An interesting but ostentatious article that bashes "New Atheism", and promotes Agnosticism.

I'll drink to that.

I feel ya. Atheist, agnostic; Toe-MATE-to, toe-MAHT-to...

I'm fairly certain most atheists allow for the possiblility of god. What the hell do we know? We're only stupid humans in the grand scheme. We don't even know how our own bodies work, let alone a metaphysical being. Hell, I'll even allow for the possibility of a highly advanced civilization that exists on the back of a parasite, attached to a dust mite, on my eyelash. But what good would it do me to base my life and morals around that belief?

I think humans try to read too much into our reality. Reality is really observation, after all. Isn't that wonderful enough? If god showed up right now, I'd still be left with reality.

atheism
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

merriam-webster
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

Every atheist I've ever met has said that they believe that there is no god, not that they don't believe in god, but are open to the possibility. Granted I'm not an etymologist and I don't know the origins of the word but it seems like the popular understanding of the term coincides with the dictionary definitions, and not some christian propaganda.

I am not a Christian or a religious person of any sort. I am "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." also known as an agnostic. And I just wanted to let you know that its okay if you are too. We don't bite.

What exactly is, "extreme atheism?" It seems to me that theists consider any outspoken atheist to be "extreme."

Damn right! Well said!

Ok I'm with you on most of what you're saying, but isn't a lack of belief in one thing by it's very definition belief in something else? Let me explain: if you as an atheist say that you simply "lack belief in god", how are you any different from an agnostic who says that it's unknowable? EXCEPT in the fact that you go one step further (away from the weak-tea as you say) in stating that you fundamentally lack faith? A fundamental lack of faith in an idea is in my opinion synonymous with a lack of confidence in an idea. If you agree with that, then it must follow in this instance that if you lack confidence in one idea you must be confident in it's alternative. This would suggest "faith" or belief that there is no god.

If you reject the statement that your are confident that there is no god, then you essentially profess to not knowing as you can not state that you have confidence in either idea and therefore, you are agnostic.
These are just my thoughts, what do you think?

or like saying, "not stamp collecting" is a hobby.

"If you agree with that, then it must follow in this instance that if you lack confidence in one idea you must be confident in it's alternative."

But what is the alternative? There are many things one could believe in. It's not black and white; there is no duality so strictly defined like that. Not believing in god is simply not believing in god; people may chose to sprinkle their atheism with other philosophies or beliefs but there is nothing inherent in atheism itself.

Certainly there are many things to believe in but it really does come down to (regardless or what other philosophies are sprinkled in) is there a god or isn't there?
There's no possible answer that can be "well there's a kind of god" or "there's a half god" or "i choose to believe in god but only sometimes"

I really don't think it can be argued that it's not black and white in that regard.
It's either do you think there's something there in some form or fashion or do you not?

Great comment!!

Exactly! That's my problem with agnosticism in a nutshell. They way I see it, if you believe in god you are a theist, if you don't believe in god you are an atheist. However, you argued that the disbelief in one concept is the endorsement in it's alternative- but what am I saying I believe in by not believing in god? (Does that make sense?)

Curious, I view agnosticism as acknowledging that we don't know. Atheism is usually taken as the blind knowledge that nothing supernatural exists. Theism's are usually taken as a blind knowledge that some specific kind of supernatural thing exists. Agnosticism is saying, I can't realistically confirm or deny it so I don't know.

"Atheism is usually taken as the blind knowledge that nothing supernatural exists." If you read through the comments here you'll see most atheists reject this definition...I also part of agnosticism was not only "I don't know", but "we can't know".

Well, short of God, or a god coming down and telling us that, yes there is a god or are gods, we can't know.

I can't wait for that day to come!

Excellent response.

But atheist DON'T say, "There definitely is no god," They merely don't "believe" the theist claim that "there is a god" due to as you say, "there being no quantifiable evidence." There is no faith or certaintly envoked on the atheists part, only a lack of belief in the theist claim.

Thanks morg, exactly.

The only time the "Theism and Atheism are the same thing" argument works is when one comes from the position that atheists claim 100% faith or knowledge in their position. This practically never happens. Even the poster boys for "New Atheism" like Dawkins and Dennett admit regularly that you can't disprove god. The "you can't disprove a negative" concept comes up over and over again; it's a moot point, one not being argued by any atheists I know.

