Atheism vs Militant Agnosticism

[Rye]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture? Or are you apposed outright to the idea of any kind of god type being ever? If a god appeared to you and gave you an epiphany would you still refuse to believe in it?

[Alyeska]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture? Or are you apposed outright to the idea of any kind of god type being ever? If a god appeared to you and gave you an epiphany would you still refuse to believe in it?

A "Strong" Atheist will state no such thing exists. A "Weak" Atheist will grant there is a small (can be VERY small) possibility such an entity exists however there is no evidence of it and they have no reason to believe in something that can't be proven. Now, both Strong and Weak Atheists are capable of believing in super natural entities (not God level) being possible. However under the concept of critical thinking they will state there is no proof and thus they might as well not exist.

[Sir Sirius]

I am an Atheist and a Sceptic, I do not belief that god/s, or the supernatural, exist.
I also do not belief that god/s, as they are generaly perceived to be, can exist. That is I do not belief that there can be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural, Etc. beings that can violate the laws of physics.

Should god ever actualy appear before me, there would be two possible explanations:
1# There is a god.
2# I have lost my sanity.
Two is infinetely more probable and plausible then one.

[Colonel Olrik]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture? Or are you apposed outright to the idea of any kind of god type being ever? If a god appeared to you and gave you an epiphany would you still refuse to believe in it?

I've seen that episode. I'd order my starship to fire upon his power source and humour him until it's destroyed. Then, I'd kick his pitiful alien ass.

[Stormbringer]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture?

An atheist by definition doesn't believe in any sort of god at all. Those that consider the possibility would be agnostic. Those are ironclad definition and there is no wiggle room unlike christian or other religious labels.

[Rye]

well doesn't the universe fill most of those criteria, i mean, from it's point of view, if you can concieve of such a thing. This is my belief, that god/s have just been interpretations of the universe and it's source. I can't believe for a second that it has paternal properties though, or indeed a consciousness we have any way of perceiving, as it is all things in all times, where as we are just little bits of the whole.

[Rye]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture? Or are you apposed outright to the idea of any kind of god type being ever? If a god appeared to you and gave you an epiphany would you still refuse to believe in it?

I've seen that episode. I'd order my starship to fire upon his power source and humour him until it's destroyed. Then, I'd kick his pitiful alien ass.

erm....what dude?

[Stormbringer]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture? Or are you apposed outright to the idea of any kind of god type being ever? If a god appeared to you and gave you an epiphany would you still refuse to believe in it?

I've seen that episode. I'd order my starship to fire upon his power source and humour him until it's destroyed. Then, I'd kick his pitiful alien ass.

erm....what dude?

ST5.

[UltraViolence83]

Though on the religious spectrum I consider myseld agnostic, I can't seem to put my theories and beliefs in order. I, myself, like to think of "God" as the universe itself, or Yin and Yang, perfect balance between polar oppisites. I also believe in the supernatural/metaphysical. But I'm not a member of any religion or necessarily or put my faith into a god-form.

[Alyeska]

Do those of you that consider yourselves atheist, think that it's possible that some kind of gods exist, but just not the classic theistical god of biblical scripture?

An atheist by definition doesn't believe in any sort of god at all. Those that consider the possibility would be agnostic. Those are ironclad definition and there is no wiggle room unlike christian or other religious labels.

An Atheist might not believe in god but it is possible for a "weak" atheist to have wiggle room by saying if sufficent evidence is given they will change their opinion. Thats about as close as you get.

[SirNitram]

I'm amused. I've only seen the term 'militant agnostic' on a badge I have. I don't know and you don't either!

[UltraViolence83]

I was about to post something like that. How can you be militant if you're not even sure of what the hell you're fighting for? Unless you want to further the cause of "don't know/don't care-ism."

Atheist: "I know from proof!"
Theist: "I know from faith!"
Theist 2: "I know from better faith! You die now!"
Agnostic: "I don't know! You ALL die now!"

Quite a disturbing chain of events, eh?

