Current Poll (Religion)

[mhuzzell]

Why are Atheism and Agnosticism lumped together?

Both are usually non-religious, yes, but there is a BIG difference between Agnosticism, which merely doubts the existence of a deity, and Atheism, which actively denies the existence of a deity.

There is also a difference, albeit more subtle, between 'active' agnosticism and simply not caring whether or not there is some sort of deity.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Frank George]

It appears that The Sinner is truly worthy of its name!

[[James]]

Personally, I would rather have seen all the religious options lumped in together, with separate options for atheism and agnosticism. Or, alternatively, we could've asked the question "do you believe in intelligent design/creationism?" with yes, no and maybe as answers.

Anyway, 72% isn't bad - in a study conducted this year by the National Centre for Social Research, 69% of respondents said they either did not belong to a religion or never attended a religious service. What we need now is for agnostics and those who are indifferent to the debate to actively participate in atheism.

[Haunted]

I forgot Pantheism, apologies to all pantheists.

Rather than just expand atheist/agnostic into a spectrum we could also expand theism into a spectrum between things like "There most definitely is a God" and "I think these is a God and will thus act accordingly".

But of course there are never enough options and the differences between agnosticism and atheism here are not significant enough to merit separate options. I feel this layout gives an accurate spread.


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[oddly familiar]

So people who claim to beleive in something, but who don't go to church (or equivalent) eh? Whats with them? Do they think there's something there but don't care whrther or not it thinks well of them? or is it just socially unnacceptable in some circles to say you don't beleive in at least 1 god?

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[mhuzzell]

Quoting Haunted from 11:25, 10th Aug 2007
But of course there are never enough options and the differences between agnosticism and atheism here are not significant enough to merit separate options. I feel this layout gives an accurate spread.

Of course there are never enough options to represent everyone, but surely there's room for more options and subtlety between these two. Atheism vs Agnosticism is not exactly a spectrum. A similarly constructed poll (in the other direction) might read:

Atheist

Agnostic/religious

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[exnihilo]

Quoting oddly familiar from 11:54, 10th Aug 2007
So people who claim to beleive in something, but who don't go to church (or equivalent) eh? Whats with them? Do they think there's something there but don't care whrther or not it thinks well of them? or is it just socially unnacceptable in some circles to say you don't beleive in at least 1 god?

Perhaps they don't feel that it is necessary to go to church to access their deity, perhaps rather than a transcendent being reachable only through arcane ritual they believe in an immanent deity? Attendance at a place of worship is not a necessary factor of faith.

That said, I am always reminded in these instances of the Mitchell & Webb sketch in the church with the young couple, new to the area, being confronted by the evil priest: "Oh, you're 'spiritual' are you? 50% being sorry your nan's dead and 50% liking kittens. Well I wouldn't give a ha'penny jizz for your internet-harvested philosphy..."

[Power Metal Dom]

I love that programme and that sketch is spot on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiyltvIcEQ

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[exnihilo]

Personally, I preferred the radio version, but it's still good. As is the waiter, "take your gaudy, but gratifyingly mute, girlfriend and get out."

[Haunted]

Quoting mhuzzell from 12:56, 10th Aug 2007
Of course there are never enough options to represent everyone, but surely there's room for more options and subtlety between these two. Atheism vs Agnosticism is not exactly a spectrum. A similarly constructed poll (in the other direction) might read:

Atheist

Agnostic/religious

No I think thats even more of stretch.
People who are agnostic about a God cannot be called people of faith, far from it. People of faith believe. Technically we must be agnostic about everything (since no one can ever know anything absolutely 100% etc) but the Atheist just looks around, doesn't see anything supernatural, presupposes that their isn't anything supernatural and then lives as such. You do get militant atheists who KNOW god does not exist, though this is a position a little difficult to justify and such people are quite rare.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Campbell]

i've always thought that atheism has pretty much all the hallmarks of religion

mainly the certainty that you are Right, that you know how the world/universe works - both atheism and religion claim to do this. it thus provides the same sense of relief and control that religion offers.

