Arizona Senators: church attendance should be compulsory

[General Zod]

The people you're arguing with will see it as a tacit admission that they're right and atheism's no different from any other religion.

They would indeed tend to ignore the whole evidence thing, and use the Bible as all the evidence they need. I really know of no other way to argue the logic behind Atheism other than with using terms they would be familiar with.

I've already posted a couple of different options. If they're too dumb or dishonest to get any of those then I'd say they're not worth the time.

[Broomstick]

You can see and measure negatives? Come on now, that's just giving canon fodder to your detractors.

Zod's argument was that calling it faith only weakens my position by saying it's the same thing and not any better than an actual religion. My point was that it's not the same thing because I have "faith" in things I can predict mathematically or experimentally, whereas without a Bible, the religious faith is backed up by nothing at all.

From my viewpoint, "faith" is what you have without evidence, "trust" is what you have with evidence.

You have faith in god or gods existing, because you think that is true without evidence.

You trust that if you pull the trigger of a gun a bullet will come out the end and eventually hit something because you have evidence that that is what normally occurs when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun.

Faith is given, trust must be earned.

[Borgholio]

That's a nice distinction, Broomstick. I'll abscond with that if you don't mind.

[Knife]

Agnosticism: I'm a coward.

Yeah, I don't think that's fair. Sure, it can be used as an excuse but for the most part agnosticism isn't bad.

If the question is, does a god exist? Then agnosticism says "I don't know, show me some evidence." Where atheism is "I've seen your evidence and don't think your evidence proves any god." You can then go on to an anti theist who says "I don't think your evidence shows a god, in fact I think I can prove your god does not exist."

[Simon_Jester]

And the opposite of course. "We can't know" being treated as the logical equivalent to saying "therefore we should assume the existence of" is cowardized theism

Pure agnosticism is simply "we can't know" and leaves it at that.

One can also imagine an agnostic who, for example, believes that they do have evidence indicating the existence of supernatural forces at work in the world... but that the ultimate cause, nature, and source of those forces is unknown and most likely unknowable.

If you have become convinced that the supernatural is real, that is grounds to not dismiss out of hand the idea that gods are real. But it is not grounds to choose a specific kind of god and revere them, in and of itself.

[Adam Reynolds]

The advantage of trust over faith is one thing I've always liked in Star Wars. Jedi never actually use the word faith, they instead use the word trust. It's "trust your feelings" not have faith in them.

Oddly enough I can actually say somewhat truthfully that Star Wars helped make me an atheist. Growing up my family was essentially secular but otherwise never really thought about religion very much. Then when I was 9(the same year TPM came out) I first saw Star Wars and was so in love with the idea of having Force powers or living in the galaxy far far away, a part of me wondered if it could possibly be true. A couple years later, my sister drifted towards Mormonism due to several close friends being members of the church. As she was interested, my entire family learned the lessons and I couldn't shake the feeling that Star Wars was a more logical and much better story. And then looking into Star Wars online also led me here and to Mike's creationism site, which had far better logical answers to some of the various questions I had as a result.

And anyway what I meant in my original post was more that whenever atheists try and organize it has an effect akin to herding cats.

[LaCroix]

And anyway what I meant in my original post was more that whenever atheists try and organize it has an effect akin to herding cats.

Well, that is expected of a group of random people that is only bound together by a common interest, but a common disinterest. (not believing in god) Most atheists simply don't care for religion, as they have none. It simply has no room in their life - you don't need any conscious effort to maintain disinterest. Being atheists is a small part of their being, unlike "being of XXX religion", they are carpenters, office workers, baristas, family members, sport fans, ballroom dancers, whatever - who don't believe in any god. Only a very few actually define them selves primary as atheists - these are the ones trying to organize groups. But trying to get other atheists to meet up and talk about how they don't care about god is absolutely disrupting their life -it's trying to make them spend time to talk about something they don't care for.

Try founding a group of people who don't care for gardening, and see how well this goes along when they should meet in a regular pattern to talk about how they don't do gardening, at all.

[Borgholio]

Try founding a group of people who don't care for gardening, and see how well this goes along when they should meet in a regular pattern to talk about how they don't do gardening, at all.

That's why for an Atheist church to work...you need beer.

[Alferd Packer]

The people you're arguing with will see it as a tacit admission that they're right and atheism's no different from any other religion.