But if you look at what you're saying logically it doesn't hold up:
If an atheist says "I don't believe there is a god due to lack of evidence" (your words)
and a religious person says "I do believe in god because of some evidence I think I have"
What's the difference really? They're both claiming to support things for which they have incomplete evidence.
A religious person can't know for sure because there is no evidence.
An atheistic person can't know for sure due to the impossibility of being able to collect all the data in the universe that would yield a definitive answer.
The only thing one can logically say is that they're agnostic meaning that they don't know that there is a god due to lack of evidence, but also can't discount the possibility due to not having all the possible evidence in the universe.

It's pretty black and white to me really: either you reject the idea of a god on faith that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe for it, or you accept god based on faith that there is some evidence for it.

If you don't fall in to one of those categories then logically the only thing you can be is agnostic because you can't have all the evidence.

So is it illogicial to disbelieve in unicorns, fairies, and goblins?

Interesting point, but here's my personal take on that: unicorns, fairies, etc have traceable histories that lead back to the fact that they were inherently DESIGNED to be fictitious. God in one for or another has been designed and presented as fact by those who are proponents of religion. Therefor it becomes sort of an apples to oranges comparison. On the one hand you have things that were intentionally designed and presented as "made up" and on the other you have god presented as something that is real and makes an impact or changes in people's lives. These are two very different things with two very standards by which their validity must be judged. Even the fact that that there are billions of people who think that there's some kind of god versus like....maybe 10 people who think there are unicorns and such tells me that we must approach the way we analyze those things in different ways.

Religious people don't exactly believe in God because of 'evidence'. They mostly believe because that's how they were taught. They don't go off of any evidence, at least not the die-hards. They ignore and fight the evidence against God, too.
And just because I don't believe in God myself doesn't mean I KNOW there isn't a god at all. There could be multiple gods, I just choose not to believe something that doesn't make sense to me.

How is this for an accurate analogy: Men used to believe in many gods. They were presented as real and factual. Is it illogicial to disbelieve in all of those gods as well?

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." — Richard Dawkins.

"But if you look at what you're saying logically it doesn't hold up: If an atheist says "I don't believe there is a god due to lack of evidence" (your words)
and a religious person says "I do believe in god because of some evidence I think I have"
What's the difference really? They're both claiming to support things for which they have incomplete evidence. "

We have to take a look at the evidence provided. Typically a religious person relies on anecdotal evidence as proof. Faith is a feeling, it's not held to the same standards as something in science might be. Some atheists tend to be scientifically minded, so it's hard to accept anecdotal evidence as "proof" at all.

The issue of being "SURE" is not really an issue at all- only believers claim to be sure. Most people who believe in god KNOW god exists.They are certain, they can see it, feel it, know it. They have faith. The philosophical quandary of whether or not we "know" anything isn't shoved into the typical believer's face they way it is with atheists. Atheists don't claim certainty at all; the scientific viewpoint that often leads people to atheism is the same one that leaves the possibility of god's existence open, and you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn't realize that. What you describe as agnostic, "that they don't know that there is a god due to lack of evidence, but also can't discount the possibility due to not having all the possible evidence in the universe", can also be described as atheism if the person doesn't personally believe in god. The main difference in my experience is that people who prefer to be labled agnostic don't want to make that call about their belief and go the extra step in saying that god's existence is unknowable.

The problem here is that the issue of agnosticism only really comes up when it comes to god. The average person is not agnostic about many other things in their lives; as morg pointed out, you probably wouldn't think me rude, arrogant or faith based to deny the existence of dragons, or accept the theory of gravity. I'd think even the most philosophical of us don't spend our lives in a constant "I don't know anything and knowledge is unknowable" state. So why is it ok to make decisions and judgment calls based on the evidence around us about everyday life, politics, medicine, science, etc, but when it comes to god all hell breaks loose?

"On the one hand you have things that were intentionally designed and presented as "made up" and on the other you have god presented as something that is real and makes an impact or changes in people's lives. These are two very different things with two very standards by which their validity must be judged."

Ok then, what about different interpretations of god/gods throughout history? A common atheist argument is that we are all atheists in regards to certain deities- Zeus,Ra, Thor- but these were entities that were real to the people that believed in them at the time. We don't believe in them now- so who's to say the same thing won't happen to the mainstream gods of today? Why deny the existence of ANY deity- mustn't the agnostic admit that any and all entities are possible then?

Actually yes, I would argue that someone who is truly agnostic would have to admit the possibility of absolutely any potential god given the qualification that the god was not designed to be fictitious (like unicorns or something)
And yes, that seems pretty ridiculous to me, but if one was to go "hardcore" agnostic....they'd have to give credence to anything technically!