[Stormbringer]

An Atheist might not believe in god but it is possible for a "weak" atheist to have wiggle room by saying if sufficent evidence is given they will change their opinion. Thats about as close as you get.

Actually that person would be an agnostic then.

But then again an atheist that wouldn't accept definitive proof of God (anyone's God) is as much an idiot as fundies are.

[Alyeska]

An Atheist might not believe in god but it is possible for a "weak" atheist to have wiggle room by saying if sufficent evidence is given they will change their opinion. Thats about as close as you get.

Actually that person would be an agnostic then.

But then again an atheist that wouldn't accept definitive proof of God (anyone's God) is as much an idiot as fundies are.

No the person would not be an agnostic. The definition of an Atheist is one who does not believe in god. An Agnostic does not take that stance. There is "Weak" Atheism in which the person simply concludes there is no god because of the evidence at hand. A "Strong" Atheist declares that there is no god regardless of the fact they can't actually prove that. An Agnostic simply says you can't know if there is or is not a god. Agnostic and "Weak" atheist are similar except the Atheist makes the further conclussion that there is no god based on the evidence at hand.

[Darth Wong]

Atheism means "I don't believe in a supreme being".

Agnosticism means "I don't know what to believe because I don't think there's really any evidence either way and I don't understand the logic of Occam's Razor or Carl Sagan's fire-breathing dragon analogy".

The idea of a "weak" or "strong" atheist is ridiculous. Is there a such thing as a "weak" or "strong" disbeliever in Santa Claus?

[Alyeska]

Atheism means "I don't believe in a supreme being".

Agnosticism means "I don't know what to believe because I don't think there's really any evidence either way and I don't understand the logic of Occam's Razor or Carl Sagan's fire-breathing dragon analogy".

The idea of a "weak" or "strong" atheist is ridiculous. Is there a such thing as a "weak" or "strong" disbeliever in Santa Claus?

There are degrees of being an Atheist and you damned well ought to know that. A weak atheist looks at the evidence and concludes there is no proof of god's existance. A strong atheist looks at the evidence and states there is no god. Both don't believe in god and thus are Atheists.

Agnosticism is a middle of the fence approach meant to avoid angering either side greatly. Atheists are more inclined to accept Agnostics as rational people then Christians (in terms of religon) and Christians are more inclinded to accept Agnostics for similar reasons. The Agnostic position is logical from a sociological standpoint.

[Darth Wong]

There are degrees of being an Atheist and you damned well ought to know that. A weak atheist looks at the evidence and concludes there is no proof of god's existance. A strong atheist looks at the evidence and states there is no god. Both don't believe in god and thus are Atheists.

What's the difference? To state that something does not exist and to state that there is not a shred of evidence for it is basically the same thing unless you have no comprehension of basic logic.

Agnosticism is a middle of the fence approach meant to avoid angering either side greatly.

Which is what's wrong with it. It's the Golden Mean fallacy by another name.

Atheists are more inclined to accept Agnostics as rational people then Christians (in terms of religon) and Christians are more inclinded to accept Agnostics for similar reasons. The Agnostic position is logical from a sociological standpoint.

The Agnostic position is politically savvy, not logical.

[Alyeska]

There are degrees of being an Atheist and you damned well ought to know that. A weak atheist looks at the evidence and concludes there is no proof of god's existance. A strong atheist looks at the evidence and states there is no god. Both don't believe in god and thus are Atheists.

What's the difference? To state that something does not exist and to state that there is not a shred of evidence for it is basically the same thing unless you have no comprehension of basic logic.

They say the same thing in different ways while having somewhat differing beliefs. The important distinction between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that if provided with enough proof they will believe in god (extremely unlikely given said proof does not exist in any measurable way). The strong atheist will probably never leave their position. Its kinda like the difference between someone of strong faith who will never change their opinion on their god compared to someone who will look at "new" evidence and is willing to be open minded. I guess a better way of looking at it is "Open minded" Atheist and "Close minded" Atheist. One is principly willing to be open minded but is aware of reality, the other is not open minded and doesn't really care about reality.

