You're Not Agnostic, You're An Atheist

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac-saul/youre-not-agnostic-youre-an-atheist_b_4675638.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Isaac Saul
Huffington Post's Innovation Team

Posted: 01/28/2014 11:10 am

One of the most popular phrases I hear amongst my friends these days is, "I'm agnostic."

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, an agnostic is defined as

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

It isn't surprising that young adults in my generation have their questions about God, especially when you consider Pew's study results are showing 38 percent of atheists are aged 18-29.

But what does surprise me is how stumped the self-proclaimed agnostic seems when you ask them, "what did you do for God this week?" It's a question that I've asked, only because it once tripped me up. When I heard the question for the first time, the reality was that I'd done nothing for God in the last week. In fact, I couldn't remember the last time I'd done something with a greater being in mind at all.

more at link

[vi5]

1. Article and premise doesn't make much sense.

I'm an atheist. Hardcore and proud. But I dont' get why an agnostic, who basically says he doesn't KNOW if there's a god or not but is refraining from decision or judgement would be expected to do anything for god or a greater being. Just because someone may or may not believe in a god doesn't mean they have to practice the certain tenets of religious faith and charity. Unless I mis-read the article or something.

[hlthe2b]

2. YES... I don't get that either...

I see self-proclaimed agnostics no more equivalent to atheists than I do to religious adherents.

(except perhaps on DU, where agnostics are lumped inexplicably into the same posting subgroup with the atheists, often with predictably poor results)

[Starboard Tack]

5. Excellent point.

Try going into that "subgroup" claiming agnosticism and you'd better wear your foulies.

[cleanhippie]

9. Oh, tacky, you're not still mad about being blocked from that group are you?

And no, I'm not calling you "tacky", just using a fun nickname like you do when you call Trotsky "trottles", so don't go and foul your foulies.


And for the jury that's sure to be convened for this post, here are the posts by Starboard Tack I'm referring to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109678

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109685

[demwing]

26. every few months I clean out my ignore file

but you...I just can't stop ignoring you

[cleanhippie]

27. Do you feel better now?

Have a nice day!

[skepticscott]

66. As a host here told me

You get what you give here...tacky seems perfectly apt in this case, and I'm sure it has all of the hosts' full support.

[Goblinmonger]

42. That's just not true.

That's not why you were blocked. Nobody has been blocked from A/A because of that reason. And there are many agnostics in that group.

Try spread your smear campaign somewhere else. Because I'll call you on your bullshit when you do it here.

[Starboard Tack]

68. What on earth are you talking about?

Did I mention anything about being blocked? Did I ever claim to be an agnostic?
Did I mention anyone being blocked from anywhere for any reason?

I thought not.

Sounds like you're being a tad paranoid over there in the bunker. Maybe time for a for a strategy session at "Grandma's Card Game Talk" on FB to figure out how you're going to deal with those nasty proponents of tolerancew, who refuse to blame every person of faith for the sins committed by the church and religion through the ages.

Please feel free to call me on anything you see as bullshit. Do you really think I'm the only atheist around here who doesn't want to goose step with SS and his cabal of hateists?

[skepticscott]

70. Since no one here

has ever blamed "every person of faith for the sins committed by the church and religion through the ages", I guess we're all "nasty proponents of tolerance".

And referring to people here as goose steppers is so far beyond tacky, so despicable, that I really feel sad for you. If you want to see a hateist, just look in the mirror, dude. No other reason you would resort to such vile insults and compare other DUers to Nazis.

[cbayer]

6. I agree that they are a separate group.

The argument is frequently made here that agnostic can only be used as a modifier and not as a stand alone.

I disagree with that.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Well, words have meanings.

To use it as a non-modifier is not in line with what that word means.

[cbayer]

4. I had to read it a couple of times to get what I think is his point.

And I don't really agree with him.

But I think he is saying that if you call yourself an agnostic, then one would expect you to want to know and to look for an answer on a regular basis.

If you use only a few narrow categories, I suppose you can make that argument.

But there is also the "apatheist" who doesn't know whether there is a god or not and doesn't care.

I think a lot of people who call themselves agnostic really fit more in that category.

[Android3.14]

126. Assuming they also reject the idea criteria that God (ultimate reality) is uknown and unknowable

I've known some agnostics who recognize God (ultimate reality) is unknown and unknowable (and not really caring about the answer). While the attitude accompanying this variation of agnostic belief has a certain teenage slacker angst, I question how well their disdain will be when/if they finally have a religious experience.
If a person made a point of stating they either know ultimate reality or that it is just a matter of time until we do know God, that they would appear either insane (as if anyone actually can prove they know ultimate reality) or they are just like the rest of the Revelationists who are waiting for Jesus to return or the navel gazing folk ready to meet the Buddha on some bicycle path in Krum, Texas.

[cbayer]

127. I've not heard the definition of god as the ultimate reality and

not even sure what that means.

I would think that someone who didn't know and didn't particularly care might have a significant change in perspective were they to have some kind of religious experience.

If, in fact, they were having a religious experience. But then, how would they (or anyone else) really know?

[Android3.14]

128. How would they know if they were having a religious experience?

It seems to me that when a religious experience happens, you know. The real question is whether you are an agnostic afterwards. I am.
Also, God/ultimate reality seems to be a fair linkage of two unproven and unprovable experiences.

[cbayer]

129. Not so sure. Many people have religious experiences during

delirium or psychotic episodes or near death experiences.

There is a lot of debate about what these might actually be, with many maintaining that they are just neurochemical events.

So who is to say.

[Android3.14]

135. I'm thinking we probably agree

A religious experience, just as it is with any experience, is at the very least, a neurochemical event. Any event the perceiver concludes is a religious experience, is a religious experience.
Who has the authority to say otherwise?

[cbayer]

140. That's close to my entire take on religion.

And I think we do probably agree.

It was nice talking to you.

[djean111]

130. "But I think he is saying that if you call yourself an agnostic, then one would expect you to want

to know and to look for an answer on a regular basis."
I would not assume that agnostics (or atheists, for that matter) consider the existence (or not) of a god all that important, or not important enough to be actively thinking about it on a regular basis.

[cbayer]

131. I agree with you. Many are pretty apathetic on the entire topic,

which is why i am fond of the term apatheist.

[ZombieHorde]

77. I think the author is talking about function.

I think he is saying many agnostics act and think just like atheists in their day to day lives. The author seems to be arguing that if someone thinks like an atheist and acts like an atheist most of the time, then perhaps that person is an atheist.

[lapfog_1]

3. I do not have a belief in God

I also do not have a belief that there is no God.

Both positions, in my opinion, require a belief in a fact that cannot be demonstrated.

I am agnostic.

[skepticscott]

11. Do you have a belief

that there is no Santa Claus?

[cleanhippie]

20. Not believing in a god is the same as believing there is no god?

[lapfog_1]

21. no, not what I said.

[cleanhippie]

24. It appears that you did.

3. I do not have a belief in God
I also do not have a belief that there is no God.

Both positions, in my opinion, require a belief in a fact that cannot be demonstrated.

I am agnostic.

Your last statement explains that not believing in a god AND believing there is no god both require belief. How else is that to be interpreted?

[lapfog_1]

38. I'll try to do this again, this time with symbolic logic

I do not have a belief in God ("belief in God" is tautology stmt "A" so this is an assertion of not A)

Not A does not imply the opposite.

the next stmt I made was "I do not have a belief that there is no God" (this is stmt "B" but B is not A, it is a completely different assertion).

Not A and B are not contradictory because they are different stmts.

Everything that we observe about the natural world require a certain amount of belief. We believe that there is a reality, that gravity, light, atoms, etc exist in this reality. Most of us accept these beliefs and never even question basic items.

We have to just to continue to exist (eat, sleep, stay warm, don't kill ourselves by jumping off cliffs, etc).

We use science to extend our belief system and to explain things previously unexplainable.

The existence (past or present) of a being outside of our common perception doesn't require a scientific explanation or a common belief system.