i was 'brought up' an atheist and was never encouraged really to question it or the obvious truth behind it. many of my friends were the same. in this way it's also very like religion.

there's a lot been written on this stuff(reccommend Straw Dogs by John Gray), and i've always thought that the sheer unnerving arrogance of atheism makes it near as much a religion - and in many ways just a backlash to Christianity - as anything else


so how about:

agnostic

atheist/religious

[Haunted]

It's very easy to compare the two and say they are simply different facets of the same thing.
Though atheism itself offers no truths. Strictly speaking it is simply a lack of belief.
However almost all atheists will claim that science has the ability to tell us what is true. So I suggest that your comparison should be between science and doctrine.
Each claims to tell us how the world works, each has it's leaders and followers.
However, look a little deeper. How does each claim to know the truth?
One uses experiment/observation/rational thought whereas the other relies on 'divine inspiration' (usually in the form of a very old text written in a very old language with a questionable translation).
One accepts new evidence and adapts it's claims. The other maintains strict doctrine.

I'm not sure I need to continue since if someone truly needs to be convinced that a scientific approach is not the best way to understand life, the universe and everything then they are in a sad state indeed.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Frank]

Haunted's reply is essentially accurate. Though, I must add, I do concur with the sentiments of campbell.

That is:
- Ardent athiests are as tiresome are the equivalent religious folks
- The arrogance is the same
- Belief in science is somewhat suspect. It may well indicate us towards the truth. But when push comes to shove, arguing with it excessively is simply religion but with more support. (Imagine arguing with a religious man after you both just saw a priest walk up to a three-days-dead man, lay on hands, and have the dead man stand up...)
- Sure, science might be right, but I'm not sure it should be wielded as a weapon.

This, of course, applies to both. If you're using something as your 'worldview' (and in that sense I treat science as a religion, one that happens to be very well supported) then you should be able to handle it analytically.

So, when pushed about my beliefs I really have to hold up my hands and say "Yup, you got me. It's not absolutely rational..."

And that, I think is the 'religion' part of science & atheism/etc: That rationality and reason are the ideal ways to make decisions.

Of course...trying to deny that is difficult, but I feel science is on much sounder ground once people accept that it can be denied, just that it's seemingly quite silly to do so!

In that aspect, at least, atheism/strong religion are both very much specific (and somewhat untestable) beliefs. Agnosticism, on the otherhand, seems to be a bit more of a simple statement: "Yeah, there could be something up there that does something...maybe not...maybe..."

(Bad portrayal of agnosticism, mypologies)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 19:18, 10th Aug 2007
- Ardent athiests are as tiresome are the equivalent religious folks
- The arrogance is the same
- Belief in science is somewhat suspect. It may well indicate us towards the truth. But when push comes to shove, arguing with it excessively is simply religion but with more support. (Imagine arguing with a religious man after you both just saw a priest walk up to a three-days-dead man, lay on hands, and have the dead man stand up...)
- Sure, science might be right, but I'm not sure it should be wielded as a weapon.

Yes you do get the militant atheist type of people, I'd argue that they are in the great minority though. It's a popular stereotype that is used to demonise lack of belief in general.
Arrogance is never good (and again belongs to the minority above), but given a choice I'd choose to be arrogant about the truth rather than myticism. Again though, most people with a naturalistic view of the universe (i.e. do not believe in the supernatural) are quite open minded, reasonable people and will change their stance when evidence and observation run contrary to it.

'Belief in science' is a bit of a thin concept. It is essentially belief in your senses. It's possible that some supernatural being is manipulating all your senses (and maybe your thoughts) so that you come to the conclusion that there is no God. Which is why we must strictly speaking be agnostic about everything. But where does that get us?
If you do a series of experiments that shows a clear relationship between, say, mass and gravity, then what is most likely to be going on?
A: There is a relationship between mass and gravity
B: You are being toyed with by supernatural being(s)
C: Your brain is playing tricks on you randomly that just happen to line up significantly whenever you do this experiment.