But even atheists admit the "possibility" (beause one cannot prove something doesn't exist. It is not falsifiable) but they find the "probability" to be extremely low.

There is something kind of funny about the concept of "hardcore" agnosticism! Reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama ...

Right, they'd have to give credence to anything. And that would be a kind of strange way to live life. Usually people aren't arguing that Zeus could very well exist, that you can't prove it wrong and that they have anecdotal and historical evidence on their side to justify their faith. (Well- not anymore.) These conversations, especially in America, almost always get turned into a Christianity vs Atheism, but atheists aren't exclusively disbelieving of Christianity's god, but all gods.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism means - the myth that atheists are "certain" about anything has been spread to purposely so they can be seen to be as "illogical" as their faith based "counterparts". This allows deflection of the valid points "New Atheists" are making against the cultural and societal dangers of certain religious dogma, blind faith, political influence, etc.

No, they were not designed to be fictional.

The concept of elves, trolls, fairies, etc are all from the myths and legends of Northern Europe.

A thousand years ago, people actually believed in the depths of their hearts that if a shoe went missing, a pixie sole it. If the cows won't give milk, a witch cursed them, and don't wonder alone in the woods, or you will be attacked by trolls.

There is no difference between Gods and Fairies, Angels and Elves, Saints and Trolls- it's just that in modern times very few people still believe in tiny people with butterfly wings, yet many still do believe in glowing people with bird wings.

That modern bias says nothing about the legitimacy of the claims- just in the strength of the Roman Empire's armies ability to crush the pagans.

Apparently god doesn't feel this way according to most religions.

word

Nice.

If only everybody felt the way you do but unfortunately a lot of people don't. If you are in America I would say that with an attitude like the one you just expressed you could not get elected to public office. Can you imagine any presidential candidate saying that the question of god is irrelevant and he wouldn't waste one moment wasting his cognitive effort on the question?

Wikipedia is not gospel, the root of the word gnostic means knowledge. The gnostics claimed they could know god exists, among other things.

Words have more than one definition man.

I like your way of thinking I don't have a problem with it at all. I would just say that I am an atheist not because some evidence convinced me that there was no god but the fact it was the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that a god may exist. As a child I have to say I believed in the tooth fairy, I would put my teeth under my pillow really thinking that some fairy was going to come and take it away and replace it with some treasure. At no point was I ever provided with evidence that the tooth fairy is not real but as I matured it became obvious. It's the same with god, I don't need evidence to tell me that there is no god.

i agree with you as well , i could never put faith into a diety created by man.
I have no faith in man to begin with.
I suppose my only problem with athiesm is that if science is right and the universe is infinite than i believe there are an infinite amount of possibilities on how the universe was created.
So although i have ultimately all doubt in a supreme being that is able to take human like forms I still can't say that i discredit the idea of something that is inconceivable to humans created us.
To me organized religion is all one big farce to get poor people to hand over money.
Its extremely sick.
If i were to put faith into a "God" my god wouldn't be worried about the trivialities of humans.
If he created the whole cosmos i highly doubt he would be watching over just one race and think that we were special.
I also dont think he would created moral codes for us to follow just for the fun of it.

With all that said .

I think its very possible that we were created by pure happenstance.
But , i also don't doubt that when we die there might be something after.

i'd like to think i'm pretty realistic , no whimsical tales for me.

You're not an agnostic, you're an atheist. An agnostic atheist.

You, like the author (or maybe not like him, see my post above) have the made the mistaken assumption that atheism means certainty about the nonexistence of god. It doesn't.

It's as simple as this, if you express no positive sentiments to the belief in any deity or any of the claims of the world religions, you're an atheist. That's it. Agnosticism simply refers to whether or not you think the proposition can be known. You could be an agnostic theist.

You could even be a religious atheist. Buddhists, for example, are typically atheists.

your really only proving the article is correct on most of its claims...just saying..
think about it.

by definition i am agnostic. if you'd like to put things into lables. i would be in that category..by definition Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. and Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

(copy and pasted from wikipedia)

so by those definitions i consider myself agnostic.
your making up your own terms... -__- for the sake of wanting to be right.

I thought that atheists came out bashing heads ala Dawkins because they were fed up with Christians forsing themselves on them. An atheist has never knocked on my door. Sure, there are Billboards now, but how else are they going to reach out for support groups?

Right. I hardly ever talk about my lack of belief but I certainly don't hold back. There's never a problem when people openly talk about their god, but atheists are considered assholes if we try to talk about anything that goes against another's belief.