In fact, the reason that religious people fight over their beliefs is that the basis for the belief is not a common ("everyone knows&quot belief like "jumping off a cliff is likely to kill me" sort of belief. It is the lack of common observation about their God or Gods that creates discord. Humans, like our evolutionary ancestors, developed the ability to create patterns out of nothing... we see the face of Jesus in a burnt piece of bread... so for the not yet explained observations (the nights grow longer and it gets colder and nothing grows... the days grow longer and it gets warmer and many plants grow) we create mythologies to explain the phenomenon. The mythologies grow into religions... and rules are developed based on unexplained observations ("God" forbids you to eat pork because in the middle east, dead pigs carried worms and parasites that would, if not cooked properly, infect people).

[trotsky]

45. I, too, do not have a belief in any gods.

That makes me an atheist.

[PassingFair]

59. I am without god beliefs.

I am an atheist...

A=without

Theist= One with god beliefs

I am also "agnostic"...

A= without
Gnostic= One with knowledge of (the existence) god(s)

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Exactly. An Agnostic can be a theist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

That's why I'm an Atheist.

[gcomeau]

83. Ahem...

" I do not have a belief in God"

Congratulations, you're an atheist. That is the exact definition of an atheist.




" I also do not have a belief that there is no God. "

Which is irrelevant to whether you are an atheist.

[cbayer]

88. That depends entirely on what definition one chooses and there are several.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
a·the·ist (ā?thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
(not that disbelief and denial are active verbs)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
(note that this one talks about an active belief in something not existing)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(note that this one also includes denial or disbelief)

"I do not have a belief" is a passive position. Not having (possessing) a belief in something is not the same as possessing a belief that something does not exist or denying that that thing exists.

It might just mean that you don't know (and maybe don't care).

Saying further that "I do not have a belief that there is no god" would not fit these definitions of an atheist.

[skepticscott]

90. By those definitions, pretty much everyone is an "atheist", except most atheists

Most religionists deny the existence of some supreme beings. Christians, for example, disbelieve in Thor, Isis, Apollo and Quetzalcoatl, among many others. They have to, in order to give legitimacy to their own One True God.

Most atheists, on the other hand, simply lack belief in any of them, but don't actively and unequivocally deny that any gods exist anywhere in the universe.

[gcomeau]

92. Let me put that another way

The ONLY term that correctly describes "Person who does not believe in God" is "atheist".

That some people choose to use the term atheist in more specific ways does not alter that it is still the only correct term to apply to a person who states that they do not have a belief in the existence of a deity. You do not have to fit every popular usage definition of a term for it to correctly apply to you.

[cbayer]

97. Well, as you know, I don't agree with you.

Why the intense need to label someone atheist? If I don't have a belief in something, it may mean that I just don't have a position at all.

I don't have a belief in near death experiences. I don't know whether they exist or not, but one of those things is probably true. Not having a belief in it does not indicate a disbelief in it. Atheism indicates a disbelief or denial.

It's not that hard once you get past the black and white, dogmatic approach to the terms.

[trotsky]

98. "Atheism indicates a disbelief or denial."

No it doesn't. Stop telling others how they should label themselves.

I don't disbelieve in or deny gods. I simply lack belief in them. I am an atheist. You cannot tell me what I am. Honestly cbayer, you seem far more insistent to have certain labels applied to certain people than anyone else in this thread.

[gcomeau]

101. And have never presented a valid reason for disagreeing.

"Why the intense need to label someone atheist? "

I have an intense interest in clear communication in general. And this is one of the most egregious examples of people habitually misusing words in ways that confuse issues.

[cbayer]

102. No, just haven't presented one that makes a dent in your strongly

held beliefs on the matter.

That still doesn't make you right.

If you really have an intense interest in clear communication, then I would suggest that you ask people what they mean when they define themselves and work within their definition, instead of telling them that they are wrong.

Do you really think that insisting that people are defining themselves incorrectly will lead to clearer and less confusing communication?

[gcomeau]

104. Knowing what people mean...

...when they call themselves agnostic is not the problem. It is generally perfectly clear what they mean.


The problem is that the vast majority of the time what they mean is wrong. What they mean is using the term in an irrational manner.

[cbayer]

106. So what do you think people mean when they say they are agnostic, but

also say that they are neither atheist or theist?

Oh, you answered that. You think they are wrong, irrational and need to be corrected. You think they must take a position one way or another.

If you can't get past that, you will really never be clear on what they mean, and that, I would suggest, is not going to further your goal of improving communication.

[gcomeau]

107. For cripes sake...

Again and again and again this has been pointed out to you and it's like you willfully block it out.

"You think they must take a position one way or another."


Theism is taking the position that you believe God exists. It is the adoption of that specific belief.

Atheism is NOT TAKING THAT POSITION. Not taking a position is being an atheist.

Geez.

[cbayer]

109. I don't willfully block it out, I just don't agree with you.

Your definition is narrow and, while not entirely invalid, only one of many.

Your insistence that it is the only true one is the issue for you, not for me.

And vaguely familiar in an uncomfortable way.

I know you will continue this crusade as it seems to mean a great deal to you, but I doubt you are going to change many minds about this

I've seen it argued over and over again both here and elsewhere.

And those who define atheism differently (as an active disbelief) and hold themselves out as agnostic are really unlikely to change.

Perhaps we need a new nomenclature. There's that whole "spiritual but not religious" group that is growing rapidly. The data I have seen show most of them don't define themselves as theist or atheist.

You can call them atheist all day long, but they won't accept it.

[gcomeau]

111. Uh-huh...

"Your definition is narrow and, while not entirely invalid, only one of many."

1. I don't think you understand what "narrow" means, since the definition I pointed out is the widest (and incidentally, correct) definition of atheism.

2. If you acknowledge it's one of the definitions then your argument is negated, atheism does not require "taking a position, and all your objections you use to argue that people are agnostics by virtue of "not taking a position" are rendered invalid.

Perhaps we need a new nomenclature. There's that whole "spiritual but not religious" group that is growing rapidly. The data I have seen show most of them don't define themselves as theist or atheist.

People can not define themselves as alive or dead too. But they still are.

[cbayer]

112. Honestly, I feel like I am discussing religion with a one wayer at this point.

Actually people can be defined as something that is not definitively alive or dead.

A beating heart, but no brain activity - what would you call that?

But that's beside the point.

Good luck with this.

Nice talking to you.

[gcomeau]

113. Yet more sighs...

"A beating heart, but no brain activity - what would you call that? "

Person dead. Body (cells, tissues, etc...) alive. Not a difficult concept. Was that supposed to be some kind of stumper?


And yes, it is beside the point. the point being that you have no rational basis for your position, and rather than dealing with that you simply declare that anyone who points this out to you is being dogmatic and closed minded.

[trotsky]

114. No, apparently this crusade means far more to you, cbayer.

I think it stems directly from your need to lump "anti-theists" (a label which you oh-so-ironically force on others!) together with religious fundamentalists as being the "evil" team, so you can pretend they have no place at the table and don't deserve to be heard.

[djean111]

151. Hmmmmm - my near death experience is what made me an atheist!

I think we do agree that just because one does not believe in something that cannot be proved - does not mean that something is not true or does not exist.

[trotsky]

94. Please stop trying to tell me, an atheist, what I think.

I simply don't have belief in gods. I am an atheist. I reject how you use the label, cbayer. Stop being so abusive and controlling with language and telling me what I do or do not believe.

[Uben]

7. I'm way beyond agnostic, and not an athiest....

No, I don't believe there is some omnipotent being in the sky who sees all and knows all. I do, however, believe that our ancestors did encounter beings they deemed "gods" that came from the heavens (space). So, given that, I am disqualified as an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure if they believe in an omnipotent being from the heavens. Well, I sure believe there were, at one time, some beings from the heavens here on earth, so, not an agnostic.

The bible is a book written by men, not gods, to control the populace through religion. Only they have used that book to murder millions of people throughout the years, in the name of their so called god.

