Thread: A poll

Originally Posted by Mario92

Thus far, we have not been able to observe any dieties. Within the scope of our five senses, the only devices we have to gather information about our world, not once have we observed any solid evidence for a diety of any sort. Obviously, it is impossible to draw a 100% confident conclusion about anything, but to date, and taking into account all that humans know as a species, there is no God. The odds are infinitely small. Really, this falls into a debate on semantics. "Agnostic" carries with it a connotation of equal indecisiveness; that is, the person treats the possibiliy of the existence of dieties as equal to the opposite scenario(s). "Atheist" carries a connotation of active denial or disbelief. So, it is possible to be an open-minded atheist, which for all intents and purposes is one who does not believe in a diety, but is willing to keep an open mind and consider new evidence as it comes to light. This is "soft Atheism," or "weak atheism." Technically, there is a difference between weak atheists and agnostics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Interesting. Thanks Mario. IN light of this, I can[t call myself a weak atheist... though I do consider myself open-minded. Not to the extent of my brain falling out mind you - in fact, I'd rather say that my mind is closed on the subject but not locked. Currently I am strongly atheist because no known religion comes anywhere near as close to defining the world as science does, and they all require that you put on the blinders and ignore large parts of the scientific worldview.

As I said before, I will allow the slight possibility there may be some sort of god (which would have to be different from any described in the major religions - at least if you include all the religious dogma and stories associated with it).

BUT

I won't consider it unless and until someone produces acceptable evidence.

<<< >>>

... You know what... screw that. I've been going along for a long time thinking to myself "I'm open minded to the possibility there might be some kind of god..."

But now that I examine that critically, I can't really say I believe it. I don't buy into metaphysiscs and magic, and I can't see anything being called a god unless it's magical.

LOcking the door now. If anybody comes along with any of that extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim, they're going to have to knock.

A mind is like a parachute. You should keep it well maintained and ready to be opened at a moment's notice when it's necessary, but you really cant go walking around all the time with it open. Imagine dragging an unpacked parachute along behind you everywhere you go... Especially when the wind picks up!!

Conversely, I like to say about some people "He's got a mind like a steel trap. At the first sign of a new idea it's liable to snap shut and anybody nearby could get seriously hurt."

Agnostic atheist; I don't believe there is a god from what I have seen so far (atheism) but I don't claim to know for sure (agnosticism). Even if I'm 99.99% sure there is no god, I have no basis to make the leap of faith to 100%, and so remain technically agnostic.

Incidentally, "agnostic" is not a belief in itself, but instead is a level of certainty towards a particular belief. If you hold any doubt whatsoever, no matter how small, you are technically agnostic.

Pragmatically, I act as a strong atheist in conversations because all the arguments and evidence I have seen towards there being a god has been fundamentally flawed, and I think the likelihood of a god existing is laughably small. But nevertheless I will remain open to the extremely slim chance of there being a god if any good evidence or arguments can be put forward towards it.

What I meant when I said that it showed cowardice, is that people are afraid to take that leap of faith that it requires, to be either an atheist, a theist or a non-theist.

Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith. Sure, it can do if you decide to assert "there is no god!", but that's not required of atheism. It's only a leap if you try to make a definitive claim for sure, which no rational person can do on this matter.

It's also not cowardice to say "I don't know". It's honest, and it does take integrity and bravery to say it. Feigning knowledge is the easy way out, and truly the choice of the coward.

I'm a blend of Christian, Deist, Agnostic.. AND, whatever.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Agnostic atheist; I don't believe there is a god from what I have seen so far (atheism) but I don't claim to know for sure (agnosticism). Even if I'm 99.99% sure there is no god, I have no basis to make the leap of faith to 100%, and so remain technically agnostic.

Incidentally, "agnostic" is not a belief in itself, but instead is a level of certainty towards a particular belief. If you hold any doubt whatsoever, no matter how small, you are technically agnostic.

See, I would define this as "Weak Atheism." The word Agnostic does carry a connotation of more acceptance/consideration of other world religions. If, however, you're 99.99% confident that there is no God, I'd say "agnostic" doesn't quite fit as well as "weak atheist."