I'm a little offended when people learn that I'm an atheist and respond with "Oh my god! Really?!" or "Oh, you don't mean that!" or something similar. Imagine if that was how I responded to a religious person.

Nobody ever just says "Oh, that's cool." (which is my typical response when I learn of someone's belief).

I am with you on this one. I am an atheist, and I never just come out and tell people about it. The only time I actually do talk about it is when a theist asks me about my spiritual beliefs.

And in many instances, believers are rather civil with the discussion. Well, to my face at least. I mean, almost all of my friends are religious and we can laugh about the cliched things on both sides of the argument.

Atheists are just normal people. I think that fact gets lost in all the negative propaganda directed towards us. We don't gather in dark locations, sitting around a midieval table in torchlight, all making the "finger-pyramid of contemplation" and stroking our little evil goatees.(I hear even female atheists have those!)

It takes a Calling by God to know God intimately. Perhaps these are the people who have eyes but can not see and ears but can not hear. The greatest Gift's we have from God are His Son, followed by Free Will. Unless the Holy Spirit chooses to enlighten these people they will never know the Way, The Truth and The Light.
Don't despise and hate the Athiests, they Know no better, perhaps for a reason, they aren't supposed to.

"Don't despise and hate the Athiests, they Know no better, perhaps for a reason, they aren't supposed to."

For the record Aether, this is an example of the kind of condescending attitude that gets people all POed at religion.

I also think most times that there is outrage over religious topics it's not simply Christianity or any particular personal belief, it's some strange/violent philosophy or action that has occurred, in part, as a result of that belief. That's not to say that all believers are dangerous or uneducated but there are certainly those out there; the same can be said for any group, we just see more examples in mainstream religions because they involve large amounts of people, interpretation and influential in the world.

Do you believe god has a plan for us and if so how do we also have free will? If we were given free will why would a god or whatever punish us if we don't use our "free will" to follow his so called plan?

Also could you please explain what makes your god any more valid than the multiple Hindu gods you obviously don't believe in.

Observer2121 I'll do my best to answer your questions. I could give you theology and cite what the church teaches, I could throw in a theological argument here but will not. I am coming at this from my own personal perspective.
I do believe God has a plan for us. However I don’t have a clue just exactly what it is for myself or anyone else. I know I was Called to become an Ordained Minister, it is who I am. Being ordained does not change you, it is a confirmation of who you are. Did God plan for me to become a minister? I think He invited me to do so and I accepted. I could have chosen not to do it.
Your path in this life is yours alone to travel, God does not plan the route, He would just like you to invite him along for the journey. Free will is ours in that we can choose the route and our companions. I often wonder what God thinks of all of the people throughout history who have declared that they knew his plans were.
Each and every person on this planet is unique, there has never been another "you", will never be another "you". Compare your hands to someone else, even an identical twin, they are not exactly the same. Are they similar? Of course but they are different. We are all unique.
I don’t believe we are punished for not following his plan at all. We make our own decisions in this life. For every action there is an equal reaction. If I am kind and considerate of others, the same kindness and consideration will be returned to me. If I treat others as inferior, as less a person or child of God than I am, I should expect to receive that same attitude from them about myself.
• Also could you please explain what makes your god any more valid than the multiple Hindu gods you obviously don't believe in.
My personal take is that all religions are like spokes on a wheel. They lead to the center from all different points. I do not judge others beliefs. My faith is shared when I am asked to share it. What makes my faith in God valid ? It is experiential. I have been touched and filled with peace by the Holy Spirit more than once.
I am a Trinitarian, I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is what is right for me. You can believe in any deity or religion you choose, or none at all and that is right for you.
Grace & Peace to All

Do you also believe that god intervenes? That god answers prayers, is responsible for miracles and such?

I have a 31 year old daughter. When she was born premature at 6 months and she weighed 1 Pound 7 Ounces. Her daipers were cotton balls and she fit in the palm of my hand.
We were given dire news that she probably would not survive.

3 Months later she came home. She is now a grown healthy adult. Did God intervene? I would like to think so, were prayers answered? absolutely.

Is God responsible for miracles and such? Let me put it this way. Have you ever been in a situation where you were totally helpless.? Stuck in the middle of no where, emotionally distraut over a loss, and so forth. Has another person come to your aid at just the right moment to help you? You had no idea what you were going to do and out of no where someone took it apon themselves to help you? I have. I consider that a small miracle perhaps.