Personally, I could never worship any being. If a being wants to be worshipped, then I see that as a threat to humanity. What kind of a so-called god would require you to worship him? Certainly not a benevolent one..

So, I believe beings did visit earth. Whether you call em gods or dogs, doesn't matter...they were just beings from somewhere else. I also believe some of these beings did bring knowledge to the people and helped them while others may not have been so benevolent.

As far as these beings having perpetual life, I truly can't say. Any being that has the abiity to travel to earth is so much more advanced than we are that they may very well have developed a way to live in perpetuity.

So, what am I? Just a human being whose logical mind doesn't buy the sack of shit being sold by organized religion. Some of what they say are truths, some are not. Who wants to follow a religion like that? Not me.

I just prefer to be called anti-religious. I believe what I believe, and I prefer to call it realism. What you think really doesn't matter to me, but I will extend the courtesy of allowing you to believe what you want to. I do.

[cbayer]

8. Really interesting take and adds credence to my feeling

that there are as many ways of believing/not believing as there are individuals.

Does your concept incorporate evolution? Are the beings that visited more highly evolved beings that came from here or do you think they developed independently?

[Uben]

13. Yes, I believe evolution does play a part

I believe we are all subject to change through our environment. Survival of the fittest has it's impact on how both animals and plantlife evolve.

I have no idea where these beings came from....no one does. They may very well have related to humans where they came from in the past, but that has obviously been lost over the millennia.

My beliefs evolve, but this is where I am at right now. For me, it's got to work logically or it's myth.

[cbayer]

14. I have long believed that there is no way we are top of the evolutionary food chain.

I don't know what that means and can't really extrapolate, but with the possibly infinite possibilities, I just don't we could be it.

[Uben]

15. I concur....

Man might be at the top of known entities on earth, but looking back over time, our knowledge of our own planet is not that good. You put a man without a gun in a jungle with lions, tigers, and hippos, then see who is at the top of the food chain! Out there, he is looked at as "dinner".

[cbayer]

16. Good point.

I had the great fortune of traveling to Africa and saw very clearly who was the top of the food chain in that environment.

So the definition has to change depending on the circumstances.

But in terms of what we call "higher intelligence", I tend to think we hold that position on earth. But in the universe? Not really convinced of that.

And then I read "The Swarm", a book that I highly recommend and saw a perspective that completely changed the game for me. AFter that, I wasn't sure we even know all the forms of life that may exist on this planet.

[Uben]

18. I'm sure we don't know all forms that exist.....

.....in fact, there may be more unknown than known. There certainly must be forms of life that exist beyond our perceptions, ie light waves, frequencies, dimensional, etc. The extent of these entities knowledge is unknown. We may never know they exist at all!

[cbayer]

19. I definitely agree that what we know is much less than what we don't know.

But knowing humans, we will keep looking, even if our searches are called absurd or delusional or irrational.

And thank goodness for that.

[skepticscott]

10. If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist

If you take the position that you have seen no evidence yet to make you believe in any gods, but are still open to the possibility, you're still no different than most atheists.

If someone doesn't believe in any gods, they certainly don't have to self-identify as an atheist, if "agnostic" makes them feel less stigmatized or more intellectually superior, but that doesn't mean they aren't one. Someone who eats no meat is still a vegetarian whether or not they choose to call themselves one.

And good grief..the Mirriam Webster definition? It needs about 8 more definitions to be remotely comprehensible. I can imagine even a few self-proclaimed agnostics looking at that definition and thinking WTF?

[cleanhippie]

12. Even Christians are atheists. They just don't believe in one less god than us.

[trotsky]

17. Unfortunately there are some who still hate the word so much...

and hate the negative connotations that believers gave it so long ago, that they resist it even to the point of denying the basic meaning of the word, and insisting that those trying to use it according to its actual meaning are "forcing" it on others.

It is useless to try and argue with those people. Their minds are firmly shut and it is an emotional, not a rational position.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Oh boy. Here we go again.

Agnostic and atheist are not separate tiers on a hierarchy of disbelief. If you are not convinced god exists, but are not wholly committed to the idea god does not exist, you're still an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but an atheist all the same.

Why we have to keep going over this ground time and time again boggles the mind. Atheism and agnosticism are separate answers to separate questions. "Atheism" answers the question "Do you believe in god(s)?"; "Agnosticism" answers the question "Do you know god(s) to exist, or not exist?"

Knowledge is a subset of belief. The first question, "Do you believe in god(s)?" is general. The second question, "Do you know god(s) to exist, or not exist?" is specific. I don't believe in god(s), ergo I am an atheist; however, I do not claim to know for sure whether or not there are no god(s), ergo I am also agnostic.

I am an agnostic atheist. There are also agnostic theists, many of whom post here.

This isn't heavy stuff. It just seems to me people are looking for a nicer way to say they are atheists.

[cbayer]

23. That argument has been made over and over again here, but

many reject it not matter how often it is repeated.

I am one of those people.

Many people consider themselves agnostic and use a different definition and interpretation than you do.

They do not consider it just a modifier.

So you and others can keep beating this drum but it boggles the mind that an argument rejected by so many would continue to be made over and over again.

It has nothing to do with a nicer way of saying one is atheist for me, though I am sure that there are some that don't want that label. It has to do with leaving the options open.

I would love to see you debate this with Neil deGrasse Tyson who considers himself agnostic, despite the insistence of others that he is really an atheist.

[skepticscott]

25. Does it also boggle your mind, cbayer

that the arguments in favor of evolution, which have been rejected by so many, continue to be made over and over again?

Sometimes people who reject an argument over and over are simply ignorant and wrong, just as you consider creationists to be. Do you see the double standard here (again)?

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. That's fine.

But you're wrong, and so is everyone else who insists a there's a dichotomy where those two terms are concerned.

And how do I know you are wrong, you ask? Because you've uniformly failed to support your point beyond "I'd really like if we defined the word this way instead". I'm sorry, but words do have meaning, and you don't get to invent definitions from thin fucking air because it is more pleasing to you.

I would happily debate the fuck out of Neil deGrasse Tyson on this point. If he wants to lecture me on physics he's more than fucking welcome, but I already own a goddamned dictionary and I'm fairly fucking confident I have more semesters of philosophy under my belt.

[cbayer]

35. No, I'm not wrong, I just see it differently.

This isn't math, it's linguistics.

Words have meaning and those meanings can differ across cultures, experience and perspective. Very few words have an absolute definition and a simple search of the definition for agnostic will confirm that.

You embrace a single definition, but your embracing it doesn't eradicate all the other definitions out there.

I hope that if you get the chance to debate NGT, you will think about adopting his general tone of civility.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. I think you mean semantics...

...which is a subset of linguistics, much like knowledge is a subset of belief.

Just because words are sometimes fluid in their meaning doesn't mean you get to arbitrarily fabricate definitions from whole cloth. You're going to have to justify it with rational explanations.

I can offer a multitude where my position is concerned, the most obvious being, of course, that "agnosticism" is derived from the Greek word for "knowledge", and should therefore be limited to that specific subject. Any proposition on the issue of belief in gods may be adequately addressed by either "theism" or "atheism". If there's not enough evidence to convince you god exists, you're still taking an atheist position, regardless of how certain you are.

The ultimate goal of semantics should be to eliminate ambiguity of meaning. Your definition of agnostic does not accomplish this end, as there already exists words to describe the conditions in question. If you don't believe in god, you're atheist. If you don't care one way or the other, you're apathetic. Your definition of "agnostic" adds no nuance whatsoever to distinguish itself from these words.

NDT's suggestion that "agnostic" be used to describe people who aren't active in atheists circles, meanwhile, is laughable. "A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods but who doesn't care enough about the issue to debate Hamza Tzortzis"? Yeah, that's a wieldy definition alright.