Agnosticism is a middle of the fence approach meant to avoid angering either side greatly.

Which is what's wrong with it. It's the Golden Mean fallacy by another name.

So would you rather all Agnostics became fundamentalist Christians? Or would you rather attempt to enlist their support in dealing with fundamentalist Christians and stop insulting them for their choice? They aren't harrasing you and shouldn't earn such scorn.

Atheists are more inclined to accept Agnostics as rational people then Christians (in terms of religon) and Christians are more inclinded to accept Agnostics for similar reasons. The Agnostic position is logical from a sociological standpoint.

The Agnostic position is politically savvy, not logical.

That is a contradiction. Being savvy so as to avoid being under undue pressure is indeed logical.

[Darth Wong]

They say the same thing in different ways while having somewhat differing beliefs. The important distinction between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that if provided with enough proof they will believe in god (extremely unlikely given said proof does not exist in any measurable way). The strong atheist will probably never leave their position. Its kinda like the difference between someone of strong faith who will never change their opinion on their god compared to someone who will look at "new" evidence and is willing to be open minded. I guess a better way of looking at it is "Open minded" Atheist and "Close minded" Atheist. One is principly willing to be open minded but is aware of reality, the other is not open minded and doesn't really care about reality.

This distinction is meaningless since no one has ever presented evidence for the existence of God, so you have no way of knowing how any given atheist would react to it.

Agnosticism is a middle of the fence approach meant to avoid angering either side greatly.

Which is what's wrong with it. It's the Golden Mean fallacy by another name.

So would you rather all Agnostics became fundamentalist Christians? Or would you rather attempt to enlist their support in dealing with fundamentalist Christians and stop insulting them for their choice? They aren't harrasing you and shouldn't earn such scorn.

I don't play politics. It is a simple matter of fact that they are basing their viewpoint on fallacious reasoning. If they don't like people pointing that out, too bad.

The Agnostic position is politically savvy, not logical.

That is a contradiction. Being savvy so as to avoid being under undue pressure is indeed logical.

It may be pragmatic to adopt it for political purposes, but that does not change the fact that agnosticism itself is irrational.

[Alyeska]

They say the same thing in different ways while having somewhat differing beliefs. The important distinction between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is that if provided with enough proof they will believe in god (extremely unlikely given said proof does not exist in any measurable way). The strong atheist will probably never leave their position. Its kinda like the difference between someone of strong faith who will never change their opinion on their god compared to someone who will look at "new" evidence and is willing to be open minded. I guess a better way of looking at it is "Open minded" Atheist and "Close minded" Atheist. One is principly willing to be open minded but is aware of reality, the other is not open minded and doesn't really care about reality.

This distinction is meaningless since no one has ever presented evidence for the existence of God, so you have no way of knowing how any given atheist would react to it.

Which is why you leave the option open and let people label themselves.

I don't play politics. It is a simple matter of fact that they are basing their viewpoint on fallacious reasoning. If they don't like people pointing that out, too bad.

I to disagree with their standpoint (stands to reason because I choose Atheism) however I prefer Agnosticism over religon.

It may be pragmatic to adopt it for political purposes, but that does not change the fact that agnosticism itself is irrational.

In other words it is irrational in one way but rational in another.

[Darth Wong]

Which is why you leave the option open and let people label themselves.

I don't think that even an atheist knows how he would react to evidence of God. I know I don't.

EDIT: Mind you, it would help if God were defined in a manner that would permit proof. Until then, it is conceptually impossible to produce such proof.

I don't play politics. It is a simple matter of fact that they are basing their viewpoint on fallacious reasoning. If they don't like people pointing that out, too bad.

I to disagree with their standpoint (stands to reason because I choose Atheism) however I prefer Agnosticism over religon.

I do too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's basically the Golden Mean fallacy.

It may be pragmatic to adopt it for political purposes, but that does not change the fact that agnosticism itself is irrational.