They would indeed tend to ignore the whole evidence thing, and use the Bible as all the evidence they need. I really know of no other way to argue the logic behind Atheism other than with using terms they would be familiar with.

Start reading.

Seriously, I'm not being a dismissive prick or anything. This is a great resource for defining atheism and differentiating it from theism and agnosticism, as well as giving the debate a logical, self-consistent framework. I think you'll find it, at minimum, a very interesting resource, even if you might not initially agree with all of it.

[cmdrjones]

The advantage of trust over faith is one thing I've always liked in Star Wars. Jedi never actually use the word faith, they instead use the word trust. It's "trust your feelings" not have faith in them.

Oddly enough I can actually say somewhat truthfully that Star Wars helped make me an atheist. Growing up my family was essentially secular but otherwise never really thought about religion very much. Then when I was 9(the same year TPM came out) I first saw Star Wars and was so in love with the idea of having Force powers or living in the galaxy far far away, a part of me wondered if it could possibly be true. A couple years later, my sister drifted towards Mormonism due to several close friends being members of the church. As she was interested, my entire family learned the lessons and I couldn't shake the feeling that Star Wars was a more logical and much better story. And then looking into Star Wars online also led me here and to Mike's creationism site, which had far better logical answers to some of the various questions I had as a result.

And anyway what I meant in my original post was more that whenever atheists try and organize it has an effect akin to herding cats.

This makes ENTIRELY too much sense, thank you!

[salm]

Seriously, I'm not being a dismissive prick or anything. This is a great resource for defining atheism and differentiating it from theism and agnosticism, as well as giving the debate a logical, self-consistent framework. I think you'll find it, at minimum, a very interesting resource, even if you might not initially agree with all of it.

Unfortunately this mess of different sized and colored font spaghetti paired with badly placed images containing even more font spaghetti will probably convert more people to fundamentalist islam than make them interested in atheism. And the god damn parrot should be behind the line that is supposed to cross him out not in front of it.

[Batman]

Try founding a group of people who don't care for gardening, and see how well this goes along when they should meet in a regular pattern to talk about how they don't do gardening, at all.

That's why for an Atheist church to work...you need beer.

That's not a church. That's a couple of guys getting together over beers. For this to even begin to qualify as a church you'd need them to actually discuss atheism.

[Channel72]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is semantically subtle, and anyone who is passionate about advocating for one term over the other has lost all perspective. Atheism is basically just agnosticism plus Occam's razor.

The real "ism" we should give a shit about is naturalism - meaning the belief that all things are explainable by appeal to predictable, mathematically describable natural forces. A belief in naturalism takes some percentage of faith, in the sense that not all observed phenomena are yet wholly describable mathematically (e.g. we can't really describe gravity as a quantum in a way that is actually testable), but we have faith trust that eventually such a description will be forthcoming due to past successes.

[biostem]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is semantically subtle, and anyone who is passionate about advocating for one term over the other has lost all perspective. Atheism is basically just agnosticism plus Occam's razor.

The real "ism" we should give a shit about is naturalism - meaning the belief that all things are explainable by appeal to predictable, mathematically describable natural forces. A belief in naturalism takes some percentage of faith, in the sense that not all observed phenomena are yet wholly describable mathematically (e.g. we can't really describe gravity as a quantum in a way that is actually testable), but we have faith trust that eventually such a description will be forthcoming due to past successes.

Agnotisicm is a knowledge claim, (or lack thereof). Atheism is a belief claim. The former says nothing about whether you BELIEVE in god, only that knowledge of any gods is unattainable. The latter says that you have heard the claims regarding a god or gods, but do not accept them for one or more reasons, (this is generally considered strong atheism). Weak atheism is typically described as a lack of belief in a god or gods at all - so newborns and infants could be included in this group.

So, for instance, a gnostic atheist would be one who doesn't believe in a god or gods and knows they don't exist. An agnostic atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god or gods, but doesn't actually know if they do or do not exist. A gnostic theist is one who believes in a god or gods and knows they exist, and an agnostic theist believes in a god or gods but doesn't profess to have actual knowledge of their existence.

[Tribble]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is semantically subtle, and anyone who is passionate about advocating for one term over the other has lost all perspective. Atheism is basically just agnosticism plus Occam's razor.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is subtle, but significant.

