Sorry "agnostics", but you're either a theist or an atheist

[Haggis_McMutton]

It's in the name really theist, a-theist. Get it?
Like P or not-P there's no other choice. You can say I'm not sure about my P status, but that's another question, you have to be either P or not-P regardless of the strength of your conviction in P.

I know there's negative connotations to the word, and that a group of what you consider loud assholes are the most visible part of atheism, and that you don't necessarily want to be associated with them. But you guys are supposed to be "the most rational", right? So are you going to misrepresent your beliefs because stating them truthfully would associate you with assholes? Are you that sensitive to public opinion?

Atheism is a huge umbrella term. saying that a person is an atheist says actually very little about them.
You can be a strong atheist("i know there's no god"), or an agnostic atheist("I don't believe there's a god, his existence seems unlikely").
You can be an explicit atheist(conscious rejection of religious beliefs), or an implicit one(the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it).
You can be a theoretical atheist(you have theoretical arguments to support your lack of belief) or a pragmatic one(the existence of gods is not explicitly rejected, but is considered unnecessary or useless - aka apatheism)

Or if you really wanna be a smart-ass you can be a theological noncognitivist and claim that the question "does god exist" is meaningless untill someone can come up with a sensible definition of god(i.e. god needs to be falsifiable).

And I'm sure there's other variations and what have you.
But yeah, like I said a-theist, if you're not a theist, you must be an atheist ...

remember belief /= knowledge. I know that I might win the lottery, but I don't believe I will so I don't buy a ticket.
I know that I might get hit by a car when I leave my house, but I don't believe I will, so I leave anyway.

keeping that in mind, here's a handy questionnaire:
1. Do you believe the universe was consciously created by a living being?(hint: if you have no belief one way or the other, then you do not believe that the universe was created)
2. Do you pray/meditation/what have you/ so you can communicate with a creator?
3. Do you believe that the creator is a source of objective morality/ do you have objective moral laws you try to follow?
4. Do you try to only do "good" things so that the universe's creator will be pleased?

If you answered no to these... you'd better sit down for this ... you're an atheist.

But don't worry, you can call yourself an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic pragmatic atheist so you can still avoid association with dawkins and the other "loud assholes".

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

[Timminz]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

In binary terms, that's a "no".

[greenoaks]

or 'who cares'

[Timminz]

or 'who cares'

See above.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's in the name really theist, a-theist. Get it?
Like P or not-P there's no other choice. You can say I'm not sure about my P status, but that's another question, you have to be either P or not-P regardless of the strength of your conviction in P.

Some premises are simply unknown. Not everyone must either accept P or not P. Its truth or falsity is hard to determine, so it is possible to label it as "unknown." Since that's the case, one can be agnostic without being lumped into the "either-or" categories.

Another problem with your way of thinking is that it's purely "either-or." It doesn't reasonably allow for other answers like "God is; god isn't," which is just as reasonable as stating "P" or "Not P" or "unknown/not sure."

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

In binary terms, that's a "no".

Questions like these in reality aren't expressed in binary terms.

Even logic allows for the unknown option when testing the soundness of whatever conclusion.

[Metsfanmax]

People who are generally recognized "atheists" are actually theists, because they too have a religious belief (specifically, that there is no God). The only true atheists are the people who don't have a stance on the issue (that is, the agnostics), if we're going to make arguments based on the linguistic roots of the word.

[natty dread]

Sorry, but I function on trinary logic.

By binary logic, you say... IF belief in god = FALSE: atheism = TRUE
Therefore, atheism = NOT belief in god.. NOT FALSE == TRUE

That's fine.
But by using trinary logic, I can say...

existence of god = UNKNOWN
atheism = NOT existence of god = NOT UNKNOWN = UNKNOWN
theism = existence of god = UNKNOWN

agnosticism = (atheism EQUALS theism) = UNKNOWN EQUALS UNKNOWN = TRUE

-> agnosticism = TRUE

QED.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sorry, but "not sure" is always an option.

it's about beliefs not knowledge. If you're not sure what you believe, a handy way to figure it out is to look at your actions(see my questionnaire)

Some premises are simply unknown. Not everyone must either accept P or not P. Its truth or falsity is hard to determine, so it is possible to label it as "unknown." Since that's the case, one can be agnostic without being lumped into the "either-or" categories.

it's not a question of knowledge, it's of belief.
i don't know if there's a god, I however don't believe there is one so I don't pray to him.
Do you pray?
Do you take any act that would stem from a belief in god?
If you don't you're either repressing your belief in god for some reason, or you don't have a belief in god(and are thus an atheist).

Another problem with your way of thinking is that it's purely "either-or." It doesn't reasonably allow for other answers like "God is; god isn't," which is just as reasonable as stating "P" or "Not P" or "unknown/not sure."

What so at the same time you believe god exists and you don't believe god exist?

It's a bit early in the debate to resort to quantum mechanics.

People who are generally recognized "atheists" are actually theists, because they too have a religious belief (specifically, that there is no God). The only true atheists are the people who don't have a stance on the issue (that is, the agnostics), if we're going to make arguments based on the linguistic roots of the word.

