, then SM would only be a tool for uncovering and testing it.

I wonder, why do such people cannot grasp the simple idea that some things in the world work different than they believe? They seem to think that an important matter like the "How and Why" of the world is only a matter of blind faith. Science is not a belief, it is a tool that has been mostly proven right over and over again. And it has space for modifications, when new things are discovered or taken into consideration they do not cause the system to fall apart. So in this way the above quote is a bit of a strawman and a false premise. Right?

[Surlethe]

So in this way the above quote is a bit of a strawman and a false premise. Right?

Bingo. It's a strawman, presumably of what Dawkins has said. I'm not aware that Dawkins has ever claimed that scientific knowledge is "ultimate knowledge"; like all atheists, his lack of belief in god (or gods) is always amenable to revision should evidence for a deity arise.

Further, they don't draw a distinction between "don't believe in any Gods" and "belief in no Gods". The two are distinct, but they take the popular religious idea that athiesm is the latter, not the former.

What exactly is the functional difference between "X has no belief in god" and "X believes there exists no god"? I think there's something about the definition of belief that I'm not getting, but I've been turning the two propositions over in my head and while I feel a difference, I can't see one. And, of course, one's feeling of a diference is not something one can turn to in a debate.

[Col. Crackpot]

Modern agnostics typically are most socially acceptable athiests. They say they don't know for sure because they are trying to avoid a confrontation, not because they believe in anything. Further, they don't draw a distinction between "don't believe in any Gods" and "belief in no Gods". The two are distinct, but they take the popular religious idea that athiesm is the latter, not the former.

Or perhaps "modern agnostics" take my view of the situation: I don't care about sky fairies and why waste time on something so silly when there are plenty of real things to worry about.

[General Zod]

What exactly is the functional difference between "X has no belief in god" and "X believes there exists no god"? I think there's something about the definition of belief that I'm not getting, but I've been turning the two propositions over in my head and while I feel a difference, I can't see one. And, of course, one's feeling of a diference is not something one can turn to in a debate.

One possible interpretation is that one comes from a position of ignorance and not having been exposed to the idea, while the other comes from the position of having reasoned that such a being cannot exist after considering its credibility. As just one possible interpretation, mind you.

[Darth Wong]

Couldn't a person decide that there is not enough evidence to justify the existence of God but decided, for whatever reason, to not reject the possibility entirely?

That person would not really be an agnostic. He would just be "undecided". Agnosticism is quite specifically the belief that we CANNOT KNOW whether there is a God because there is no logical way to arrive at such a determination. This is quite simply wrong.

We're not talking about logical arguments here, but rather something along the lines of hoping that just maybe there's a God after all, even if logic says otherwise. I don't see how that's much different than a religious person who makes no attempt to justify their beliefs with logic. However, your last sentence seems to imply that agnosticism is very narrowly defined, and the person I'm describing would not be an agnostic.

Precisely. Most of the people who call themselves "agnostics" actually aren't. They may be closeted atheists, or doubting Christians, or generic undecideds.

How can you logically prove that there is no god?

How can you logically prove there is no Yoda?

When an idea does not follow logically from facts, then you can't be 100% sure that it's false, but you can say that if it's true, it would only be true by accident, which is something that you can say for any silly-ass idea.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Is the term "Teapot Atheist" any better at framing the finer points of the issue in one glib handle? If this onerous debate insists on rearing it's head any time some quivering agnostic insists on leaving room to play Pascal's Wager, then I may as well throw my own term into the ring.

[drachefly]

I'm an agnostic in a very much weaker sense than DW refers to above. Yeah, we can't, technically, know for sure that there isn't some sort of god. But it's quite unikely, and if it exists it isn't anything we've come up with so far. Also, it is either not liable to care all that much about my opinion of it, or is so evil I shouldn't worship it anyway. So it comes out as atheism in the end.

I'm certainly not of the stripe to say that atheism is on par with holding any other specific religious belief (as opposed to spiritual choices about what is important, which are the basis of some very minor dogma-less religions).

Now, on a tangent

There's a rather long one here that brings up String Theory as another example of something that is believed in science but is unverifiable thus far.

String theory is not believed in any broad sense within science as a whole. Not only is there no evidence for it, but there are multiple known alternatives to it.

I work/study in a hotbed of string theory (University of Pennsylvania). I have had occasion to hear the opinions of three of my professors from among the string theory contingent here. While they work on the subject, they do not believe in the theory in any objectionable sense. All are working on getting out some real predictions so it can be tested. All that it will be given a real opportunity to fail.
All of them hope it will succeed, of course. *
One of them disparages the competing theories, but it is due to the content of these other theories, not (as far as I can tell) some prejudice due to overly liking string theory.


* Even people who don't like string theory would like for it to be strongly tested and pass: it is generally disliked because this looks to be hard; but once it has been accomplished this reason is clearly past its sell-by date.

[Darth Wong]

The teapot argument gives too much credence to the idea of God. The teapot in orbit around the Sun is at least consistent with the known laws of nature, which is more than we can say for God (who is explicitly defined by his ability to ignore those laws). The idea of God is no less absurd than the flying spaghetti monster, Yoda, the Death Star, or the Teletubbies.

[Rye]

Fuck teapot atheism, you should go for full on "intangible rapist rugby team" atheist. Oh no, I can't logically disprove them, they must be logically possible. Still fucking dumb and pretty obviously imaginary, though, so it would be improper to conclude such rugby teams are realistic and not imaginary, everyone knows this, so how can they pretend gods are any more realistic?

[WarHawk]

How can you logically prove there is no Yoda?

When an idea does not follow logically from facts, then you can't be 100% sure that it's false, but you can say that if it's true, it would only be true by accident, which is something that you can say for any silly-ass idea.

[Ghost Rider]

Stop spamming Warhawk.