Fortunately, Hemant Mehta already did a fine job disarming that argument:

He goes on to explain that one of the reasons he’s not an “atheist” is because the atheists he knows are fervent activists, fighting for that cause, debating god’s existence, etc. But again, that’s not what makes someone an atheist. You can be an atheist and never talk about it with anyone. If you don’t believe god exists, you’re an atheist. End of story. What you do with that belief is your business, but you don’t become a “bigger” atheist because you talk about it openly, and you’re not a “lesser” atheist if you don’t come out of the closet.

I hope that if you get the chance to debate NGT, you will think about adopting his general tone of civility.

I don't see why I wouldn't. NDT seems like a pretty nice guy.

[cbayer]

47. Ok, semantics.

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your position is clear. There are many who disagree with it.

In fact, most dictionaries disagree with it.

I've been around this circle too many times. I understand your argument, but you can't label me or others, no matter how much you want to.

NDT seems like a very nice guy indeed. He also sees little need to label others in this regard. I'm with him on that.

[PassingFair]

61. Besides you and your mate, I don't know ANYONE who disagrees with it.

Non-Religious works fine for me.

If I'm asked IRL what religion I am, I usually
reply that I'm an atheist.

If my children are involved, I use the word "secular"
or "unaffiliated" instead, because of the fear the word "atheist"
strikes in the ignorant.

[cbayer]

62. I'm glad it works for you and am surprised that you don't know anyone

who disagrees with it, despite the fact that there have been literally dozens of articles posted in this group where the authors disagreed with it.

And then there's one of my heroes, Neil deGrasse Tyson. But everyone knows he has no credibility.

You can define yourself as an atheist. Someone else may define themselves as a theist and yet another person as an agnostic. And hundreds of shades of grey in between.

Secular doesn't imply anything about whether one is religious or a theist at all. A religious theist can also be a secularist.

That's why it's important not to make these labels too narrow and to allow individuals to define themselves.

You use different terms and definitions in different circumstances. Who would I be to tell you that you are wrong?

[PassingFair]

63. Your "hero" is afraid of the brand.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/25/when-did-neil-degrasse-tyson-start-using-the-arguments-of-christian-apologists/

He has books to sell and speeches to be attended and much to lose.
In the same way that I don't want my children to have to defend the brand,
so I choose other words.

[cbayer]

64. Well so says one blogger, who I generally like but

also really oversteps his bounds by telling others what they are and aren't.

He's got nothing to lose. Shit, there are people making fortunes off of the atheist brand.

If you ever want to see his explanation about this, I think you will find that he is very thoughtful about this and not fearful of anything.

But I do agree that some people may adopt agnostic to avoid some degree of social stigma, but also to sometimes distance themselves from the anti-theists.

[skepticscott]

93. Nothing to lose? You really can't believe that.

Are you so naive as to think that the label of "atheist" won't damage just about any public figure?

Tyson has the big remake of Cosmos in the works. He's smart enough to know that if he stood up and declared himself a unqualified, unapologetic atheist, he'd damage his reputation and cost the series viewers and book sales. Is staying under the radar as an "agnostic" safer and more prudent, given the investment he has in the success of this series? Yes. Understandable to some extent? Yes. Is going to such elaborate lengths to defend his position just a wee bit disingenuous? Yeah, that too.

[eomer]

123. I don't think the meaning of words is determined by some kind of proof of logic, is it?

I'm not a student of linguistics but I would have thought that the meaning of words is mostly based on observing how they are used in practice. Is that not correct? (A source for your answer would be appreciated.)

[Act_of_Reparation]

137. No, you're not correct.

Words can have multiple, context-specific meanings. Definitions are derived by a variety of methods, of which observing common use is only one. Just because "theory", for example, is used popularly to describe "guesswork" doesn't change the fact that when used in the context of science, it means something much more specific.

And it doesn't matter how many mouth-breathers substitute "there" for "their"; the definition of "there" doesn't change.

[eomer]

150. Sure, but none of which is relevant to this discussion.

We're using the word "atheist" in ordinary conversation, not in some scientific context. Perhaps in an academic paper that invokes some specific analysis of religion then your more mathematically oriented definition might apply but in ordinary conversation the definition is looser and varies from one speaker to another. All you need do is refer to some dictionaries to see that, which is what cbayer did.

You won't find wrong usage of there/their/they're in dictionaries; you will find the definitions of atheist that cbayer cited in dictionaries - that's where she got them.

[trotsky]

37. There are literally millions of Americans, cbayer...

who believe that President Obama is a socialist. They use a different definition and interpretation of the word than you or I do.

It really boggles the mind that an argument made by so many, that the president is NOT a socialist, would continue to be made over and over again, doesn't it?

Your logic here is really, really sad. It is embarrassing to see you cling to it.

[gcomeau]

84. ...and never refuted.

(Appeals to what Neil Degrasse Tyson says are not a refutation. He can be wrong too, and on this he is. That simple.)

[cbayer]

89. Repeatedly refuted, just not to the satisfaction of those who have adopted it as dogma.

[gcomeau]

96. Denial is not refutation. -eom

[cbayer]

100. No it's not. And insistence is not veracity. -eom

[arcane1]

28. I've always found the term "agnostic" to be over-complicating.

You either believe in a god, or you don't. I'm not sure why some people need to create some sort of middle-ground there

[cbayer]

29. Because some people may vacillate or simply don't know whether they believe or not.

Or they may think there is something, but it's not the same concept that others have of a god.

I don't think it's that hard. Both theism and atheism imply a definitive position. Some people don't have such a definitive position.

[skepticscott]

34. Sorry, bullshit

Atheism does not "imply a definite position". Lacking belief in gods is not a definite position on anything, it is simply a state of being unconvinced.

We know you love to paint false equivalency between theism and atheism, between belief and non-belief, at every opportunity, cbayer, but it really is unsubstantiated baloney.

[trotsky]

60. You don't get to define atheism, cbayer.

Stop trying to label others. My atheism doesn't "imply a definitive position."

[Lint Head]

30. I think therefore there is a God? Not denying. Just a question. Religion and spirituality is a

quest. It is a search. For one to say they know the mind of God or an omnipresent being is no different than saying, "I know how you feel." No one can ever know how anyone really feels or really thinks or "be" that other person. Yet that other person actually exists. You can know something "about" that person. But you cannot "be" that person. Believing in God is just that. Believing. Faith is just that. Faith. Not proof or evidence. In the story of Jesus, Satan tempted Jesus to prove he was God by throwing himself off a cliff. He refused and there is a reason in that story he refused.

[cbayer]

31. I think that is part of the argument the author is making.

To be agnostic implies that you are still searching, still looking, still open to the possibilities.

It doesn't imply belief or faith, just a question.

In the story, Jesus didn't have to prove anything. And Satan probably still wouldn't have believed him.

[Lint Head]

36. To be 'sure' of something based on a guess, faith or belief is a fools errand.

Christianity is a search. It is a search for proof. I have lost count of how many people are searching for the the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, what Christ looked like, the actual grave of Christ, a sliver of the wood from the cross, the robe, the place where Christ was born and who actually were the "names" of the scribes who wrote and edited the words that eventually became the Bible as modern human beings know it. Constantine apparently oversaw it and made sure men were superior to women but had very little to do with the minute decisions of every word included.

[cbayer]

40. To say nothing of the search for a god.

[Brettongarcia]

33. For Christians: if God "fills all things," then with luck, whatever you do will have God in it

Whether you are thinking about it, or not.

But probably whenever you feel you are doing something "Good" especially.

Though this also means that just trying to do "good," and not being religious, might be good enough. An Atheist being good, and a Christian who does good but never thinks of God, might be very, very close.

St. Paul seems to flirt with that: he tells us to do "whatever is good." Without slavish adherence to religious "law" or rules; "all things are lawful," he suggests. Though here Paul becomes a little anarchistic.

The New Testament suggests especially that even a non Jew or Christian who is good, a good "Samaritan," is better "neighbor." Better than a priest or rabbi of the "right" religion who however, does not do good things.