Again, a battle of semantics...meh, whatever.

I chose 'Other' because I struggle between 'atheist' and 'wiccan'. Sometimes my cynical side gets the best of me and I'm closer to the former, but something about wicca really speaks to me, because I do believe in nature and energy and such a lot. So!

This thought just struck me.

If it's true that you can be a Christian simply because you follow the teachings of Christ and you don't have to accept the existence of a magical God who lives outside of time and space as we know it, then I guess I could be called an Atheist Christian. But then that just means I take the teachings of Christ as ethics, not that I believe he was the literal son of God.

I guess then you could also call me a Christian Buddhist Atheist, since I've been studying some Buddhist teachings and find I agree with them aside from any ideas about reincarnation.

But this rather confusing designation doesn't appeal to me. It's too confusing to call yourself an Atheist Christian Buddhist. People just wouldn't understand!!

I don't think you can call yourself a true Christian unless you believe in God as an actual God. If you only follow the ethical teachings of Christ then it's not really a RELIGIOUS belief in him.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

A mind is like a parachute. You should keep it well maintained and ready to be opened at a moment's notice when it's necessary, but you really cant go walking around all the time with it open. Imagine dragging an unpacked parachute along behind you everywhere you go... Especially when the wind picks up!!

Conversely, I like to say about some people "He's got a mind like a steel trap. At the first sign of a new idea it's liable to snap shut and anybody nearby could get seriously hurt."

Great comparisons.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Pragmatically, I act as a strong atheist in conversations because all the arguments and evidence I have seen towards there being a god has been fundamentally flawed, and I think the likelihood of a god existing is laughably small. But nevertheless I will remain open to the extremely slim chance of there being a god if any good evidence or arguments can be put forward towards it.

Sort of like saying that there's a purple narwhal civilization in the center of Jupiter. It's extremely unlikely, but seeing as no one has actually gone to the center of Jupiter to look, we can't really know 100% completely, can we?

Originally Posted by Mario92

See, I would define this as "Weak Atheism." The word Agnostic does carry a connotation of more acceptance/consideration of other world religions. If, however, you're 99.99% confident that there is no God, I'd say "agnostic" doesn't quite fit as well as "weak atheist."

Again, a battle of semantics...meh, whatever.

"Agnostic" carries this connotation partly because it's been hijacked or misused partly for the purpose. Many seem to believe it refers to complete uncertainty, or that it is a mutually exclusive belief. Equally I'm sure plenty give such answers - especially in more religious states - because it appears non-threatening, particularly compared to the attitude towards atheism. Atheists are immoral scum, whereas agnostics, that's just a guy who doesn't know.

As I've said in the past, when the word is being used properly, it becomes almost useless because it says very little. Technically, everyone should be agnostic on anything that is not logically proven.

Originally Posted by Hidden

Sort of like saying that there's a purple narwhal civilization in the center of Jupiter. It's extremely unlikely, but seeing as no one has actually gone to the center of Jupiter to look, we can't really know 100% completely, can we?

Correct. You win a cookie!

Atheist

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Technically, everyone should be agnostic on anything that is not logically proven.

So, what, that would be everything in the universe, eh? Technically, we can't know for sure, but I'm gonna place a bit of confidence in my senses, as well as the dudes wearing lab coats. If I'm 99.999% sure there is no god, I'm going with atheist. I'm not giving God anywhere near equal status as other beliefs. I actually don't believe one exists.

Now, if you're using "agnostic" to define a particular school of thought, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. How do we really know what's going on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but do not believe in any.[15]
Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Ignosticism
the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

Seems the two are compatible after all.

And just to clear up any confusions about the word "believe..."

be·lieve
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

When I say, "I don't believe in a god," I'm saying, "I don't accept it to be true." Not a single damn thing has ever come to light to support the notion of a god; why on earth should I believe?

Note that "believe" is different from "know," however. I don't actually know much in the way of anything at all. I do know that my senses observe things, or perceive to observe things, and that these five physical senses are all I have to gather information about the universe. Based on what we can and have observed, there is not a single iota of data to support the notion of a deity.

