This is so full of win. I just wish Maher would stop propagating the false notion that atheism means "believing there is/are no god/s", when it is simply the lack of belief in god(s).

>> ^hpqp:

This is so full of win. I just wish Maher would stop propagating the false notion that atheism means "believing there is/are no god/s", when it is simply the lack of belief in god(s).


I've had this discussion so many times--I'm tired of it.
But, I have to give you a chance to show me that you are not as dogmatic.

We can both find dictionaries which agree with our point of views--and we'll both disavow the other's choice of dictionary.

What--since atheism is the lack of belief--is your definition of agnostic?

@Boise_Lib

The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).

Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).

Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist

If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

Good chart, makes my long winded explanations unneeded, I can just link the chart!

>> ^hpqp:

@Boise_Lib
The term "agnostic" is often used by people who are atheists for all intents and purposes, but fear the stigma that comes with the word atheist, or (worse) think that being atheist means believing no god(s) exist(s).
Gnostic/Agnostic is about one's position towards the knowledge (gnosis="knowledge") of god(s)(and the metaphysical in general); theism/atheism is about one's belief/lack of belief in god(s).
Here's a helpful chart: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
I agree with Richard Dawkins' two categories of agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist
If you meet a self-proclaimed agnostic, ask them whether they are agnostic about vampires, fairies, goblins or Santa Claus. If the answer is a categorical "no", then you can assume that person's "agnosticism" is really just the result of their fear of being rejected/stigmatised as an atheist by religious people.

@hpqp
I thought we might have a conversation.
Instead you come-out-of-the-box and imply I'm a coward.

Let me guess--you, an Atheist, are strong and fearless; while Agnostics are cowardly and timid. You bravely stand up and proudly proclaim to the world your strength--while agnostics cower behind in uncertainty and fear. Get over yourself--you do not know my life, or the people I've stood up to over this, during it.

[Edit] You're still one of my favorite sifters

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.

So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by jan.

This is why I like Bill Maher. He is the antithesis of the zealot-Atheist movement. (Dawkins was already mentioned.)

And he is especially right about one thing: As a Christian I am sick and tired of having politicians (and any number of other public figures) insist that I must vote for them or support them based on the simple fact that they claim to be Christian. That is - for lack of a better word - bullshit.

I'm ALL for separation of church and state.

@hpqp I think your chart over estimates the faith of the theists and under estimates the faith of the atheists. In other words, I think the pendulum has swung, and the opposite corners may be cut.

"agnostic" translates to "not-knowing".
nothing more.
nothing less.
to imply anything else is to project a subjective reality that is uniquely your own.
i have stated many times that i am a man of "faith".
that by itself is boring and mundane but the responses i get from my statement are so much more...interesting.
they are usually wrong,ill-thought and incredibly biased...
but fuck me running...they make me laugh.
presumption is the cousin of arrogance.

I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

>> ^A10anis:

I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.


A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.

One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

-James Madison

We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.
One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
-James Madison
We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?


What are you talking about? How can you rationally claim that "very little separates Abrahamic faith from science?" or that science has "facts that can't be proved?" BTW, you cannot be an Agnostic Atheist, you are either not sure there is a god, or you believe there is no god. Or are you saying you are not sure if you are an atheist..lol. I leave it to others to see the nonsense of your non-sequiturs.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

That is actually what it means. Lacking a belief in something makes you no different than a rock, or a baby. It is a meaningless definition. On the question of whether God exists, the answer is either yes, no, or I don't know. You have to answer one of the three.

Atheists like to try to hide behind this to avoid the burden of proof..which is something you can't do, because you've already stated to me several times you don't believe in God(s).

>> ^hpqp:
This is so full of win. I just wish Maher would stop propagating the false notion that atheism means "believing there is/are no god/s", when it is simply the lack of belief in god(s).

@Boise_Lib

I am sorry if my reply came off as offensive, that was not my intention. I am a stickler about using words correctly, and because debates about belief so often rely on twisting the meaning of words (e.g. "evolution = everything came from nothing"; "omnipotent = yes, but..." etc...), you can understand why it's especially important to know and use words correctly in this domain.

