Rationality and atheism

[Quizalufagus]

Are atheists on average more rational than religious people? I used to believe so, but now I'm not so sure about that.

[Jamstar]

The problem is that whenever atheists bring up God or religion, they instantly criticize Jesus and Christianity. Now I realize that it's the largest religion in the West (and the world for that matter) and perhaps the most influential, but I really get annoyed by atheists who denounce the mere thought of God because of their ripping Christianity to shreds. Most atheists I encounter are like this unfortunately.

I'm Agnostic and I do not understand how people can be so dogmatic on both ends of the spectrum. Religious people are obviously worse but there's a good share of atheists that get on my nerves. The worst ones are those that say agnostics are "pussy atheists" or people who are afraid of denying God's existence. I find it more like atheists are afraid of admiting we cannot know.

[Febble]

Are atheists on average more rational than religious people? I used to believe so, but now I'm not so sure about that.

I suspect rational people are more likely to be atheists. That's not quite the same thing.

[Garnet]

Eh, I don't know. I realize you're saying on average, Quiz and that on-line interactions are probably not the best measure, but honestly, I've seen some really irrational atheists the past few years. There are some atheists at CF, for example, that make the same tired BAD arguments over and over and over again.

ETA: I just read what Febble said and I think she's got a good point.

[Quizalufagus]

I'm Agnostic and I do not understand how people can be so dogmatic on both ends of the spectrum. Religious people are obviously worse but there's a good share of atheists that get on my nerves. The worst ones are those that say agnostics are "pussy atheists" or people who are afraid of denying God's existence. I find it more like atheists are afraid of admiting we cannot know.

I actually find there are very few agnostics who actually come to an honest agnosticism (i.e., an agnosticism grounded in an honest appraisal of the facts). There are some, but they're vastly outnumbered by the peacemakers and the folks who just want to be above the fray.

Dogmatic atheism is a problem, but IMV the epistemically correct position is a relatively hard form of atheism. I think it's as likely that God exists as it is that fairies exist.

I suspect rational people are more likely to be atheists. That's not quite the same thing.

That had crossed my mind. I think it's probably true that rational people tend to be atheists, but I think that most atheists are irrational atheists.

[tjakey]

Jamstar, just because you think "we cannot know" doesn't mean the rest of us actually can't know. What is this knowledge about "god" that is supposedly unknowable?

Which is not to say all atheist are rational about all things at all times. I like flying old, antique airplanes, climbing rock walls strapped only to a rope, and ride my motorcycle at speeds well in excess of the posted limit. None of those activities can be described as very rational. But when it comes to a god, why would I be shy about saying I know there isn't one? Myth is myth.

[Jamstar]

I hate to use a double negative but you don't know for sure just like the theists don't know for sure. The facts are on your side, for now. Who knows what will happen in the future? The folks on Earth may not know for a long time and much more likely ever, but if there is a God and afterlife in which we can interact with, we're going to find out when we die. I find your "myth is myth" equivalent to a Christian saying "fact is fact" about the Bible. I know very, very many people who'd agree with me on this, that both sides are silly for a lack of a better term.

I also find the unicorns and fairies comparisons annoying. There's no real reason to believe in those where as there is plenty of miraculous and largely important unanswered questions that would give someone a reason to believe in a Deity or God. Apples and Oranges.

[Barbarian]

I'm Agnostic and I do not understand how people can be so dogmatic on both ends of the spectrum. Religious people are obviously worse but there's a good share of atheists that get on my nerves. The worst ones are those that say agnostics are "pussy atheists" or people who are afraid of denying God's existence. I find it more like atheists are afraid of admiting we cannot know.Thought experiment time, or How About Gods Who Punish Agnosticism Too?

Let's consider a proposal of a deity, a variant of the Christian god, who punishes you for not believing in him, but he is wise and merciful and therefore he is willing to accept your mere goodwill as well - i.e. if you can't bring yourself to believe in him but you fervently wish you could and go through the motions, you'll be safe as well. Everyone else gets barbecued; in particular, this god punishes both 'That's a ridiculous belief' and 'I don't really know either way' in the same manner, by everlasting torment in the fires of hell.

Now, in a perverse rehashing of Pascal's wager, there is a finite loss associated with going through the motions and wanting yourself to be a believer; on the other hand, there's an infinite loss associated with not going through the motions and being, perhaps, wrong. The only kind of person doing nothing after hearing about this nonsense is the one who assigns a probability exactly equal to zero to the existence of this god. Apparently, an agnostic is not allowed to do that, as he must always entertain the possibility that such a god exists, i.e. he must assign a non-zero probability to the event of finding out later that such a god indeed exists.

So why aren't you groveling at the feet of this god right now? I'd suggest that this is because you are 110% sure he does not exist.I also find the unicorns and fairies comparisons annoying. There's no real reason to believe in those where as there is plenty of miraculous and largely important unanswered questions that would give someone a reason to believe in a Deity or God. Apples and Oranges.How would a question give a reason to believe in any kind of that stuff? Answers, yes, but questions? And why do those questions necessarily point to a deity? After all, there's no conceivable way in which a hint about the existence of a deity would not, at the same time, point with fewer assumptions to the existence of a fully materialistic Matrix-like setup.

