6 ms·

Except that I'm not sure that true atheists, as distinct from agnostics, actually exist. Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or mo

by hugh3 16y ago

Except that I'm not sure that true atheists, as distinct from agnostics, actually exist. Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely. The real distinction is between "teapot agnostics", who think gods are incredibly unlikely, and "proper" agnostics, who actually think it's reasonably probable. Many teapot agnostics will call themselves atheists just for the sake of saving time.

alanh 16y ago
I prefer "strong atheism" in lieu of the Scottsman-esque term "true atheism." After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.
tzs 16y ago
I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true. Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each. Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.
- chegra 16y ago
  I think the Santa Claus analogy is a poor one since the story of Santa Claus or his existent doesn't solve any know problems. God solves a lot of problems, like where do we come from. To me agnosticism is being open to possibilities and admitting at this current level nobody has all the answers. Why would they want to Cop out? In most people's mind Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing. [Edit: If you are downvoting it will be helpful if you post a reply]
  - c1sc0 16y ago
    Why would you even want to know all the answers? Sure, I understand why you want to convince others that you (or your particular collection of fairy tales) have all the answers. But then you are talking about power & influence, which I guess is the main reason why something that evolved for biological reasons is still around centuries past its expiration date.
  - dazzawazza 16y ago
    Saint Nick solves a specific problem: Where do the presents come from over the christmas period. It couldn't have been my parents who put them at the end of my bed because they were asleep and as any child knows it's naughty not to be asleep at night. My parents, the guardians of all that is correct in the world, would NEVER be awake at night. So the only reasonable answer is the one given by my parents, the guardians of all the is correct in the world, that there is an advert for Coke climbing into my house and delivering the presents I so wished for. Then I grew up and it just didn't seem logical any more. Burdened by the truth that may parents, now no longer the guardians of truth in the world, had played a trick on me I went into the world armed with the knowledge that all is not what it seems and that the search for the truth is difficult and long. Over time I realised that this burden was in fact a candle in the darkness of ignorance. A darkness that is in part inherited and in part constructed by the Guardians (whomever they may be) to keep me from the truth. So you see good old saint Nick has a very specific role in society. He's a lie told by parents to bring darkness into the world of children under the guise of 'magical enchantment'. For some, he is a catalyst to see the lie but for others he is the first snuffing of the harsh light of inquiry and intellectual endeavour that all children are born with.
  - megablast 16y ago
    Santa claus solves lots of problems as well, where do christmas presents come from for example? Who can I go thank for christmas for another? Sure, they are not correct answers, but neither are any that any particular god will answer.
  - tzs 16y ago
    The Santa Claus theory solved two known problems when I was a kid: 1. Where do toys come from? 2. Why should I be good?
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Except you don't. Why lie so blatantly. If you're trying to establish the truth then you wouldn't do this. This doesn't prove that you always lie to convince other people of your position regardless of it's truth but it does lead us in that direction.
klodolph 16y ago
By this same logic I could argue that no scientist is Christian, and no Christian is a scientist. Ask any scientist who is Christian, "does a good scientist believe claims that cannot be independently verified?" Then ask, "do you believe in god?" The questions "are you a good scientist?" and "can the existence of god be independently verified?" follow. You'll force this poor scientist to admit they're not a good scientist, or perhaps as a compromise you can say that the existence of god is a hypothesis which they have not yet been able to test to their satisfaction (which doesn't sound like belief to me). Okay, that's actually not the most common result (I might expect a lecture on politesse, or perhaps a simple request to shut my trap). But I find it detestable to go around and tell people that they label themselves wrong, e.g., "You are not a true atheist." It's almost as villainous to say things like "Strong atheists do not exist." when there are plenty of people who claim to be strong atheists. Say instead something like, "strong atheism is not a tenable position." Or, "strong atheism is logically inconsistent." Then, at least, I won't think of you quite so poorly, and we can argue logic instead of identity. For the record, I'm positive that there are many good scientists who are also Christians. I'm also positive that there are many strong atheists. P.S. It's bad enough that as a bisexual male I don't exist, but as a strong atheist too I doubly don't exist. Harsh.
- hugh3 16y ago
  If you really are a strong atheist (ie one with a belief that the probability of the existence of any god is zero rather than merely negligibly small) then I apologise for my assertion of your nonexistence. What I should have said was that most atheists, such as myself or Richard Dawkins, are really agnostics of the negligibly-small-probability variety.
c1sc0 16y ago
"Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely." To which I counter: "Needlepins & how many angels they can hold." It just doesn't matter. "God lives in a place where reason can't go" is the kind of weak argument I hate most about theism. If you're arguing about the remote possibility of god existing, you're pulling at straws. Is it so hard to accept that we are just animals with highly evolved, yet ultimately limited brains? Is it so hard to accept that we can't understand everything?