In this way, after much name-fetishization, the Bible finally begins to get past "names" like "Jewish" or "Christian"; and begins to focus more on those who do good.

[drmeow]

39. I have the right

to call myself whatever I want with regard to my beliefs about god(s) and anyone who is not inside my head reading my every thought does not have the right to judge whether the label I choose to use is "right" based on whether it fits his/her perception of what I should call myself. Or, at the very least, I have the right to reject that judgement.

I'm not stumped by the question, "what did you do for God this week?" - my response is "Why do I have to do anything for God this week?" When I was Catholic, I didn't feel like I had to do "anything for God this week" any more than I do now. Doing something for God presumes a certain type of god (one for whom I must "do something for every week&quot and the legitimacy of certain religious practices. To me this has more to do with whether I am religious or not than whether I believe or don't believe in a god - and, frankly, I have NO PROBLEM saying I am not at all religious and that I don't believe in religion (or the legitimacy of religion if you prefer).

But don't try to pin your label on me - I am not a theist, atheist, or agnostic based on your judgement ... I am one of those things based on MY judgement - period.

[cbayer]

41. I agree with you. You have the right to resist any labels and only you

can define yourself when it comes to religious beliefs (and many other things as well).

I found his question about doing something for god this week strange as well. His overall point seemed to be that if one considers themselves agnostic, that should imply that they are still searching. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I have trouble make the connection to doing something for god.

[drmeow]

48. There seems to be some confusion

between labels about (a)theism and finding meaning based on (a)theism. As I implied in my post - to me one is about belief and the other is about religion. It seems to suggest that belief/non-belief = action/non-action. If you take the God part out, does it make sense:

I am not sure whether there is corruption in US politics or not. Have I done anything about corruption in politics this week? WTF?

[cbayer]

49. I'm not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying that the label (a)theism defines whether one believes in god or not, but there is a more complex meaning that defines whether you are religious or not?

As to the author, I think what he was trying to say is this.

I am not sure whether there is corruption in US politics or not. Have I done anything to further my ability to answer that question correctly this week?

[drmeow]

52. Sorry - you're right, I wasn't very clear

To me there is belief in god(s) and there is degree of religiosity. The rise of "atheist churches" highlights the disconnect between the two. One can believe in God and not be very religious (my dad), one can believe in God and be very religious (my mom), one can not believe in God but be religious (those atheist churches), and one can not believe in God and not be religious. And one can be unsure and be either religious or not religious.

The author seems to be suggesting that belief must be connected to action and non-belief must be connected to inaction. In addition, the author seems to say that a true agnostic must be active because by being inactive they are, by definition, atheist rather than agnostic. If I apply that logic to the question of corruption in US politics, it does not make sense. To parallel his question about God:

What did you do for corruption this week?

If I did nothing for corruption this week, does that, de facto, mean that I don't believe there is corruption in US politics? If I am truly unsure about whether there is corruption in politics, must I do something for it?

Why is believing in the existence of God different from believing in the existence of corruption in the US political system in terms of action/inaction? Why is belief in God or not belief in God so special that it has to be different from other beliefs?

[cbayer]

53. I agree with your distinction.

This can also be seen in the rising number of "nones" who may maintain a belief in god (or something) but claim no religion.

I see where the belief=action, non belief=inaction comes in when it comes to being religious. I think he is saying that if you take the position that you don't know, then you are somehow obligated to keep looking (be active).

I disagree with him on that point. You can simply not care.

So if you follow the corruption argument, I can say that I didn't look to see if there is corruption or not because I really don't care. I might care next week or if it begins to effect me personally, but right now, I don't care.

I don't think belief or lack of belief are that special. But I do think they are used to draw lines and divide otherwise similar populations. Personally, I find that a problem within the democrat party and one of my goals is to make that divide smaller and less meaningful.

When people insist that you must be one or the other, that is counterproductive, imo.

This is one of the reasons that the term "apatheism" resonates with me to some extent. It more fully expresses that not caring part.

[drmeow]

55. Sounds like we

pretty much agree, at least in terms of the big picture

I do like your term "apatheism":

Do you believe in God?

Meh!

[cbayer]

58. Meh is the correct answer for me.

[trotsky]

56. RESIST LABELS!!!

We need to rename this website! Who was given the right to call us all Democrats?!?

[drmeow]

134. What is fascinating to me

about this thread is the hostility of the "you must be a theist or an atheist, you cannot genuinely not be sure" camp. They must have a lot of ego invested in the labels atheist and theist for a challenge to that to be such a threat.

[trotsky]

138. Well I guess the important thing is that you got some personal insults in.

That certainly proves how much better you are than everyone else.

[drmeow]

141. Your

Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

[cbayer]

139. That's been going on here for quite a while.

I have my theories about it, but am not quite sure about the fury that accompanies it.

IMO, we will make the most progress towards unity when we recognize that believers and non-believers come in all kinds of flavors and stop trying to force someone into 2 single designations.

This place can be rough, but I hope to see you around more. If you can get past the screaming into the wind, you can have some great conversations.

[drmeow]

148. Well, I've been around DU

since 2007 (can't remember how long I lurked before I registered but I registered in August) so I'm used to the screaming in the wind. I don't spend any time in this group because, as I largely said in other posts in this thread, belief in god(s) is not something I feel the need to examine too closely and I work at a center that studies religion (and conflict . The last thing I usually want to do is talk about religion and theology in my off time! I spend my time in greatest threads and occasionally latest threads which (I think) is where I saw this one originally. I also don't post much cause except for the most innocuous posts, it seems like pretty much anything can trigger a derisive/defensive/argumentative response ... and I decided that most of the time it isn't worth it. I learn a lot from DU and it has, at times, really changed my view on something but (although I forget this regularly and then regret it) I really feel that the only safe posts for me to make are those which either provide factual information or ask questions to get information rather than those that state my opinion.

As for the fury - one theory would be that when you challenge someone's core beliefs you tend to induce fury. I suspect that for many of the "there can only be theists and atheists" crowd, their personal processing of this question has made it a core belief (regardless of what side they sit on, the theist or the atheist side) - for any number of reasons. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but by saying "there can be other categories besides those two" we are, in essence, saying to those people "one of your core beliefs - one of the foundational pieces of your world view - is WRONG" and, because it is a core belief, that can have all sorts of threatening implications.

On the other side - the "there are more than two groups" side - the fury can come from a different place. The very fact that we accept that uncertainty can part of this construct makes it virtually impossible for it to be a core belief. That doesn't mean that being told we are wrong doesn't infuriate us. It is not challenging a foundation part of our world view but we are never-the-less feeling attacked. From our perspective, we're saying "I accept your labels and allow you to retain your label but I have a 3rd label for myself" and their counter is "you must conform to my label." We feel that they are saying "I know you better than you know yourself - you are actually deluding yourself with your agnostic label and you just won't admit that you are theist/atheist." There is an implication of lack of maturity and an explicit accusation of delusional thinking which contains within it an implication of mental illness (from Wikipedia:

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression&quot

So for us it comes down to "I don't accept your label" being countered with "there is something wrong with you." (Case in point, we call their position dogma, not delusion.)

So, in summary, it comes down to challenging who some is as a person vs challenging someone's mental state. Both can be pretty fury inducing.

[cbayer]

149. I'm glad that you have found your space here.

I started frequenting this group when we switched to DU3. Like Obama, I thought (somewhat naively) that there was an opportunity here for some "bipartisanship" when it comes to religion. Although that has been accomplished to some extent, there still exists a level of hostility that is sometimes difficult to ignore and chases a lot of people off.

There is no doubt that some of this is driven by core beliefs and that challenging those beliefs hits at the heart of identity for some. But again, most people who post here have a degree of flexibility is admirable and there have been many meeting of the minds when it seemed like that couldn't possibly happen.

I have particular objections to psychiatric terms being used to describe religious believers and have had many "lively" debates about that here. While I agree that there are terms that also have more "common" definitions than their strict psychiatric definitions, my experience is that they are still used to imply that religious believers are by definition psychiatrically ill. As Dawkins says, "Religion - together we can find a cure", which is pretty damn explicit.

