Some Questions For Atheists

[KissStephanie]

Atheism is different. Atheists have the conviction to say "there is no god".

That depends on whether a particular atheist is an implicit or explicit atheist, or a positive or negative atheist. Some atheists don't have a strong conviction regarding the existence of God, and some simply reject theism without thinking about the existence of God. I believe that every child born is an atheist because they are unaware of God and religion.

I say I don't know whether there's no god. I'm not convinced there is, but then again, I'm not convinced there's not.

What you're saying here is a bit different because I was responding to the post when you said...

"I'd say I'm an agnostic, in the sense that I don't believe in the god/s of the major religions."

To me that sounded as though you were rejecting theism, but are unsure about the existence of God, or another deity. If so, then I would imagine someone that felt that way to be either an atheist or the believer of an alternative religion. In my opinion an agnostic is someone that is unsure of the existence of God, and does not reject theism. An atheist can be someone that is unsure about God, but rejects theism.

Many agnostics don't believe, however what they couple this with not disbelieving either.

And many atheists also feel the same way regarding the existence of God.

You think religion owns god? It doesn't. Not even close. Many people refute the gods of religions but not god itself.

I'm aware of nontheism, and such a person would be a nontheist. However, if someone does not believe in a God of a major religion, but is unsure of the existence of other deities, such as a nontheistic God, then that would make them an atheist and not an agnostic.

How do you know nobody knows?

I will rephrase then. It is my opinion that nobody knows.

Either god exists or it doesn't, either way one side is right.

I'm not disputing that. If you know though, then which one of the two is it?

Yep. Agnostic you are.

I disagree. I consider that view to be atheist.

 

[evo]

What is it like to be a person who makes an ethical decision, in the moment before reflection?

So you're the guy who frames my assignment questions.

I'm begging you,please desist.

 

[btdg]

Richard Dawkins splits the divide between Theism and Atheism into 7 categories:

1. Strong Theism: Absolute certainty that God exists, and that the believer has a correct understanding of the nature of God

2. De Facto Theism: Very high probability that God exists, but not 100%. 'I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe, and therefore live my life on the assumption that he is there'

3. Technically agnostic, leaning towards Theism: I am uncertain, but inclined to believe in God

4. Completely impartial agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are completely equiprobably

5. Technically agnostic, leaning towards atheism: 'I don't know whether God exists, but I am inclined to be sceptical'

6. De facto atheism: Very low probability god exists, but not 100%. I cannot know for certain, but I think it is very improbably that God exists, and I therefore live my life on the assumption that he doesn't.

7. Strong atheism: I know for certain that God does not exist.

Dawkins uses this to make the point that there are very few, if any, atheists who are in category number 7. Most fit somewhere between category 5 and 6. On the other hand, plenty of religious believers are in category 1. I'd suggest very few are in category 2, although a lot are in category 3. With God, you either know for certain, or you have fairly complex doubts but retain that 'lapsed faith' so common in Australia.

For the debate above, I'd say Richo is a category 6. On the balance of probabilities, he has concluded that God does not exist, and if asked for a simple answer, who say so - but this is not a conclusive position, and he reserves the right to reassess in the face of more evidence later on; essentially, de facto atheism. Agnostic to the point that any mature thinker acknowledges that all knowledge has the potential to be falsified and is therefore contestable, but that at any point in time a logical conclusion can be made and at this point the logical conclusion suggests there is no God.

 

[Qsaint]

Richard Dawkins splits the divide between Theism and Atheism into 7 categories:

1. Strong Theism: Absolute certainty that God exists, and that the believer has a correct understanding of the nature of God

2. De Facto Theism: Very high probability that God exists, but not 100%. 'I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe, and therefore live my life on the assumption that he is there'

3. Technically agnostic, leaning towards Theism: I am uncertain, but inclined to believe in God

4. Completely impartial agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are completely equiprobably

5. Technically agnostic, leaning towards atheism: 'I don't know whether God exists, but I am inclined to be sceptical'

6. De facto atheism: Very low probability god exists, but not 100%. I cannot know for certain, but I think it is very improbably that God exists, and I therefore live my life on the assumption that he doesn't.