One thing needs to be made absolutely clear, despite it having been repeated ad nauseum: "I don't believe in god(s)" is not the same as "I believe there is/are no god(s)".

This is how Dawkin's describes himself as a "de facto" atheist:
"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there".

(I would add that the gods most religions describe can be proven to be incoherent, illogically constructed and thus demonstratively impossible, not to mention terribly immoral.)

Let me put the question directly to you: are you agnostic about witches/witchcraft, Boise? This may sound condescending and mocking at first, but think about it: what evidence do you have for the (non-)existence of witches/witchcraft? Compare that evidence to the evidence you have for the (non-)existence of god(s), and you'll see why I say you're an atheist. Of course, it could be that you're agnostic about all forms of the supernatural, another thing entirely. [edit2: changed analogy to a belief that used to be a social norm]

edit: "cowardly" versus "strong/proud" is the wrong opposition to make here, and I am sorry that that is how my argument ended up sounding like. I should have formulated it differently: because it is the social norm (in most countries) to have a religious belief of some sort (or shut up about one's non-belief), most of us have internalised the idea that being atheist is "abnormal" in terms of social norms. Compare it with homosexuality: some gays are more "militant" than others, while many struggle to conform, even criticising those openly and militantly gay. Moreover, many will try to live a heterosexual life (because it's "normal"), or continue questioning/feeling guilty about their sexual orientation. I do not look down on nor mock such people, but do encourage them to confront social norms, as that is the only way they will change. The same goes for being atheist, and comments like @soulmonarch's about so-called "zealot-atheists" are saddening and serve only to solidify the notion that fighting against religious belief and in favour of rational/critical thinking is as bad as what the fundagelicals do, which is downright absurd.

@GeeSussFreeK

The whole "what is True/Real?" is a ridiculous posture to begin with, since we know full well that our knowledge is limited by our sensory input and mental faculties as homo sapiens (one of Hume's main points if I remember correctly). "Reality" and "facts/evidence", when spoken of in science, are always taken with that knowledge in the background, which is what allows one theory to be replaced with another or refined, i.e. scientific progress. Who cares if this is all a computer simulation, or a butterfly's dream, so long as the science works? Well, religious people do, and they are usually the ones to bandy around words such as TRUTH with a capital T, what with their god being omniscient/omnipotent and all.

So no, the uncertainty underlying scientific theories has nothing to do with the uncertainty of religious beliefs, and especially not with the Abrahamic faiths, which paint themselves into a corner by being so specific about their god and his creation/functions.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Craig Ferguson, Bill Maher, religion, politics' to 'Craig Ferguson, Bill Maher, religion, politics, religulous' - edited by xxovercastxx

Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

@hpqp, @Boise_Lib, you guys are awesome. I'm one of the people on this site that likes to self-identify as agnostic rather than atheist, and between the chart hpqp linked and your discussion, I think I can now be perhaps a bit more precise about why.

First, in this image, I fit exactly into the category at the top that says "It is impossible to gain absolute knowledge of God, so I tend towards thinking there isn't one."

I also am sorta surprised to find that I have the same position as Dawkins, in saying "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there," at least assuming that by "God" he means "a God who loves us and actively gets involved in human affairs."

Which sorta crystallizes the real distinction I'm trying to make. It's not actually a gnostic/agnostic or even a theist/atheist distinction, it's a judgmental/tolerant distinction.

The aspect of religion I feel most certain about is my agnosticism -- I don't think it's possible for us to really know one way or another about God, the afterlife, what the meaning of life is, etc. As a part of that agnosticism, I don't really feel like I have any right to tell people that their beliefs about these things are wrong, so I try to be respectful and tolerant of people's religious beliefs.

I'm still perfectly willing to be judgmental about people using their religious beliefs as a justification to do something I think is immoral, but that at root is about a moral disagreement, not a religious disagreement.

I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

Theism implies belief in a god, Atheism is the opposite. If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist. If you don't know what your belief is, then you're an atheist.

Not having the active belief in a god, makes you an atheist - that's the definition of the word. There is no scaling of believing or not, it is either/or. There is certainly a degree of certainty in your belief (or lack of it) but ultimately you make a conscious choice to believe or not - you live your life by that choice.