The thing is, as you say, "For every action there is an equal reaction," that cause and effect is in place. Now, if you acknowledge causality and how it ripples through everything, than you must admit that when god intervenes, god infringes on the free-will of every man. You say, "Free will is ours in that we can choose the route and our companions." yet at the same time you say, "For every action there is an equal reaction." This is not compatible.

If a god were to answer prayers, perform miracles, meddle in the affairs of man and nature, alter events that would have otherwise turned out differently had it of not of intervened, the consequences of such interactions are much more far reaching and significant then just a momentary revision of a single event. For every action, there is a reaction. You change one thing, then you have changed the course of all events that follow it. This affects everyone. The change ripples down through causality and eventually affects everyone. For a god to answer a prayer or to perform a miracle, it is not a single change, but a change in everything.

Free-will cannot be had with divine intervention. As there can be no single narrow change in an intervention, everything and everyone must be changed. With these interventions, the divinity asserts its power over the will of men.

Eh, I'll bite the bullet. Why not? I'm not really a coward, I'm just in a good mood and I don't act like a dick very often on here. C'mon, how could I pass this chance up?

Can you make sure to capitalize it when you call me anti-christ? Maybe add a Mr. to it?

Come on, it's a little funny.

Well, I got a little smirk out of it. I'll make it up to you one of these days. Maybe, I'll brush up on some Larry David or something.

I'd like to at least upgrade to "french vanilla" some day.

HA! Yeah, fuck lemon anything. And orange for that matter. I actually don't like french vanilla either. I'm the guy that goes to Baskin Robins and gets a plain vanilla cone. I am partial to rainbow sprinkles though.

we haven't exactly been very grateful for what we do have either.

Well clearly you aren't dead so that in itself could be a starting point?
I am not throwing my religion on you, it is your choice ultimately. Hell my wife is an atheist... I have no problem with it.

I have a problem when people like you just bash another person's ideas because he/she believes in God. So I am less of a man because of my religion?

I'm not bashing anyone's religion. I was justifying my own disbelief. I don't understand why people consider god infallible and omniscient when that's clearly not the case. There's too many errors in life for that to be true. Maybe there is a god but I wouldn't apply those traits to him.

I'm only alive because my species was smart enough to beat the odds that were stacked against us. And I'm grateful for every day of my life. If I was dead, I wouldn't know any better. And that's what makes sense to ME.

Perhaps I was negative before. I could say thanks for the bird's songs. Thanks for the complexity of the food web. Thanks for the beautful sunsets and the sound of rain. Thanks for love, kindness, intelligence, humility, and contentment. Thanks for any water at all and for giving me senses to witness the wonders of the universe.

Still the conclusion is the same for me. I praise what I can experience and change. I don't need a god to do that. Reality is amazing in and of it's own. It's highs and lows of the human experience that fill me with awe. That's all I need in life. It works for me.

I truly believe that actions speak louder than prayer. They are certainly more rewarding.

I think you were being perfectly logical. Let us face the fact that in order to believe in anything based on faith (belief without evidence or proof) you have to suspend logic for the moment. This is my major concern about theist, the ability to suspend critical thinking for no explainable reason what-so-ever.

Really, don't we have enough to be concerned about in life? I can't justify worrying about the afterlife when there are things on Earth that demand our total attention right now. Maybe believing in god gives people hope, and that's ok, but I don't think it's very productive.

I remember when I used to be like that, 12 years of Catholic school and whatnot, but looking back, I really think I missed out on a lot of good experiences that conflicted with my religion. In a sense, religion was distracting me from the everyday joys of life.

I don't know, maybe I was just doing it wrong.

It's healthy to discuss opinions, it's not like anything anyone says in here will change anyone's beliefs either way.

How many times in life can you truly wait around for the facts? Very rarely does this happen at all. Most if not everybody on the planet makes decisions based on the available information. With regards to god or religion there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of deities, so based on that fact atheists decide not to believe in them. I guess a question for you would be "is the absence of evidence itself evidence?".

I don't think you totally get Atheism, Agnostic, OR religion.

With regards to your opinion I have no opinion, I mean I have no proof that you are wrong or right on this matter so it might just be possible that I know absolutely nothing about these things.

Exactly. Science is just tool. What replaced god in my life? Me. So, science is the tool that helps me understand me.

They do?

"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."-Richard Dawkins

"I don't want to pretend to be certain about anything I'm not certain about." - Sam Harris

"Nobody wants to spend their life going around being the 'village atheist.' They're much more interested in just leading a good and normal life."-Daniel Dennett

Love the Dennett quote. Very true.