7. Strong atheism: I know for certain that God does not exist.

Dawkins uses this to make the point that there are very few, if any, atheists who are in category number 7. Most fit somewhere between category 5 and 6. On the other hand, plenty of religious believers are in category 1. I'd suggest very few are in category 2, although a lot are in category 3. With God, you either know for certain, or you have fairly complex doubts but retain that 'lapsed faith' so common in Australia.

For the debate above, I'd say Richo is a category 6. On the balance of probabilities, he has concluded that God does not exist, and if asked for a simple answer, who say so - but this is not a conclusive position, and he reserves the right to reassess in the face of more evidence later on; essentially, de facto atheism. Agnostic to the point that any mature thinker acknowledges that all knowledge has the potential to be falsified and is therefore contestable, but that at any point in time a logical conclusion can be made and at this point the logical conclusion suggests there is no God.

There would be plenty of Anglicans in 2 and probably a fair few Catholics

 

[Miss BD]

So you just called me "not a real atheist" and a "dogmatic atheist" in the same post. Nice.

You don't know there isn't a real tooth fairy out there.

You also need to understand that very few atheists will ever state they "know" there is no god. Including me. Atheists just don't believe.

Oh come on, this rubbish about the tooth fairy? You know that's silly.

I was just saying, from the perspective on atheism offered by some of the previous posters and then your own admission, it didn't seem that your view fitted very comfortably within the bounds of traditional strict atheism. I didn't call you a dogmatic atheist, I merely said there had been elements of dogmatism in your opinion on these issues.

While we're telling each other 'what we need to know', I don't think being so strident about these things is beneficial to your own learning.

 

[KissStephanie]

Richard Dawkins splits the divide between Theism and Atheism into 7 categories:

This list is too simplified and doesn't cover all people because there are people that are equally uncertain regarding the existence of God, but completely reject theism and organised religion, or are irreligious. A strong atheist is not just a person that undoubtedly does not believe in God, but they completely reject theism as well. There are also some people that do not feel they are thiest, agnostic or atheist, but ignostic and theological noncognitivistic and other variations.

Dawkins uses this to make the point that there are very few, if any, atheists who are in category number 7. Most fit somewhere between category 5 and 6.

That would be because nobody knows of course. Strong thiests and strong atheists only think they know.

There would be plenty of Anglicans in 2 and probably a fair few Catholics

There are definitely some Christians that are nontheistic. They could be atheist regarding certain portrayals of god, yet agnostic regarding others.

 

[Richo83]

now you are saying you can be an agnostic theist.

I have never disagreed with this.

you are very confused.

Because there's a difference between the godly beliefs of theism, which could mean anything, and Christianity, which emphasizes and specializes it's god.

 

[fairdinkum]

What is more important in determining whether somebody is a 'christian':

Whether or not they truly believe that there is a 'God' as most understand him, or

Whether or not they follow the teachings of the Bible and their Church?

 

[bit_pattern]

What is more important in determining whether somebody is a 'christian':

Whether or not they truly believe that there is a 'God' as most understand him, or

Whether or not they follow the teachings of the Bible and their Church?

Depends if you´re a dirty orange proddy or a good cat´lic lad i guess

 

[Richo83]

And many atheists also feel the same way regarding the existence of God.

No they don't, no atheist can say I don't disbelieve in god either, atheism is a disbelief in god.

I'm aware of nontheism, and such a person would be a nontheist. However, if someone does not believe in a God of a major religion, but is unsure of the existence of other deities, such as a nontheistic God, then that would make them an atheist and not an agnostic.

Who said nontheism? Nothing to do with it. It's non religious theism. So someone doesn't believe in religious gods yet is unsure about (nontheist gods don't exist) other gods, they are an atheist? Atheism is the disbelief in the gods, god, period. If you are somewhat unsure about some gods such as the pantheist god, you are getting close to agnosticism or unsure position. Atheism says I don't believe in any of the gods religious or non religious. A true atheist would disbelieve in Spinoza's god as well as the Abrahamic god.

[/QUOTE]I will rephrase then. It is my opinion that nobody knows.[/QUOTE]

So the agnostics are just presenting opinions like anyone else, nice to know. I hate how agnostics act superior to atheists by saying that atheism is just all unsubstanciated opinion yet their opinion that no-one knows is unsubstanciated itself.

I disagree. I consider that view to be atheist.