What you're saying is that "people who are generally recognized as atheists" are only a small subset of all atheist, those that are actually called strong atheists.

saying you're an agnostic doesn't say anything about your belief or lack a belief in god.
You can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic(like me).

Atheism is not disbelief in god(that's a subset), it's lack of belief in god
You either have belief in god, or you lack it, there's no middle ground no matter how hard you want to be "moderate" and "neutral".

[Haggis_McMutton]

Hmm, interesting point natty, however that seems to be a flawed system to me.

Sorry, but I function on trinary logic.

By binary logic, you say... IF belief in tooth fairy = FALSE: tooth fairy atheism = TRUE
Therefore, tooth fairy atheism = NOT belief in tooth fairy. NOT FALSE == TRUE

That's fine.
But by using trinary logic, I can say...

existence of tooth fairy = UNKNOWN
tooth fairy atheism = NOT existence of tooth fairy = NOT UNKNOWN = UNKNOWN
tooth fairy theism = existence of tooth fairy = UNKNOWN

tooth fairy agnosticism = (tooth fairy atheism EQUALS tooth fairy theism) = UNKNOWN EQUALS UNKNOWN = TRUE

-> tooth fairy agnosticism = TRUE

QED.

Now a cost benefit ratio.

putting your tooth under the pillow:
Cost: Insignificant(asking your dentist to give you the tooth after he removes it + physical effort expended to put tooth under pillow).
Benefit:
If tooth fairy exist -> $$$
if tooth fairy doesn't exist -> nothing

This clearly shows that if you have belief status "UNKNOWN" on the existence of the tooth-fairy you should put all your teeth under the pillow?

Do you/ would you?

[Army of GOD]

HAGGIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I don't fall under any of your categories of "atheist". They all seem to imply a "belief" that no god exists. I do not believe that god doesn't exist. I believe that there is no way any of us could know for sure that god exists. I do not pray, because I believe that IF any god(s) existed, they wouldn't be so petty as to force us to pray to them during our humanly life. I attempt to live what *I* think is a subjectively moral life and I hope that if such (a) god(s) exist, that they have the same line-up as morals as I do.



And hey, don't try to claim apatheism as a sect of atheism! Apathetism falls under agnosticism, if anything (and agnosticism is its own separate category).


And yes, agnostics are the most rational. We're the only group that doesn't perform circular logic on a daily basis. =D (that was a joke)

[Haggis_McMutton]

HAGGIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I don't fall under any of your categories of "atheist". They all seem to imply a "belief" that no god exists. I do not believe that god doesn't exist. I believe that there is no way any of us could know for sure that god exists. I do not pray, because I believe that IF any god(s) existed, they wouldn't be so petty as to force us to pray to them during our humanly life. I attempt to live what *I* think is a subjectively moral life and I hope that if such (a) god(s) exist, that they have the same line-up as morals as I do.

They don't at all imply a disbelief in god.

Implicit atheism includes for instance people who haven't ever heard of god.

As for apatheims, check the wiki article for pragmatic atheist (make sure you're sitting down).

inb4 wiki is controlled my enraged atheists.

[natty dread]

Do you/ would you?

That does not compute.

If existence of tooth fairy == Unknown, then it's a risk investment.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Do you/ would you?

That does not compute.

If existence of tooth fairy == Unknown, then it's a risk investment.

You don't stand to lose anything.

It's like getting a free loterry ticket. You might win or lose/ but the cost is zero so it's pretty clear you should play.

[Army of GOD]

Egg_McMuffin, I'm filing a divorce! ;_;

[natty dread]

Do you/ would you?

That does not compute.

If existence of tooth fairy == Unknown, then it's a risk investment.

You don't stand to lose anything.

It's like getting a free loterry ticket. You might win or lose/ but the cost is zero so it's pretty clear you should play.

Ok Haggis, since you obviously don't consider losing all your teeth to be a "cost", why don't you send all your teeth to me and I will test the tooth fairy theory with your teeth.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Do you/ would you?

That does not compute.

If existence of tooth fairy == Unknown, then it's a risk investment.

You don't stand to lose anything.

It's like getting a free loterry ticket. You might win or lose/ but the cost is zero so it's pretty clear you should play.

Ok Haggis, since you obviously don't consider losing all your teeth to be a "cost", why don't you send all your teeth to me and I will test the tooth fairy theory with your teeth.

Nope, you lose the tooth naturally, you obviously don't remove it. We're assuming you're either young enough, old enough, or get in enough fights for that to happen.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Egg_McMuffin, I'm filing a divorce! ;_;

I get to keep BBS.

[Metsfanmax]

What you're saying is that "people who are generally recognized as atheists" are only a small subset of all atheist, those that are actually called strong atheists.

saying you're an agnostic doesn't say anything about your belief or lack a belief in god.
You can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic(like me).

Atheism is not disbelief in god(that's a subset), it's lack of belief in god
You either have belief in god, or you lack it, there's no middle ground no matter how hard you want to be "moderate" and "neutral".