Your work sounds very interesting and I hope you will continue to share your experience and perspective here. You can expect to be "challenged" (and that is a clear euphemism, imo), but as another member has said, if you carefully step around the cow pies you can actually have a positive and enlightening experience.

[drmeow]

152. I come to DU

the vast majority of days, usually multiple times a day - but I only post, on average, about once a day (naturally not daily but that's my average rate). I posted more at the beginning but I don't really want to spend my leisure time "stepping around the cow pies" as you put it . Particularly egregious cows definitely end up on my ignore list - the challenge with ignore, of course, is you have to be comfortable with letting them have the last word . Since the perception of me that people I don't know have and their (most likely smug) satisfaction of having gotten in the last word are basically irrelevant to me, I don't have a problem with that. My triumphs come from much more immediate sources than the internet.

I use DU get a progressive perspective on current issues, not just the news but things people say here. As I said in an earlier post, I've learned a lot and sometimes changed my mind about things because of DU and I'm much more informed than some of my connections thanks to DU. And more often than not I just walk away from the discussions that make my blood boil rather than engaging - I find that is much better for my sanity.

[skepticscott]

145. Some of us just like to see the truth recognized

But come on...no one here is going up to people on the street and asking them whether they believe in any gods, then sticking a big "A" or "T" on their chest based on the answer, or even proposing anything remotely like that. But when someone makes a big public show of saying, "Look at me.. I'm an agnostic, not an atheist!", then it's entirely appropriate to comment back and point out the flaws in what they're saying. Particularly when that declaration is accompanied (as it often is) by an air of intellectual superiority, coupled with gross misstatement of the position of most atheists.

[skepticscott]

44. As noted, you can

CALL yourself whatever you want. But if you don't believe in any gods, you're still an atheist, whether you like it or not, and no matter how strenuously you reject that label. If you don't eat meat, you're a vegetarian, whether you use that label or not. If you eat meat every night, you can call yourself a "vegetarian" all the live-long day, and it still doesn't make you a vegetarian. And if someone like that were to say "my definition of vegetarian is someone who eats meat every day", you'd be right to regard them as a bit of a kook.

[drmeow]

50. Am I allowed to

not be sure if I believe in any gods or not? I have to believe or I have to not believe? I can't say "there might be gods, I don't know." Does that automatically mean I believe? And if I really am not sure, do I really have to care enough to find out or try to make a decision. Perhaps I am one of those people who is comfortable with uncertainty. Perhaps I am going to behave in a certain way whether or not gods exist so I don't really care if the question gets answered before I'm dead or not.

The vegetarian argument is something of a false equivalency - behaviors are concrete. Eating meat is a concrete behavior - it can be measured and observed. Attitudes and beliefs are not concrete. They are very hard to measure and observe. One of the things which makes psychology a social science rather than a science is that we are only able to measure attitudes and beliefs by self report or by proxy. If you gave me a questionnaire right now with a question on it which said "do you believe that god(s) exist" I would answer "not sure" or "don't know." If you can point out some definitive behaviors which are absolute, indisputable evidence that someone does or does not believe in gods then I will accept that as a comparison (proxies have only limited reliability because, as we can clearly see from the majority of the Republican party, people's stated beliefs do not always match their observed behaviors).

(For the record, I have a PhD in psychology and I currently manage research projects at the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict - so I know quite a bit about measuring latent attitudes and beliefs and about measuring latent religious attitudes and beliefs in particular.)

[Goblinmonger]

51. Let's parse this apart a bit.

I can't say "there might be gods, I don't know."

Yes. You can absolutely say that.

But, if you say that, we still need to answer the question "Do you believe in god(s)?" From what I have above, your answer would be "no." You leave open that there might be gods but you aren't sure but as of the moment of that statement, you do not believe in a god or gods so you would be an atheist.

Your statement more gets to the gnosticism portion of the discussion. Which is basically, "do you have information about the believe int the god?" Or, perhaps we could call that proof or knowledge or something similar. Your answer seems to be "no, you don't have knowledge." So that would make you and agnostic atheist. If you said, "There are no gods" that might put you in the gnostic atheist category.

[drmeow]

54. What you are saying

is that I can go from theist to atheist from moment to moment. Because maybe as of that moment I do believe in god(s). Can I both believe in god(s) and not believe in god(s)?

Must all beliefs be absolute and defined? Are there any beliefs where someone can be truly unsure about how they believe? Personally, I have seen too much conflict about other beliefs and too much lack of certainty about other beliefs to think that beliefs must be fixed as belief or non-belief. And I don't think belief in god(s) is special in any way resulting it in being different from other beliefs. If other beliefs can be conflicted and uncertain, belief about god(s) can also be conflicted and uncertain.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Well you could

but as a psychologist that might be an indication of a bigger problem. I mean, who goes from "I believe in God" to "I believe in no Gods" to "I believe in God" in the course of 5 seconds? And it's not about doubt or questioning.

Again, psychological problems aside, I don't think you can simultaneously believe and not believe in god. At least I would think that is some serious cognitive dissonance.

You can be unsure, but you should know whether you believe in a god. If you do, then you are a theist. You can parse out the specifics of what that god means on your own good time. If you don't believe in a god, then you are an atheist. It's pretty simple and binary as to that distinction. What that theism/atheism looks like, functions as, or means to you is much more difficult for sure.

[skepticscott]

65. Obviously you are

But until you reach a state where you actually believe in one or more gods, you're in a state of not believing in any gods (i.e. atheism). And you're in that state whether or not you care about what state you're in, and regardless of what you personally choose to call that state.

And no, actually, belief in this case is not all that hard to get a handle on. You ask someone "How many gods do you actively believe in?" If the answer is "none", they're an atheist. If the answer is some number that is 1 or more, then they're not an atheist. If their answer is "I don't know", then I would regard them as either being deliberately evasive, or so out of touch with what's in their own mind (since they're not even aware of their own active beliefs, as a normal person would be) that I would dismiss them as not worth engaging intellectually. As I also would if they said "well, two weeks ago, I believed in three gods, and last week I didn't believe in any, but this week I'm only believing in one."

Even a mule won't stand between two piles of hay long enough to starve.

[drmeow]

67. You are operating under the assumption

that it is not possible for humans to have two competing/contradictory beliefs or attitudes or that human beings cannot truly be unsure about a belief. I reject that assumption. You are also operating under the assumption that belief or not belief in God is so important that not examining that belief deeply enough to decide one way or the other is akin to starvation. I also reject that assumption.

Another hypothetical metaphysical question - personally, I truly am unsure if there is an afterlife or not. When I think about this in my head, I literally cannot decide one way or another. The only thing I am sure about is that I cannot know the answer until after I am dead. But since that is the case, I'm not going to worry about it.

Why is it not possible that I literally cannot decide whether god(s) truly exist or not? For one thing, that means I need to define "god" - is god a bearded man or energy or some sort of collective consciousness which has the capacity to function independently of the sum of its parts or is it some nebulous 'higher power' and what exactly does that mean. It is not like I can possibly know until I reach a state of being (presumably death) when any god(s) that exist reveal(s) itself to me. What I do know is that I do not believe that a god exists who is monitoring my every action or who intervenes in my life or who actually gives a damn about whether I believe or not. But that's only one possible definition of "god".

I don't really care all that much whether I believe in god(s) or not. I'm not changing my behavior either way because belief or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to my life. Maybe one or more gods exist, maybe they don't. I think about this and I can't make up my mind and I don't know and I don't care. It is not a matter of choosing between two different piles of hay or starving to death, it is a matter of choosing between chocolate, vanilla, or maybe I'll skip ice cream tonight.

[skepticscott]

71. The flaw in all of your thinking

is that there is more than a wee difference between knowing whether you should believe in something (i.e. whether the evidence is sufficient to justify belief), and knowing whether you actually do believe in something at any particular moment in time. The latter is what defines atheism, but you're all hung up on the former. Did they not teach you the difference in psychology school?