Good for you, it's the agnostic position steph.

 

[Richo83]

existence of God, but completely reject theism and organised religion, or are irreligious. A strong atheist is not just a person that undoubtedly does not believe in God, but they completely reject theism as well.

Tautology there, theism is god. God is theism. Theism is the belief in god. Theist is someone who believes in god. Atheist is someone who disbelieves in god. Agnostic is someone who isn't willing to say I know, and generally they say they don't disbelieve or believe either.

Basically, agnosticism:

1. Someone who says: "I don't know anything about god or god's existence"

Furthermore, they often say:

2. "I neither believe or disbelieve"

I disbelieve and don't in any way believe. I am an atheist.

 

[JW Frogen]

Indeed, if you think you do not experience God, and you all do, just not all of you know it, yet, then you are agnostic.

If you know God, but put your ego over the experience, and so must deny it, make a decision to deny it, then you are atheist.

But none of you will die that way.

You will all die experiencing God.

 

[Sloth]

Indeed, if you think you do not experience God, and you all do, just not all of you know it, yet, then you are agnostic.

Ýou're right, I experience Thor each time there's a thunderstorm, and you do too wether you admit it or not.

 

[JW Frogen]

Ýou're right, I experience Thor each time there's a thunderstorm, and you do too wether you admit it or not.

It does not matter what you call the poem, Thor, Thunderstorm, or Rocking on to Electric Avenue.

You can not call it anything, you can only experience it.

 

[torq]

Indeed, if you think you do not experience God, and you all do, just not all of you know it, yet, then you are agnostic.

If you know God, but put your ego over the experience, and so must deny it, make a decision to deny it, then you are atheist.

But none of you will die that way.

You will all die experiencing God.

Unless you were raised in a culture that made no reference to God. Or die in your sleep. Or die in extreme agony. Or die any other way for that matter.

Anyway, as a wise man once said - "If I'm wrong I'll recant on my death bed".

 

[Richo83]

Here's a further analysis of agnosticsm:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

Fantastic site. If you wont read my stuff, read his.

It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

 

[btdg]

Here's a further analysis of agnosticsm:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

Fantastic site. If you wont read my stuff, read his.

It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

What you are essentially saying, though is that you are atheistic with reference to all the 'known' gods, but leave open the possibility that there might be a god, even one that is unknown. That is classic weak-form atheism. Atheism, even amongst its strongest followers, holds open the door for future knowledge. I would challenge you to find an atheist of any level of thinking who doesn't subscribe to a similar view. I guess you could claim, therefore, that all atheists are agnostics to some degree.

But what you are claiming with respect to agnosticism is permanent agnosticism in principle. The idea that some things are outside the realm of knowledge. This may be true for certain ideas; like whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound. But for the existence of God? What possible benefit is there to an unseen, unknowable God who cannot impact on the universe? As you acknowledge, there is none - the logical conclusion is weak atheism. You have to hold open the possibility that such a god might exist, just as the universe might also be a 'matrix' created by superintelligent robots. In both cases, the God/Superintelligent robots are unknowable, yet still exist. It is possible for the people there to be atheists in a totally logical sense, yet be wrong about the existence of God. That doesn't mean it is the wrong conclusion to make, though

 

[Richo83]

What you are essentially saying, though is that you are atheistic with reference to all the 'known' gods, but leave open the possibility that there might be a god, even one that is unknown. That is classic weak-form atheism. Atheism, even amongst its strongest followers, holds open the door for future knowledge. I would challenge you to find an atheist of any level of thinking who doesn't subscribe to a similar view. I guess you could claim, therefore, that all atheists are agnostics to some degree.

But what you are claiming with respect to agnosticism is permanent agnosticism in principle. The idea that some things are outside the realm of knowledge. This may be true for certain ideas; like whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound. But for the existence of God? What possible benefit is there to an unseen, unknowable God who cannot impact on the universe? As you acknowledge, there is none - the logical conclusion is weak atheism. You have to hold open the possibility that such a god might exist, just as the universe might also be a 'matrix' created by superintelligent robots. In both cases, the God/Superintelligent robots are unknowable, yet still exist. It is possible for the people there to be atheists in a totally logical sense, yet be wrong about the existence of God. That doesn't mean it is the wrong conclusion to make, though

All fair points, you're a cut above steph and med that's for sure.