I don't want to be moderate or neutral. I think that "strong atheists" and religious people (that is, Christians, Muslims, etc.) are all irrational and deluded. I don't consider myself to be in the middle of some spectrum of people who have unnecessary opinions about invisible men in the sky.

To frame it another way, let's radically simplify the spectrum of political beliefs into libertarians on the right, socialists on the left, and centrists somewhere in between. Surely there are some people out there who do not believe they are libertarians and do not believe in the value of socialism. Some of these people will be centrists, but some are simply politically apathetic - they don't have an opinion on the best style of governance, so they refuse to call themselves libertarian or socialist. Your stance is equivalent to saying that the politically apathetic are therefore politically centrist. This is necessarily faulty logic. Lack of a belief does not mean you have a belief.

[Army of GOD]

Lack of a belief does not mean you have a belief.

Don't be confused atheists. This does NOT mean that atheism is a belief. You have an opinion on the subject, therefore you have a belief. The only one's that "lack a belief" are apatheists, in this case.

[Haggis_McMutton]

What you're saying is that "people who are generally recognized as atheists" are only a small subset of all atheist, those that are actually called strong atheists.

saying you're an agnostic doesn't say anything about your belief or lack a belief in god.
You can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic(like me).

Atheism is not disbelief in god(that's a subset), it's lack of belief in god
You either have belief in god, or you lack it, there's no middle ground no matter how hard you want to be "moderate" and "neutral".

I don't want to be moderate or neutral. I think that "strong atheists" and religious people (that is, Christians, Muslims, etc.) are all irrational and deluded. I don't consider myself to be in the middle of some spectrum of people who have unnecessary opinions about invisible men in the sky.

To frame it another way, let's radically simplify the spectrum of political beliefs into libertarians on the right, socialists on the left, and centrists somewhere in between. Surely there are some people out there who do not believe they are libertarians and do not believe in the value of socialism. Some of these people will be centrists, but some are simply politically apathetic - they don't have an opinion on the best style of governance, so they refuse to call themselves libertarian or socialist. Your stance is equivalent to saying that the politically apathetic are therefore politically centrist. This is necessarily faulty logic. Lack of a belief does not mean you have a belief.

I think we agree and have misunderstood each other's point.

I said the neutral thing not specifically to you, I know that's how some of the "agnostics" view themselves.

I also agree that strong atheists are about as deluded as religious people, I can't say I've actually ever met a strong atheist though(in RL), I have a feeling they're a very small percentage of atheists.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Lack of a belief does not mean you have a belief.

Don't be confused atheists. This does NOT mean that atheism is a belief. You have an opinion on the subject, therefore you have a belief. The only one's that "lack a belief" are apatheists, in this case.

that's a confusing statement seeing as apatheism is a subset of atheism

[BigBallinStalin]

Some premises are simply unknown. Not everyone must either accept P or not P. Its truth or falsity is hard to determine, so it is possible to label it as "unknown." Since that's the case, one can be agnostic without being lumped into the "either-or" categories.

it's not a question of knowledge, it's of belief.
i don't know if there's a god, I however don't believe there is one so I don't pray to him.
Do you pray?
Do you take any act that would stem from a belief in god?
If you don't you're either repressing your belief in god for some reason, or you don't have a belief in god(and are thus an atheist).

And what prevents someone from reasonably withholding judgement on either? That in itself is an acceptable belief, and such a belief is the third alternative which can't be lumped into either "atheist" or "theist."

Another problem with your way of thinking is that it's purely "either-or." It doesn't reasonably allow for other answers like "God is; god isn't," which is just as reasonable as stating "P" or "Not P" or "unknown/not sure."

What so at the same time you believe god exists and you don't believe god exist?

It's a bit early in the debate to resort to quantum mechanics.

It's a line of reasoning that's associated with Buddhist philosophy and especially Zen Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that the "it's either this or that" conundrum does have reasonable alternatives.

It's not just "god exists and god doesn't exist"/ (Both and P and not P). It can also be "Neither P or not P" or "P} or "Not P."

When someone asks me if I believe in the Christian God, I say, "no, that's just silly."

But how about the Hindu version where the "Supreme Being" is the collection of every thing? I say, "well, that's interesting."

I'm not even passing judgement on either belief, and that's an acceptable answer. It may prove bothersome to Western philosophy because it doesn't fit their view on how things must be believed or understood.

__________________________________


"Is the Hindu version of god true, or is it false?" Well, I have no idea. To most Hindus, sure. To Christians, no. In that sense, the Hindu belief is true and it isn't true.

So, there's no absolute truth to any of your questions because the belief of God varies in definition among whoever is asked. With no such absolute "criterion of correctness," how can you even begin to assert that based on someone's answers, that they must be either a theist or an atheist?


_____________

Certainly, I agree that belief doesn't equal knowledge, but any belief is based on some amount of knowledge.

So, why do you strike out the belief of "not sure," which is based one's knowledge of that which supports "P" and the knowledge which supports "Not P""?

[john9blue]

i've been meaning to post about why i feel that agnosticism is distinct from atheism, maybe i will do it sometime, but for now i'll just subscribe to this thread