by hugh3 16y ago

alanh 16y ago

I prefer "strong atheism" in lieu of the Scottsman-esque term "true atheism." After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.

tzs 16y ago

I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true. Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each. Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.

chegra 16y ago
I think the Santa Claus analogy is a poor one since the story of Santa Claus or his existent doesn't solve any know problems. God solves a lot of problems, like where do we come from. To me agnosticism is being open to possibilities and admitting at this current level nobody has all the answers. Why would they want to Cop out? In most people's mind Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing. [Edit: If you are downvoting it will be helpful if you post a reply]
- c1sc0 16y ago
  Why would you even want to know all the answers? Sure, I understand why you want to convince others that you (or your particular collection of fairy tales) have all the answers. But then you are talking about power & influence, which I guess is the main reason why something that evolved for biological reasons is still around centuries past its expiration date.
- dazzawazza 16y ago
  Saint Nick solves a specific problem: Where do the presents come from over the christmas period. It couldn't have been my parents who put them at the end of my bed because they were asleep and as any child knows it's naughty not to be asleep at night. My parents, the guardians of all that is correct in the world, would NEVER be awake at night. So the only reasonable answer is the one given by my parents, the guardians of all the is correct in the world, that there is an advert for Coke climbing into my house and delivering the presents I so wished for. Then I grew up and it just didn't seem logical any more. Burdened by the truth that may parents, now no longer the guardians of truth in the world, had played a trick on me I went into the world armed with the knowledge that all is not what it seems and that the search for the truth is difficult and long. Over time I realised that this burden was in fact a candle in the darkness of ignorance. A darkness that is in part inherited and in part constructed by the Guardians (whomever they may be) to keep me from the truth. So you see good old saint Nick has a very specific role in society. He's a lie told by parents to bring darkness into the world of children under the guise of 'magical enchantment'. For some, he is a catalyst to see the lie but for others he is the first snuffing of the harsh light of inquiry and intellectual endeavour that all children are born with.
- megablast 16y ago
  Santa claus solves lots of problems as well, where do christmas presents come from for example? Who can I go thank for christmas for another? Sure, they are not correct answers, but neither are any that any particular god will answer.
- tzs 16y ago
  The Santa Claus theory solved two known problems when I was a kid: 1. Where do toys come from? 2. Why should I be good?
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Except you don't. Why lie so blatantly. If you're trying to establish the truth then you wouldn't do this. This doesn't prove that you always lie to convince other people of your position regardless of it's truth but it does lead us in that direction.

klodolph 16y ago

By this same logic I could argue that no scientist is Christian, and no Christian is a scientist. Ask any scientist who is Christian, "does a good scientist believe claims that cannot be independently verified?" Then ask, "do you believe in god?" The questions "are you a good scientist?" and "can the existence of god be independently verified?" follow. You'll force this poor scientist to admit they're not a good scientist, or perhaps as a compromise you can say that the existence of god is a hypothesis which they have not yet been able to test to their satisfaction (which doesn't sound like belief to me). Okay, that's actually not the most common result (I might expect a lecture on politesse, or perhaps a simple request to shut my trap). But I find it detestable to go around and tell people that they label themselves wrong, e.g., "You are not a true atheist." It's almost as villainous to say things like "Strong atheists do not exist." when there are plenty of people who claim to be strong atheists. Say instead something like, "strong atheism is not a tenable position." Or, "strong atheism is logically inconsistent." Then, at least, I won't think of you quite so poorly, and we can argue logic instead of identity. For the record, I'm positive that there are many good scientists who are also Christians. I'm also positive that there are many strong atheists. P.S. It's bad enough that as a bisexual male I don't exist, but as a strong atheist too I doubly don't exist. Harsh.

hugh3 16y ago
If you really are a strong atheist (ie one with a belief that the probability of the existence of any god is zero rather than merely negligibly small) then I apologise for my assertion of your nonexistence. What I should have said was that most atheists, such as myself or Richard Dawkins, are really agnostics of the negligibly-small-probability variety.

c1sc0 16y ago

"Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely." To which I counter: "Needlepins & how many angels they can hold." It just doesn't matter. "God lives in a place where reason can't go" is the kind of weak argument I hate most about theism. If you're arguing about the remote possibility of god existing, you're pulling at straws. Is it so hard to accept that we are just animals with highly evolved, yet ultimately limited brains? Is it so hard to accept that we can't understand everything?