Well Xaq, I was actually tying to imply a joking side to that comment...I have many Christian family members as well as friends. Entirely ridding of the opposing view is not a good thing. I'm sorry

I find it interesting that no muslims have seen this thread so far. The buddhists and hindusts I assume are people who converted to it when they read about it in their teenage years. But no muslims, that's an interesting statistic.

I used to be Muslim, if you can call it that. Principles were/are enforced on me by family, but I've never actually read the Koran.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I find it interesting that no muslims have seen this thread so far. The buddhists and hindusts I assume are people who converted to it when they read about it in their teenage years. But no muslims, that's an interesting statistic.

Muslims are interesting, and I haven't figured them out.


I once saw a muslim man saying he liked Richard Dawkins and the new atheism because it was bringing down the Christian God.

I was like:


...

Originally Posted by Abra

Muslims are interesting, and I haven't figured them out.


I once saw a muslim man saying he liked Richard Dawkins and the new atheism because it was bringing down the Christian God.

I was like:


...

and Now I'm like:

.....

Agnostic. I don't feel like writing a 10 000 word elaboration on my theoretical beliefs right now

Muslims in America are interesting, because they usually have no idea what the Koran says and are generally very liberal. Especially the younger generation. And especially the ones who immigrated recently. They tend to go a little crazy with "American freedom".

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Correct. You win a cookie!

-accepts cookie-

Anyone care to explain ignosticism to me? They just don't like the current definition of deity and so they say that they can't say whether one exists or not?

Originally Posted by Hidden

-accepts cookie-

Anyone care to explain ignosticism to me? They just don't like the current definition of deity and so they say that they can't say whether one exists or not?

Agnostic means without knowledge. Someone who is Agnostic believes that they are without the knowledge that is necessary to make a decision about the existence of a god.

Originally Posted by Hidden

-accepts cookie-

Anyone care to explain ignosticism to me? They just don't like the current definition of deity and so they say that they can't say whether one exists or not?

The way I understand it is that a standard, reasonable definition of God hasn't been put forward at all and so it's existence shouldn't even be discussed before that's changed. In one way I can understand "their" point. I've often seen people spin the word god around so much that it eventually just became "the unknown" or the "infinite", the "totality" or something else suitable in that moment of time, then something completely different some other time. The fact is that many people haven't even structured their point of view at all, making it - their god for example - "impenetratable" for discussion due to it's lack of structure, logic and rationality. A side effect from indoctrination or general lack of critical thinkning in my opinion. On the other hand, the often undecisive nature of somebodies belief shouldn't just be ignored because of what it is. If some characteristic is presented, then it can be discussed, debunked etc. But yeah, until I have some standard, universal definition for god, I don't know how I can even start considering it from a personal, "quest for truth" point of view.

Originally Posted by Xox

Muslims in America are interesting, because they usually have no idea what the Koran says and are generally very liberal. Especially the younger generation. And especially the ones who immigrated recently. They tend to go a little crazy with "American freedom".

I hate them.

im a nihilist

Originally Posted by SupremeUltimateSuperMega

im a nihilist

You mean you are a banned.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Agnostic means without knowledge. Someone who is Agnostic believes that they are without the knowledge that is necessary to make a decision about the existence of a god.

I know what agnostic means. I was asking about ignosticism, which Mario defined in an earlier post. I didn't really understand it though, so I asked.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The way I understand it is that a standard, reasonable definition of God hasn't been put forward at all and so it's existence shouldn't even be discussed before that's changed. In one way I can understand "their" point. I've often seen people spin the word god around so much that it eventually just became "the unknown" or the "infinite", the "totality" or something else suitable in that moment of time, then something completely different some other time. The fact is that many people haven't even structured their point of view at all, making it - their god for example - "impenetratable" for discussion due to it's lack of structure, logic and rationality. A side effect from indoctrination or general lack of critical thinkning in my opinion. On the other hand, the often undecisive nature of somebodies belief shouldn't just be ignored because of what it is. If some characteristic is presented, then it can be discussed, debunked etc. But yeah, until I have some standard, universal definition for god, I don't know how I can even start considering it from a personal, "quest for truth" point of view.

That makes sense, thanks.