An atheist is essentially someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."
An agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not at least one god exists.

Atheism is about belief, or specifically someone's lack thereof. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what someone doesn't know.

The two terms could be used to describe two separate people (i.e. an atheist and an agnostic) or they could be used together to describe the same person (an agnostic atheist).

Of course, you can have an agnostic theist as well - someone doesn't claim to know whether or not at least one god exists, but believes there to be at least one.

Of course, most people who are agnostic in one form or another will agree that while it might be nice to debate whether or not a god exists or whether it is even possible to discover if there is one, naturalism is of far more practical importance to our lives.

EDIT: and biostem beat me to it

[Alferd Packer]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is subtle, but significant.

An atheist is essentially someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."
An agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not at least one god exists.

You said the same goddamn thing twice. If I don't claim to know whether or or not at least one god exists, I am not affirming the proposition "at least one god exists." Affirmation is a positive statement, and, if it's meant to be taken seriously, must be backed up with supporting arguments and evidence. All you've done thus far is made agnosticism redundant in any sort of self-consistent debate.

[Adam Reynolds]

That's why for an Atheist church to work...you need beer.

Unless they don't drink. That is oddly something that my sister and I agree on.

This makes ENTIRELY too much sense, thank you!

In modern times I sometimes wonder if escapist fiction has replaced religion.

[General Zod]

Seriously, I'm not being a dismissive prick or anything. This is a great resource for defining atheism and differentiating it from theism and agnosticism, as well as giving the debate a logical, self-consistent framework. I think you'll find it, at minimum, a very interesting resource, even if you might not initially agree with all of it.

Unfortunately this mess of different sized and colored font spaghetti paired with badly placed images containing even more font spaghetti will probably convert more people to fundamentalist islam than make them interested in atheism. And the god damn parrot should be behind the line that is supposed to cross him out not in front of it.

It looks like it was cooked up on Geocities. I'd recommend giving the Church of Satan website a read, but it's not for everyone.

[Tribble]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is subtle, but significant.

An atheist is essentially someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."
An agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not at least one god exists.

You said the same goddamn thing twice. If I don't claim to know whether or or not at least one god exists, I am not affirming the proposition "at least one god exists." Affirmation is a positive statement, and, if it's meant to be taken seriously, must be backed up with supporting arguments and evidence. All you've done thus far is made agnosticism redundant in any sort of self-consistent debate.

The rest of my post put that into context.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A person can believe in something without knowing if it exists or not. Someone can affirm something without having supporting arguments and evidence. Whether or not another person takes that affirmation seriously is a separate issue.

You are correct that someone cannot be agnostic without being atheistic or theistic as well, since someone either affirms the proposition "at least one god exists" or does not. I look at it this way:

Atheist - someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."

Agnostic atheist - someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists," and claims that the existence or non existence of a god is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Agnostic theist - someone who affirms the proposition "at least one god exists," but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

Theist - someone who affirms the proposition "at least one god exists."

[Knife]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is subtle, but significant.

An atheist is essentially someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."
An agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not at least one god exists.

You said the same goddamn thing twice. If I don't claim to know whether or or not at least one god exists, I am not affirming the proposition "at least one god exists." Affirmation is a positive statement, and, if it's meant to be taken seriously, must be backed up with supporting arguments and evidence. All you've done thus far is made agnosticism redundant in any sort of self-consistent debate.

The rest of my post put that into context.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A person can believe in something without knowing if it exists or not. Someone can affirm something without having supporting arguments and evidence. Whether or not another person takes that affirmation seriously is a separate issue.

You are correct that someone cannot be agnostic without being atheistic or theistic as well, since someone either affirms the proposition "at least one god exists" or does not. I look at it this way:

Atheist - someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists."

Agnostic atheist - someone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists," and claims that the existence or non existence of a god is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Agnostic theist - someone who affirms the proposition "at least one god exists," but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

Theist - someone who affirms the proposition "at least one god exists."

Incorrect. Agnosticism is a position on a claim. Person A claims a god and person B says "I don't know." Atheism is a position on a claim. Person A says 'there is a god' and person B says 'your evidence does not persuade me.'. Both positions are either neutral or negative on one particular belief claim.

Neither are a positive clam in and of themselves, just a position on a claim someone else has made.