*insert something about Occam's razor*

Atheism (defined as a lack of belief in the supernatural) is really the only rational conclusion when it comes to the vastness of evidence that shows no God(s) and no supernaturalism at all.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Alistair]

As someone who has fairly strong religious beliefs, I feel I must make a comment, purely because most of, if not all, the people above appear to be atheist/agnostic/non-religious. Also because the last paragraph of the previous post really annoyed me. I would just say to the poster, "look around you". The vastness of evidence, I would argue, does point towards the existence of a god. I hope I don't go on too long and bore you all...

To me, atheism, agnosticism and non-religious views are vastly different theological standpoints. Atheism is saying, "There is no god." Agnosticism is saying, "It is impossible for me to say at this point in time whether there is a god." Being non-religious means that person may or may not believe in a god. Although they generally have no specific doctrine, atheism and agnosticism are both religious beliefs, in that they are beliefs not based on scientific evidence. Rather in the mind of the atheist or agnostic person, the non-existence of god does not disagree with scientific evidence. (I hope that sentence makes sense - I must stop using too many negatives).

To my mind, therefore, this poll essentially asks, "Do you have one of the following defined beliefs in a god, or, on the other hand, do you not believe at all in a god or have no well known defined beliefs in a god?", which means that it is automatically going to show more people on the top category, as personally I would estimate approximately 10-25% of students are atheist or agnostic, 25% of some well-defined religion, and probably over 50% neither believing in nor not believing in a god. This is irrelevant to this discussion, but it does mean I feel the poll will be biased. Also, this may be just my social grouping, but most of the people I know who believe in a god aren't on the sinner, whereas several people I know who don't believe in a god are.

Now to my views on theology. I believe the vastness of evidence does in fact point to the existence of a god. Before I go further, I must explain what my definition of God is. This will explain why the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is an irrational belief whereas belief in God is not. God (or gods in many religions) is often said to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are, for this definition, unimportant. God is not a physical being who exists in one place, God is everywhere. God was not created. He exists outside of time, and therefore there was no time before or after he existed. It is not like, He was not there at the beginning and the end, rather, He created the beginning and the end. This is important. The FSM is a physical being as it must have dimensions to be described as an FSM. Therefore, any belief in an FSM specifically has to be based on physical evidence, of which there is none. God's existence can only be judged on the evidence of His creation, not on His personal image, as He has no image.

To me, when you are an atheist, you are standing up and saying, "Hmm, there is no God. Universe randomly exists, appeared from nowhere, everything in it also appeared from nowhere, there is no purpose in my life apart from my mind's own creation." I am not advocating Creationism here. What I am saying is, imagine the Big Bang occurred, as this is what the vast majority of scientists say. Where did the matter come from, where did the space the matter exists inside come from, how did it occur?

I have many more thoughts on the purpose of life, the existence of life, the constants of the universe, and the fact that I see God's effects all around me but I feel I've gone on too much anyway.

(edited for spelling and grammar)

[Frank]

Alistair, to somewhat avoid your argument and deflect you with a slight point to confirm to see if I think you're where I think you are:

Would you not say that to have a rational belief, we would have to label God after encountering him. If He's been everywhere beforehand then it's almost irrational by definition. Not as a perjorative, but in that the very question of his existence becomes irrelevent. A more pertinent question, in that case, would be: So does he matter for much?

The answer to the latter question, I believe, is where the strength of the atheist arguments come in.

For the record, I was a staunch Catholic, but I've not been to church in a while, and I'm currently trying to analyse my own beliefs. I went through a period like this when I was younger, but I'll see where it leads.

Haunted, I agree with much of your arguments and reasoning, except for your final paragraph. It seems, to me, that the obvious conclusion is "To make a statement on the existence or non-existance of a God-esque...thing is irrelevent at this stage, given the evidence". The idea and definition of a God-esque...thing is enough to accomodate exactly what science shows us, but allows for it to be revisited later...perhaps with an inifite set of 'ask again later' answers. But to positively believe in the non-existence of a God-esque...thing is as 'bad'* as believing, IMO. It's simply an hypothesis that can be easily rejected by actually finding a God-esque...thing, but to firmly believe it...

I suppose, the problem really is belief rather than 'God' (or 'not God').

* I don't think it's bad, but y'know...