My response is that personally, it's not necessarily that I think I don't know, but I don't know that I do, if that makes any sense. I don't know that I do know, so I can't say I do. Weak agnosticism states that they don't know, although it is possible to. I hold such a view, I think it is possible that we might know the answer, I don't know for sure if I do though.

You ask where is an atheist who flatly refuses the possibility of god that he knows and doesn't know, well Dawkins maybe? I'm not in the camp that says God doesn't exist, I know this for a fact, no way can god exist. That's strong atheism and is just as assured as dogmatic religion. I avoid dogmatic phrases for a reason. I would say though that I don't think god exists. But I don't know that for sure and maybe we will know the answer one day. I think though it probably points to being no god.

As you do I think it's important to make distinctions between weak and strong atheism and agnosticism.

 

[medusala]

My response is that personally, it's not necessarily that I think I don't know, but I don't know that I do, if that makes any sense. I don't know that I do know, so I can't say I do. Weak agnosticism states that they don't know, although it is possible to. I hold such a view, I think it is possible that we might know the answer, I don't know for sure if I do though.
.

Frogen marks far more sense after 2 bottles of JD

As you do I think it's important to make distinctions between weak and strong atheism and agnosticism.

yes its up there with GW as the vital issue of the day

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

What you are essentially saying, though is that you are atheistic with reference to all the 'known' gods, but leave open the possibility that there might be a god, even one that is unknown. That is classic weak-form atheism. Atheism, even amongst its strongest followers, holds open the door for future knowledge...

Surely atheism is a denial of the existence of all deities, whether 'mainstream', the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of H.P Lovecraft's made-up giant squid gods.

My earlier point was the admittance of any deity's possibility means you're in the agnostic camp - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong however...

 

[btdg]

All fair points, you're a cut above steph and med that's for sure.

My response is that personally, it's not necessarily that I think I don't know, but I don't know that I do, if that makes any sense. I don't know that I do know, so I can't say I do. Weak agnosticism states that they don't know, although it is possible to. I hold such a view, I think it is possible that we might know the answer, I don't know for sure if I do though.

You ask where is an atheist who flatly refuses the possibility of god that he knows and doesn't know, well Dawkins maybe? I'm not in the camp that says God doesn't exist, I know this for a fact, no way can god exist. That's strong atheism and is just as assured as dogmatic religion. I avoid dogmatic phrases for a reason. I would say though that I don't think god exists. But I don't know that for sure and maybe we will know the answer one day. I think though it probably points to being no god.

As you do I think it's important to make distinctions between weak and strong atheism and agnosticism.

Even Dawkins states that he is not ruling out the possibility of god existing, and acknowledges that he doesn't 'know' that god doesn't exist. Its just that he thinks it is extremely improbable, and for all the questions that God provides an answer, he can find a more satisfying answer through science.

I think his problem (and one that a lot of atheists face) is that religious people tend to like the certainty their religion provides, and the more intellectual atheism challenges that. Thus the 'theory of evolution' rather than the 'law of evoluation' means that evolution is something contestable, and for religious types contestable means false. So Dawkins often has to tighten up his language and refer to things that he believes are eminently falsifiable in ways that make them seem much more rigid (or face religious people dissecting his views non-stop to poke holes in them).

That said, avoiding dogmatic phrases is a good thing for most of us - if there is a god, far better to front up to her with the defence that 'your existence was totally improbable and unnecessary, so I didn't need it' than 'I denied every possibility of your existence'. I doubt gods allow lawyers, but its a clear loophole.

Your final conclusion is the atheist conclusion though. None of us know for sure, because there is no conclusive evidence (although there is a lot of supporting evidence). A true agnostic would take this as the sign that we will never know. An atheist says this is because god probably doesn't exist. So there is a definite element of agnosticism in atheism, and possibly the other way around as well; the two are intinsically tied together.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Frogen marks far more sense after 2 bottles of JD

I tried that, but I found he still babbled crap

 

[btdg]

Surely atheism is a denial of the existence of all deities, whether 'mainstream', the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of H.P Lovecraft's made-up giant squid gods.

My earlier point was the admittance of any deity's possibility means you're in the agnostic camp - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong however...

Absolutely not!