[drmeow]

133. There is no such thing

as psychology school and I'm not going to try to explain 8 years of college and grad school training in psychology in an on-line forum. I'm also not going to waste my time providing my analysis of your personality based on the particular theoretical orientation I ascribe to - but it has been fascinating observing your response pattern within the context of that theory. Since I don't actually conduct research testing that theory directly, I haven't actually thought this deeply about it in at least 6 years and that's been rather refreshing, truth be told. Nothing like a little anecdotal evidence to confirm your theoretical orientation!

If you want to become one of my students, I would have a motivation to spend the time to impart some of my knowledge to you. But when you start to imply that somehow I either failed to acquire knowledge during my education or my educational institution failed to impart something you consider knowledge, you cease to be someone I wish to engage with, not matter how amusing analyzing your responses might be.

In closing, I refuse to accept your attitude that you know what is in my mind better than I do and I will choose to label myself exactly how I want to label myself. And I'll tell you one thing I learned in psychology: in the context of MY life, my label for myself is the only one that matters - not matter how much you dislike that label. I like it, I'm happy with it, it successfully groups me with like minded individuals, and should I ever participate in a psychology study about religion, the researchers conducting the study will accept it as a valid response, even if you won't.

[skepticscott]

144. I didn't go to psychology school

but your pattern of behavior is very familiar to me, being repeated more times on this board that I could count.

When confronted with a substantial point that undermines your position, do everything you can to avoid responding directly to it in any way. Go off on long, rambling tangents, get snarky, try to re-establish a position of intellectual superiority by academic puffery, pretend that the evidence for your claim is "out there" and that you have no need or desire to present it, or try to pretend that no substantive point has been raised (and in the last case, it was that there is a significant difference between not knowing whether you should believe in something based on the available evidence, and not knowing whether you actually do believe in it or not).

And once again, as noted, you're free to call and consider yourself whatever you like, but that doesn't necessarily make it so in any rational or objective way. You can call and consider yourself a lawyer, and represent lots of happy clients, but if you haven't passed the bar exam and been licensed to practice, your argument that YOUR label for yourself is the only one that matters will fly like a lead balloon, when you're charged in court.

And while I'm sure being your student is quite the experience, I think you've been schooled enough for now.

[gcomeau]

85. True...

Heck you could call yourself a toy car if you wanted.

You wouldn't be one, but you have the right to call yourself one.

"I am not a theist, atheist,..."

Unless we're considering something like deism as seperate from theism... yes you are. Since there are no alternatives to those categories. But if you want to call yourself something else( like a toy car), go ahead.

But the reality will be unaltered. And people will continue pointing out you are not in fact a toy car.

[cbayer]

91. Ah, but there are alternatives to those two categories.

And I would say that the majority of people know that.

You make the same argument that was made about being "negro". One drop made you black, while there were many brown areas in between. Even if 7/8's caucasian, people would still point out to you that you weren't, in fact, caucasian.

Fortunately we have moved beyond that and see people on a spectrum. Time to do that with religious/spiritual beliefs as well.

[gcomeau]

95. No there are not.

And the majority of people can be claimed to "know" a lot of silly things that aren't true.


"You make the same argument that was made about being "negro"."

It's not even remotely similar, let alone the same. The fact that theism and atheism comprise a complete set of all possibilities is a function of a basic law of logic, not an arbitrary classification criteria. Atheism is, literally, "not-theism". Or, if theism is "A" then atheism is "not-A".

Now look up the Law of the Excluded Middle.

[cbayer]

99. So you hold the truth and all those that disagree with you

just claim to "know" silly things?

I don't know. If everyone says you have a tail, you might want to take a look at your backside.

Your position is clear. I find it very dogmatic and don't agree with it. But it's useful for proselytizing and sure to be used by some religious people who also take the "one way" approach to things.

I looked up Law of the Excluded Middle and I think it makes my point more than it makes yours.

In the case of god, it is either true that a god exists or true that a god does not exist.

Since no one knows which of those things are true, it is perfectly logical to take the position of neither believing nor disbelieving until there is more data.

That would make someone agnostic and neither a theist nor an atheist.

And that is how many people define themselves.

[gcomeau]

103. Sigh...

You can throw around all the empty accusations of dogmatism you want. Logic is logic. If what you claim is a clear cut logical contradiction then what you claim is wrong and that's the end of it.

"I looked up Law of the Excluded Middle and I think it makes my point more than it makes yours.

In the case of god, it is either true that a god exists or true that a god does not exist. "

WHICH IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?

Theism is not "God exists". Atheism is not "God does not exist.

Theism is the possession of THE BELIEF that God exists. and atheism is NOT POSSESSING THAT BELIEF. Whether God actually does exist or not has not one single teeny tiny little thing to do with whether you are an atheist or theist. Not one. So stop bring up that you don't know if God exists. I don't either. Still an atheist. Because "does god exist" is not the question under analysis when we are talking about whether a person is theist or atheist


Please try to get that one simply fact through your head.

[cbayer]

105. And I think your logic is faulty.

It is also in stark disagreement with the generally accepted meaning and use of several words.

While logic may be valuable, disregard for other interpretations is very illogical.

You can explain it as many times as you wish and I am sure I can explain my position to you as many times as I wish.

But I doubt that either of us is going to concede on this.

For me, I will continue to communicate with others using terms and definitions that are widely accepted and make sense to the people I am talking to.

And you can continue to beat the drum that despite dictionaries and encyclopedias and papers and articles and hordes of individuals and everything else that flies in the face of it, your definitions are the only correct ones and can not be challenged.

I don't think that is going to work out all that well in terms of furthering your goal of improving communication, but I don't think it's going to change.

[gcomeau]

108. It's not "my" logic. It's a basic logical law.

And when the generally accepted use of a word violates basic logical laws then the generally accepted usage is stupid and irrational and incorrect.


Lots of people saying "1+1=7" doesn't make 1+1=7.

[trotsky]

110. But you're the one telling others that your definitions can't be challenged, cbayer.

And along with it, you demonize and smear them. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

[LostOne4Ever]

69. How does one avoid making a label?

A lot of this article has to do with the labels and definitions we use when we use the word "atheist" or "agnostic." A lot of us get into a tizzy when it comes to these labels and reading through the comments here I can't help but wonder how do we avoid labeling each other?

I get not wanting to be labeled by others. I really do. But how does one avoid being labeled? I consider myself an implicit atheist. I define it as a lack of belief in any god(s). To me its not a definitive position but simply a lack of one.

Lets says another person, Lets call him/her person A, rejects that definition. And says that an agnostic, not an atheist, is the one without a belief in any gods. Or says

My definition labels person A as an atheist which they reject. Their definition labels me as "not" an atheist which I reject. One person uses a definition of Belief that makes it binary. You either believe or don't believe. Another rejects that. They created a definition that includes a middle ground. Both end up labeling different people differently.

No matter how one approaches this mine field there seems to be no way for one group not to label the other, meanwhile any attempt to have a discussion on related issues is muddles because everyone is using a different definition.

My conservative theist friend refuses to accept the definition of atheism I give him insisting that atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Further that atheism is a religion because religions are beliefs about gods and the the divine. Do I not have a right to tell him he is wrong?

The moment I try he goes and points at someone that rejects the atheist label and uses a definition that claims atheist believe there is no god? Then he points at another and another and another. Whether I like it or not, I shall be labeled by them and any conversation I try to have with my theist friend will be bogged down in endless semantics. This will happen again and again and again. I can not escape it and these type of debates are going on in cases of church and state which means it can affect me.

Its like when Oprah told Diana Nyad that she was not an atheist. Oprah was using her own definition.