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[[James]]

Quoting Alistair from 20:24, 10th Aug 2007
I am not advocating Creationism here. What I am saying is, imagine the Big Bang occurred, as this is what the vast majority of scientists say. Where did the matter come from, where did the space the matter exists inside come from, how did it occur?

But you are in fact advocating creationism:

God's existence can only be judged on the evidence of His creation

To say that the universe was created by a God is to advocate creationism - perhaps not creationism of the hand-made did-it-in-a-week old testament variety, but creationism nonetheless.

To fill any gap of knowledge with "God did it" is a tremendously extravagant leap of logic. The questions you ask are all very relevant ("where did the matter come from, where did the space the matter exists inside come from, how did it occur?"), but to immediately jump to the conclusion of a grand, supernatural creator just because we do not presently know the answer is irrational.

[[James]]

Quoting Frank from 21:49, 10th Aug 2007
For the record, I was a staunch Catholic, but I've not been to church in a while, and I'm currently trying to analyse my own beliefs. I went through a period like this when I was younger, but I'll see where it leads.

I sincerely hope more people follow your example. Regular questioning of one's own beliefs is important in any context, whether those beliefs be religious, political or whatever else.

I highly recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Ri ... 927&sr=8-1

[Gubbins]

Oh yay - we haven't had a good religious debate in a wee while. Shame it's just in time for the weekend. Anyway, I'm going to take issue with some points here.

Quoting Alistair from 20:24, 10th Aug 2007
Agnosticism is saying, "It is impossible for me to say at this point in time whether there is a god." [...] atheism and agnosticism are both religious beliefs, in that they are beliefs not based on scientific evidence. Rather in the mind of the atheist or agnostic person, the non-existence of god does not disagree with scientific evidence.

But agnosticism can be based on scientific evidence. Scientifically, there is no evidence that a god or gods exist and it has never been necessary to theoretically invoke one. However, there is no scientific evidence that god(s) do(es) not exist, therefore the scientific standpoint is to be agnostic. Typically it is also to brush the debate under the carpet as irrelevant, but that's by-the-by.

Now I don't have the time at present to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor what would happen if it existed outside the realm of our physical universe (maybe later), so I'll press on...

God is everywhere. God was not created. He exists outside of time, and therefore there was no time before or after he existed. [...]

To me, when you are an atheist, you are standing up and saying, "Hmm, there is no God. Universe randomly exists, appeared from nowhere, everything in it also appeared from nowhere, there is no purpose in my life apart from my mind's own creation." [...] Where did the matter come from, where did the space the matter exists inside come from, how did it occur?

Ok, here's a popular misconception. There is no reason to suppose that the Universe came from nowhere, for the same reason it is meaningless to talk about what came "before" the Big Bang: that there was no "before". Time was created in the Universe, and is a property of the space we inhabit. It's like asking where the start of a sphere is: it has an edge, which is analogous to the confines of our Universe, both in space and time. Considering space-time as a dimension, what the Universe then ends up as is an asymmetric shape in N-dimensional space, where N is >=4. If you can follow that, it's time you changed career to become a theoretical physicist.

Personally, I'm happy to follow my senses. I can look around the world and explain it in terms of itself, without the need to invoke some great Father-figure. Nevertheless, I cannot conclusively state that one does not exist. Therefore I shall diminish into the bar and remain agnostic.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[mhuzzell]

Quoting Haunted from 14:54, 10th Aug 2007

Quoting mhuzzell from 12:56, 10th Aug 2007
Atheism vs Agnosticism is not exactly a spectrum. A similarly constructed poll (in the other direction) might read:

Atheist

Agnostic/religious

No I think thats even more of stretch.
People who are agnostic about a God cannot be called people of faith, far from it. People of faith believe.

But that's exactly my point: there is as much difference between Agnostics and Atheists as there is between Agnostics and religious people. Religious people believe there is a deity. Atheists believe that there is not (yes, yes, Occam's razor and all that--they're still taking a stand on the issue). Agnostics merely doubt.

See topical quote, lifted from my friend's Facebook profile:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
-Isaac Asimov

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!