In other words it is irrational in one way but rational in another.

Exactly. The person who adopts agnosticism may do so for a rational purpose, but agnosticism is still irrational. It's a bit like agreeing that 2+2=5 because you live in a society where they would kill you if you didn't. Mind you, many agnostics do not adopt it for this reason, and instead adopt it because they genuinely do not understand the logical principle of parsimony.

[Rye]

Well it seems ive opened a can of worms on this. I guess it all comes down to how people define words. To me, it would appear atheists specifically don't believe in things that may or may not exist, and will argue till they're blue in the face that their way is sensible. Agnosticism is more my style however, if you put parameters on one of these beings, e.g it is both all loving and all knowing and all powerful, it can't exist, as bad things still happen, and the world fundamentally isnt a nice place to live in, since most live lives off other life's death. However agnosticism doesnt discount the idea of gods with other properties, if they hinge on not being provable either way. They may agree that it's certainly unlikely that floating invisible animals that can pass through solid matter with no trace don't exist, but there's always a chance.
All in all, in my experience, agnostics tend to be more sensible and imaginitive, where as atheists don't let sleeping dogs lie when perhaps they should.
Agnostics seem to realise that religions do good as well as bad, like santa claus myth, with a load of charity work per se, the fact that lies may be behind it isn't really that much of a problem to them.

[Darth Wong]

Well it seems ive opened a can of worms on this. I guess it all comes down to how people define words. To me, it would appear atheists specifically don't believe in things that may or may not exist, and will argue till they're blue in the face that their way is sensible.

The fact that those arguments are logically sound must be quite irritating to you. Best to attack the person's style, then

Agnosticism is more my style however, if you put parameters on one of these beings, e.g it is both all loving and all knowing and all powerful, it can't exist, as bad things still happen, and the world fundamentally isnt a nice place to live in, since most live lives off other life's death. However agnosticism doesnt discount the idea of gods with other properties, if they hinge on not being provable either way.

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the logical principle of parsimony. Do you feel the same equivocal attitude toward the intangible fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?

They may agree that it's certainly unlikely that floating invisible animals that can pass through solid matter with no trace don't exist, but there's always a chance.

No more than there is for Santa Claus. Does this mean you think it's unreasonable for someone to disbelieve in Santa Claus?

All in all, in my experience, agnostics tend to be more sensible and imaginitive, where as atheists don't let sleeping dogs lie when perhaps they should.

I was unaware that "sensible" is a synonym for "irrational".

Agnostics seem to realise that religions do good as well as bad, like santa claus myth, with a load of charity work per se, the fact that lies may be behind it isn't really that much of a problem to them.

Appeal to consequence. Another logical fallacy.

[Joe]

I don't get it. I don't believe that a God exists based on the nonexistence of evidence; however, if someone were to both define God and produce strong proof of his existence tomorrow I would change my mind. What does that make me, an atheist or a "militant agnostic?"

Because I identify as an atheist.

[Rye]

The fact that those arguments are logically sound must be quite irritating to you. Best to attack the person's style, then

take it as you will.

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the logical principle of parsimony. Do you feel the same equivocal attitude toward the intangible fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?

I don't care if it exists or not. I won't go out of my way to prove it doesn't however, unless belief in said dragon is causing problems in the real world, e.g some saying that it's told them to kill babies or whatever.

No more than there is for Santa Claus. Does this mean you think it's unreasonable for someone to disbelieve in Santa Claus?

Well, the santa myth has a lot of limitations put on it, and would therefore be possible to disprove. So disbelief in santa is not unreasonable.

I was unaware that "sensible" is a synonym for "irrational".

well maybe you should know better . it is sensible to for example agree with a guy with a gun that santa exists and told him to tell you this message, when it certainly isn't likely. It's the not particularly caring what people think if it does good that is sensible, not arguing over somethign that hasn't really progressed in x amount of years.

Appeal to consequence. Another logical fallacy.

so what if it's a lie? a lot of people depend on lies. Consequence is the only reason any action is taken, no?