Agnosticism / gnosticism is about knowing, which is an entirely different animal.

@hpqp re: "I don't believe in god(s)" is not the same as "I believe there is/are no god(s)".

There is certainly a distinction between the two, since one implies nonbelief while the other implies a belief - both are atheists, though. Exchange "belief" with "know" and you get into gnostic territory, like your fine chart illustrates - and we wouldn't want that.

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.

If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.


_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:

[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

i'm just a curious monkey

taxing churches would solve some problems

the probability that our concept of god is correct, and he is a being who looks like us, is approximately zero.

I guess it mostly has to do with how you were raised. I grew up with one semi-religious parent, and one Dawkins-style atheist parent. They never "indoctrinated" me about religion. If I asked questions, they'd answer, but they'd mostly say "I believe X, but you need to make up your own mind about things".

I would say that on most days I don't spend much time worrying about God. But I do understand spirituality. I do understand the religious mode of thinking, and prayer, and trying to commune with a supreme being. It's not in and of itself a bad thing -- all the dogma, the judgment, the hate, that's not an intrinsic component of it.

And there's nothing about atheism that precludes dogma, or bigotry, or hate, either.

I just like to be specific about what I don't like. I've got no beef with people who want to believe in God, it's the people who say "God told me to hate X" that I've got a beef with.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

IDIOTS! Follow my fucking example and discuss this no longer!

>> ^Yogi:

IDIOTS! Follow my fucking example and discuss this no longer!
I think you've had enough. Would you like me to call you a taxi?

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! ).

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

@shinyblurry said: blah blah blah same old non-arguments blah blah blah

It is rather hilarious that you go on about "explanatory power", of which the Abrahamic faiths have none. But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you.

Your conflation of islam with judiasm and christianity not-withstanding, the explanatory power therein describes no less than, the condition of man, the nature of truth, world history, the natural world, all of the fundemental questions of life, and how to know God personally. Quite a lot of explanatory power, I would say.

But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you

Or perhaps you just don't have anything intelligent to say because you don't understand the subject matter as well as you portray yourself to, so you weakly justify your cop-out by attacking me instead of the argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry said: blah blah blah same old non-arguments blah blah blah
It is rather hilarious that you go on about "explanatory power", of which the Abrahamic faiths have none. But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you.

FWIW, a brief Google search shows this not to be the case. Agnosticism is more nuanced than that. And since that nuance actually seems to be quite important, to me anyway, I find it a shame that we've lost the use of a perfectly good concept, due to misunderstanding.
>> ^enoch:

"agnostic" translates to "not-knowing".
nothing more.
nothing less.

Personally, I think the pressure to lump everyone in as atheists is more about marketing than it is about correct usage of the word.

Catholics do it. Doesn't matter how different your beliefs are, Doesn't matter how extreme you are, it doesn't matter if you only go to church on Christmas. All those people get to say they're Christians despite how radically different their beliefs are so that they can claim they are a majority and I think militant atheists are attempting to latch onto that idea so that they can claim they are a bigger group than they really are

I'm sorry, but my beliefs or lack therof is not a marketing tool.

You don't care on a personal level whether someone believes in a god/gods or not, but does it matter to you whether your elected officials do, and whether they base the laws they create on their religious beliefs? Like, what's your stance on teaching Intelligent Design as science?>> ^Yogi:

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.
So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

@SDGundamX

All religions are at their heart rotten. They are anti-thought. A form of intellectual coma. All of them.

Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.

There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.

Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:

Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.

@SDGundamX

just a short addendum: your citation of the "40 year atheist" is misleading at best, deceitful at worst (while the author you link to is plain old deceitful, suggesting to the reader that he's an atheist when in fact he is not). If you knew, then your wording is highly questionable, and if you didn't, all can say is what I've said to you before: check your sources.

>> ^gwiz665:

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.



religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

good stuffs

That's your retort? That religions don't have hearts?

When I say heart above, I mean the core idea, the central thesis, the essence, the main thing. In all religions, it is rotten.

Sure, Christianity gets some things right, so does Buddhism, so does Islam, but the core of their philosophical interpretation of the world is false and misleading.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^gwiz665:
I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.


religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.