Comments | ogrevi: Atheism vs. Agnosticism.

ogrevi

Atheism vs. Agnosticism.

Aug 14, 2010 19:55

There’s a big argument going on right now in the internet skeptic community, which can basically be boiled down to “Atheism vs. Agnosticism.” I don’t have very many readers, of course, and I am not going to influence this debate by writing here, but I’m gonna tell ya what I think anyway ( Read more... )

words mean things, what i believe, facebook, internet, religion

Comments 25

mrs_prufrock August 15 2010, 16:37:38 UTC

“I don’t believe there’s a god” is a negative statement. It is not a belief, but rather the absence of one. Sometimes, however, atheists use the related positive statement that “there is no god.” For most of us this is just verbal shorthand; it is inaccurate and we know it

Thank you. It makes me nutsy when people think atheism is my religious belief. I do not have a religious belief. Some people think I am simply too dense or narrow-minded to "accept" that atheism is my religious belief. They think it's the same as if I said I don't have an accent or I don't have a particular worldview - as if I'm saying mine is just default and others' positions are special or weird in some way. It is NOT the same thing. In fact, if you think atheism is my religious belief, then you are being sort of obtuse in thinking that everyone has to have a religious belief, simply because you have one. I. Don't. Have. Any. Religious. Beliefs. I don't. I swear to... Well, I swear.

If I may quote the excellent Aron Ra... ogrevi August 15 2010, 17:40:03 UTC

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that health is a disease."

Also:

I. Don't. Have. Any. Religious. Beliefs. I don't. I swear to... Well, I swear.

I like that.

Re: If I may quote the excellent Aron Ra... mrs_prufrock August 15 2010, 18:52:00 UTC

I always say atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby. I like the health one because it directly correlates health to lack of religious belief, although the claim can be made that it's just a comparison and doesn't imply that. I personally like the implication. So I'll save the stamps comparison for religious people, for whom it would be less offensive, and the health comparison for other atheists who would get it.

Re: If I may quote the excellent Aron Ra... ogrevi August 15 2010, 18:56:15 UTC

I read that implication the same way. As I say, he's excellent.

Facebook comments conversation with Robert Ward ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:19:12 UTC

I found your essay an interesting read, but your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are a bit too absolute. There are serious schools of philosophic thought that follow the notion that believing something makes it a form of knowledge.

You might want to check out George Berkeley. His Idealism theory describes a relationship between human experience of the external world, and that world itself, in which objects are nothing more than collections (or bundles) of sense data in those who perceive them. Thus, the world is literally what we make of it.

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Robert Ward ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:19:59 UTC

I would have to look into him to comment on his theory, of course. If I understand what you've said, though, his theory only contradicts the actual definition of agnosticism, the one I describe but then turn away from in favor of the common definition. The others still work. Agnostics admit they don't know, and atheists don't believe. So he isn't in contradiction of my overall thesis.
Also, I have to say that if he thinks that belief can equal knowledge, I don't see how he can be right. Again, I'll have to read his stuff, but those words have actual literal meanings that are in conflict. If he is equating them, I think he's using the words incorrectly. He needs some new ones.

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Robert Ward ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:20:48 UTC

Rob: He isn't so much equating those particular words as calling into question the rigidity of attaching definitions to the physical world. Russell later reacts to it and builds on it with Atomism.

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Robert Ward ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:21:33 UTC

Me: But these aren't physical objects, they're ideas. Outside of their definitions they have no existence, have they? The definition is all there is.

Thread 6

Facebook comments conversation with Ray Cruitt ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:25:25 UTC

Ray: I like this essay. I agree with your point. I usually consider myself an agnostic if I have to describe myself to others, but could say that I'm a reluctant atheist, as well. Some of the online atheists are entertaining, but are no less absurd in their militancy than the crazy Christians are, like VenomfangX, GEERUP and friends. I find it hard to reconcile any current religious beliefs with evolution as an explanatory theory of life and I am an evolutionist through and through.

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Ray Cruitt ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:26:51 UTC

Me: Thanks ( ... )

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Ray Cruitt ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:27:51 UTC

Ray: I'm currently re-reading a book entitled: Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith by Phillip Kitcher. I bet you'd like it. I especially like the last chapter, which seems to be addressed to evolutionists, especially; it is about the needs and mentality of believers and why people continue to fight against evolution (as is demonstrated in the ID movement) despite the evidence. Instead of deriding them, it is necessary to understand where they are coming from and proceed from there. I suppose this may be a moderate position and I'm amenable to it. I do think there are rational believers out there that are capable of reasonable debate and these are the people we evolutionists should give heed to. Leave the fundies alone; there is nothing that can change their minds as they are fully cemented. If God came down and told them that evolution was true and that they need to give up the fight, they would admonish God saying that he as the Devil posing as an angel of light.

Re: Facebook comments conversation with Ray Cruitt ogrevi August 16 2010, 01:29:08 UTC

Me: I agree that believers can be rational in general. They just aren't being rational about their belief. Many of them will admit this, but not all. It isn't so bad to be irrational only about just that one thing, maybe, but as I said in the piece, if you believe one thing for no good reason that makes it easier to believe other things for no good reason.
I will check and see if that book is in the local library. I am always looking for a good read, and I love science.
You know, even fundamentalists do sometimes change their minds. I am not sure how it happens, though. I do maintain again that against people impervious to reason, ridicule is the best weapon. I don't think we can just ignore them while they try to take over the schools, and if we must fight them, that's the way to do it; it may not change their minds, but it will weaken them in the eyes of others to have their idiotic ideas exposed, and in this society if you want people to hear that sort of thing it helps to sound like that guy from American Idol while you do it.

reallyamermaid August 16 2010, 04:34:43 UTC

I quite like this. And I'm glad the FB folks agreed to be quoted on LJ.

ogrevi August 16 2010, 04:40:37 UTC

Me, too. I'm beginning to worry about all the comments I lose when people comment there instead of here (of course, if they aren't LJ users they have no choice and I'm not blaming anyone), because you know how I go back through and read all these things, and I like to remember what people thought of them. I should go back and start copying all the old comments, too, but what a headache that would be.

Test reallyamermaid August 16 2010, 05:27:48 UTC

[please to ignore]

Well, that answers one question. reallyamermaid August 16 2010, 05:31:03 UTC

It seems you haven't disabled anonymous commenting. So people could comment here without an account. And you generally leave your posts public. If you like the guy who said he'd comment here if he could, tell him he can. Just, you know, sign your missive and all.

Thread 5

seeing is believing dadadadio August 16 2010, 04:39:53 UTC

For years I said I was agnostic because I truly don't know if there is or isn't a god. I never believed. Even as a kid in cathecism I doubted the party line.

It was the knowledge vs belief debate that finally got me to admit I'm actually an atheist, because I don't believe, but agnostic also fits since I'm very hung up on the lack of proof / knowledge.

Religion is one of the few areas where not seeing is believing. I really try to be considerate in regard to people's religious beliefs but it's getting more difficult. The older I get the more farcical it seems, especially when the so-called Christians are hateful bigots.

What would Jesus think of their intolerance?

Re: seeing is believing ogrevi August 16 2010, 04:47:44 UTC

Yeah, pretty much everyone I know who calls himself or herself an atheist OR an agnostic is actually both but for whatever reason doesn't like one word or the other.

What would Jesus think of their intolerance?

I am sorry to say that there is some evidence that he would be perfectly fine with it. It all depends on which bit of the Bible you're reading at the moment.