Beyond that, how can we ever remove the stigma on the word atheist that was created by hundreds, no thousands, of years of discrimination if people insist on constantly redefining it for fear of being associated with something they view as being negative? NDT, for example, used the word "atheist behaviour." In so doing hasn't he only given another voice to the stigma? Not only that, but an authoritative voice in the minds of countless people. How am I to convince anyone that the "A" word is not a dirty word when a respected scientist like him says that?

How am I to help bring about change when there can never be an objective definition? Again, I get not wanting to be labeled; but is it too much to ask for something to point to so that I can either go "see, I am right." or go "Oops. You are right and I am wrong."

[skepticscott]

73. Think of it this way

If your friend told you he was a vegetarian, but you knew he ate meat every day, would you be justified in telling him "uh, no..sorry..you're NOT a vegetarian"?

[cbayer]

74. I think there are things you can do.

I think that "christian" has become the c-word because it was co-opted by the religious right and that the religious left needs to take it back.

Perhaps the same thing has happened with atheism?

The argument is often made there that people claim to be agnostic because they don't want to be seen as an atheist. There are two reasons for that I can see. The first is that there is prejudice and lack of tolerance towards atheists in some areas of this country and being known as one could have significant consequences. But another is that some people don't want to be associated with some of the people who are seen as the primary spokespeople for atheism (the four horsemen, specifically).

BTW, I don't think NDT chooses not to be labeled as an atheist for either of those reasons. I think he makes a good case for agnosticism. I know it resonates with me. I do agree that it is unfortunate if he has added to the stigma. I would wonder if that was his intent (I doubt it).

[trotsky]

76. I would argue that atheists are TRYING to take it back.

This false notion that one must have an ACTIVE disbelief in god, or some kind of denial of god, is one that was thrust upon atheists by believers. So you're fighting for the status quo, and I'm trying to take the word back.

[Brettongarcia]

72. The point? Maybe this: many who think they are "agnostics," are really atheists

[TDale313]

78. I tend to find few things more disrespectful

Than telling someone the way they self-identify is "wrong"- whether that be religion, politics, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[trotsky]

79. skepticscott has the best counterexample to this objection.

Say someone calls themselves a vegetarian, but they eat meat regularly.

Is it disrespectful to tell that person their self-identification is wrong because they eat meat?

[skepticscott]

87. I think the religionists

and their cronies here long ago gave up the quaint notion of answering direct questions in a discussion.

[TDale313]

119. IMO, it generally

Costs very little to respect how someone self identifies. Even if you don't get it, even if the theory doesn't always match the practice or the internal doesn't seem to match the external. If I'm curious, I may ask more, see why they self identify that way. If not, shrug, no skin off my nose. You can find exceptions, I'm sure, and we're talking about most cases and situations where there's no harm being done. It hurts telling someone something personal and key to how you view yourself and have them scoff or argue or say "No you're not"

I would also point out that what this article is saying is closer to "there's no such thing as bisexual" than that someone who eats meat is not vegetarian. It's questioning the whole catagory.

[trotsky]

120. So your answer to my question is....? n/t

[skepticscott]

122. What a shock

an evasive, rambling, dodging, non-answer from a religionist.

You'd think that if a question was that uncomfortable for someone to simply answer directly, it would lead to a little reflection and re-examination of entrenched beliefs. Funny how that never, ever seems to happen here.

[TDale313]

132. Ok, short answer? Yes.

I would hypothetically still find it disrespectful to tell your meat eating vegetarian "no, you're not!" Call me a crackpot.

Longer answer? We're dealing with things a lot more complex than this, things that go to the core of who someone is and how they see themselves, often without such clear cut definitions. Without a seriously pressing reason, when they tell me "this is who I am" my gut says respect that. I'm just not a big fan of defining for someone else who they get to say they are or how they see themselves.

[trotsky]

136. Ah I think we're getting somewhere.

You think it's "disrespectful." But is it accurate?

Would I offend you if I called you a Democrat?

[TDale313]

142. No, I wouldn't be offended to be called a Dem

Because I am. But my friend (who is still a Registered Dem and has always voted Dem, will likely vote Dem in the future) does not self identify as a Dem at this point. After he's made that clear, do I have any business *continuing* to argue "But, but, but...you really are cause x,y, z" It's not so much the initial understanding, it's refusing to accept someone's right to self identify that I take some issue with.

[trotsky]

143. So you agree that terms can be used accurately,

you just think it's rude to point out if someone is using them inaccurately?

[TDale313]

146. Not quite, although I know it can be read that way.

I think the definitions we're talking about are more complicated than that. I think my friend is not a Democrat, because clearly by his definition he's not. I'm not just being polite, that's the reality.

[trotsky]

147. Certainly I think the definitions for words like Democrat or Christian...

are much more complicated than that of, say, atheism. Would you agree?

[cbayer]

80. I agree with you. You have the right to resist any labels and only you

Attempts to label others is generally an attempt to classify them in a way that fits your agenda.

And when it comes to things like beliefs, it is particularly disrespectful.

[trotsky]

82. Ah, you mean like you use the label "anti-theist" to marginalize others and suit your agenda!

I understand now - thanks cbayer!

[skepticscott]

86. Oh, you mean like

calling people "intolerant bigots"? Or goose stepping hateists? Or ass-kissing appeasers? What's the agenda that those labels are designed to fit?

[Goblinmonger]

81. Hi, I'm goblinmonger. I'm a conservative Roman Catholic.

I don't believe in god. Jesus wasn't even a historical reality. The Pope is a scam and I never listen to what he says.

I'm a conservative Roman Catholic. And a lesbian. And a cowboy. And African-American.

[nirvana555]

115. This has always confused me and I'd love clarification (I admit, I haven't read every

Post here). Does being an atheist mean "I know for sure that there is no God?" And does being Agnostic mean "I don't know if there is a God or not."? I guess my question would be, how can anyone KNOW there is no God? I'm not being argumentative at all. It's a sincere question..

[skepticscott]

116. Do you KNOW there is no Santa Claus?

Do you KNOW that there is no guy in a red suit and a white beard who flies all over on Xmas eve in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, comes down chimneys and leaves presents, and consumes lots of milk and cookies? Or are you not certain whether such a person exists or not? Are you an agnostic about Santa?

[cbayer]

117. You are likely to get a variety of answers to this question, but it's a good one.

If you are interested, there is a lot of debate in this thread about what the exact definitions are.

There are also a variety of definitions available in various dictionaries.

There are those that are going to say that one is either a theist or an atheist. They will take the position that you either have a belief in god or you don't. That doesn't mean that you know for sure that there isn't a god, you just don't believe in one. Most people who define themselves as atheist also say that they are agnostic to some extent - that they don't know for sure, but they don't believe in god.

Valid positon and held by many people.

Then there are those who are going to say that atheism means a disbelief or denial in god. That wouldn't just be a statement that they don't believe in a god, but that they actively deny that there is a god or hold a disbelief in god. Those people might also say that agnosticism is a wholly separate position in which the person says that they neither believe nor disbelieve in gods, but they just don't know and don't feel they can take a position.

It's actually a point of contention at times, but it can lead to an interesting debate.

So, any answers you get here should be taken with a grain of salt, because there is no right answer.

[Goblinmonger]

118. Here's what I believe is a very simple distinction between the two

I think far too many people here are trying to muddy the waters with "words can mean whatever you want" and "people can define themselves however they want." Which, sure, they can but that doesn't mean the words they are using in whatever way they want don't independently have meanings. So here is the simple breakdown of the words.

[trotsky]

121. There's a reason some hate that chart. It reveals something they don't like to think about.

Namely, that they label the person who says "There are no gods, and I know this" as a horrible extremist, but the person who says "There is a god, and I know it" is a kind, caring believer.

[Starboard Tack]

124. Correction, you are a monger of goblins, nasty little devils.

You protect the demons who come here to cause mischief. That's why you are also marginalizing yourself. Enjoy.

[skepticscott]

125. Oh woe is you

You too have been "marginalized" by holy decree of our resident appeaser. No more to be spoken well of around the bayer dinner table. No more to be favored by their much-sought-after wisdom.

How WILL you cope?