Atheism is the understanding that a) the belief that the existence of god/gods is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe/origins of humanity etc and other important philosophical questions; AND
b) the belief that the existence of god/gods is far less probable than the alternate hypotheses regarding those philosophical questions; which leads to
c) the conclusion that it is not necessary to worship or in any way engage with god, religion, spirituality etc.

Any atheist with a modicum of intelligence will admit that it is possible that a god exists. Its just that on the available evidence, god doesn't appear necessary. Now, god could have created the universe in such a way, so that there are natural science explanations for everything; perhaps as a test of faith, or even just because he wanted to stay out of the universe. Similarly, the whole world we live in could be an illusion created by an evil demon or the robots of the matrix. These are all scenarios that are totally possible. They are just far less likely than natural science alternatives; to the point of being almost absurdly unlikely. Of course, absurdly unlikely doesn't rule out the possibility; I am absurdly unlikely to win tattslotto, but someone wins every week so it is entirely possible. But with tattslotto, I can make a judgement about my likelihood of winning (incredibly low), and use it to make a decision about how to live my life (not buying a ferrari and a plasma-screen tv, because I almost certainly won't win). Same goes with God. I don't know for certain that no God exists, but I can certainly make the assumption based on probability that he doesn't, and use that judgement to influence how I live my life.

If that appears to contain an element of agnosticism, then that is because it does. But atheism stems from agnosticism; more than being a 'denial' of God's existence, it is a denial that anyone 'knows' about God's existence - the claim to know god is the first made by the religious (or theists), and it is this claim that atheists refute. There is a continuum between atheism and agnosticism, though, dependent on how likely you think god's existence is. You might think it totally likely, almost 100%, but still be a little bit sceptical, in which case the rational response would be to act as if God does exist. That would be proxy-theism. Or, you might think as above, that it is extremely improbable; atheism. True agnosticism, though, is the position that we can't make an assessment based on available evidence, because that evidence is either insufficient, or flawed. An agnostic might say in reference to tattslotto, that we can't make a judgement about whether we will win or not. Interesting, fence-sitting position, to be honest. For tattslotto, we might not be able to make a judgement if we don't know whether we have a ticket or not (the evidence would be insufficient), or we didn't know the odds.

No true atheist would deny the possibility of the existence of god; that would put them into a religious, faith-based position. Back on the tattslotto example, I might say there is 'no chance of me winning' - this would be a faith-based position, not a logical one.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Cheers for that btdg - it's finally ironed out alot of questions that have been floating around the ol' noggin since I first came across this thread.

 

[Richo83]

Even Dawkins states that he is not ruling out the possibility of god existing, and acknowledges that he doesn't 'know' that god doesn't exist. Its just that he thinks it is extremely improbable, and for all the questions that God provides an answer, he can find a more satisfying answer through science.

I think his problem (and one that a lot of atheists face) is that religious people tend to like the certainty their religion provides, and the more intellectual atheism challenges that. Thus the 'theory of evolution' rather than the 'law of evoluation' means that evolution is something contestable, and for religious types contestable means false. So Dawkins often has to tighten up his language and refer to things that he believes are eminently falsifiable in ways that make them seem much more rigid (or face religious people dissecting his views non-stop to poke holes in them).

I agree with that. Dawkins was a guess. I don't think there is any atheist who flat out thinks s/he knows god doesn't exist. It's hard to prove a negative.

That said, avoiding dogmatic phrases is a good thing for most of us - if there is a god, far better to front up to her with the defence that 'your existence was totally improbable and unnecessary, so I didn't need it' than 'I denied every possibility of your existence'. I doubt gods allow lawyers, but its a clear loophole.

Yes. Russell once said that if he meets god, he'll simply say that he didn't provide enough evidence. I hold that view.

Your final conclusion is the atheist conclusion though. None of us know for sure, because there is no conclusive evidence (although there is a lot of supporting evidence). A true agnostic would take this as the sign that we will never know. An atheist says this is because god probably doesn't exist. So there is a definite element of agnosticism in atheism, and possibly the other way around as well; the two are intinsically tied together.

Yes, absolutely. Agree completely with that. I would be classified as an agnostic as I can't for sure say that I know god exists, but in the same time, I deny god's existence. Still doesn't mean I think I know he doesn't exist.