[Jobar]

Jamstar, there are atheists that get on *my* nerves, and I'm one myself.

Back in '02 and '03, I moderated the EoG forum at Internet Infidels. That forum was where most of the 'atheist vs. agnostic' threads were carried on; I can link you to more than a dozn of them, if you're interested. What I extracted from all those discussions is that atheism is about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge.

The overwhelming majority of atheists, if pressed, won't claim absolute knowledge that no version of a god can possibly exist.

The overwhelming majority of agnostics, if pressed, won't claim to believe in any version of god.

So the overwhelming majority of us are agnostic atheists. (Well, I've talked to a couple of theistic agnostics; seebs, on TR, is one. They make for interesting discussions.)

[Arctish]

Jamstar, there are atheists that get on *my* nerves, and I'm one myself.

Back in '02 and '03, I moderated the EoG forum at Internet Infidels. That forum was where most of the 'atheist vs. agnostic' threads were carried on; I can link you to more than a dozn of them, if you're interested. What I extracted from all those discussions is that atheism is about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge.

The overwhelming majority of atheists, if pressed, won't claim absolute knowledge that no version of a god can possibly exist.

The overwhelming majority of agnostics, if pressed, won't claim to believe in any version of god.

So the overwhelming majority of us are agnostic atheists. (Well, I've talked to a couple of theistic agnostics; seebs, on TR, is one. They make for interesting discussions.)

Exactly how I see it though I use different words.

IMO it would require a godlike knowledge of godhood to know anything meaningful about gods including whether or not they exist. In the absence of any reliable evidence of their existence we can conclude only that there is no reliable evidence gods exist. We cannot know that they don't exist.

I don't think atheism requires a higher degree of rationality than theism. Young children are atheists until they are taught to believe in gods. That doesn't mean they are more rational than the adults around them.

[Ray Moscow]

Are atheists on average more rational than religious people? I used to believe so, but now I'm not so sure about that.

Well, in mostly religious countries/societies, atheists/nonreligious people are more likely to be thinking independently and are more lilkely to be more rational than average, at least on religious topics.

In mostly non-religious societies, this isn't necessarily true. For example, in the old Soviet Union being an "atheist" was just following the herd. As soon as religion came back into fashion, many "atheists" became very religious right away.

But in general: in the absence of a single good reason to back up any religious doctrine, I would think that a rational person would tend to doubt or disbelieve all of them.

[Alethias]

I also find the unicorns and fairies comparisons annoying. There's no real reason to believe in those where as there is plenty of miraculous and largely important unanswered questions that would give someone a reason to believe in a Deity or God. Apples and Oranges.They are similar in that they are all things you have to 'believe in'.

To explain and illustrate, I would never say that I 'believe in' my computer monitor. Such a statement would either be meaningless or a misue of the term 'believe in'.

If you say you believe in something you are using it as at term to denote your allegiance to or acceptance as true something for which you have no rational reason to do such.

I agree that there are lots of unanswered questions, but I don't know of any miracles.

I don't see how a question being unanswered implies the existence of a god somehow. It mostly just implies that the question is unanswered.

I personally don't use the term 'atheist' very much concerning myself. it kinda seems, at least to many of the christians that I often talk to, imply that there must be a god for me to be against, so by calling myself that I'm saying to them there there god is real but that I'm against it. That's not it at all.

How do you feel about Aether being the invisible cosmic fuel upon which the universe runs? Since it underlies everything it's important, and it answers all your unanswered questions! And it's not god :D

Would you say you're agnostic about Aether? I'd be surprised if you did. An answer that would seem terribly reasonable to me would be that you don't believe in it simply because you haven't heard of it before and have no reason to believe in it. It doesn't have any thing to do with importance or lack thereof, there is simply no good reason to do anything other than reject it out of hand until somebody gives you a reason to do otherwise. I see no reason to not hold any proposed gods to a similar standard.

See, I don't much see any point to make a positive claim about the lack of existence of Aether. But that doesn't make me agnostic to it, either. I'm sure not claiming that aether is somehow unknowable. I simply have no reason to think about it much one way or another. I can go about my life not aware of it, and it'll have no impact on my life, since there is no evidence for it.

You can substitute god in for aether in that last paragraph, by the way, and it'll illustrate perfectly how I feel about gods.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to tell you that you have to see it that way, by the way, I'm just explaining my understanding and perspective. :)

[trendkill]

The worst ones are those that say agnostics are "pussy atheists" or people who are afraid of denying God's existence. I find it more like atheists are afraid of admiting we cannot know.
So which god do you believe in?

[Luis Garcia]

there is plenty of miraculous and largely important unanswered questions that would give someone a reason to believe in a Deity or God.

Such as?

[lpetrich]

It's possible to be an atheist for completely irrational "reasons"; many believers have irrational-reason stereotypes about atheists. Like:

* We are "mad at God".

* We are depressed, and therefore sure that the Universe is not ruled by some beneficient Providence.

* We are too proud to acknowledge God's sovereignty. Something like what phiosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote: "If there are gods, how could I bear it to be no god! Therefore, there are no gods!"

And some of them take our use of rational arguments and argue that it is somehow proof that we can't enjoy or appreciate anything.

[Preno]

In a predominantly religious society, being religious says basically nothing about you, while if you're an atheist I'd expect you to be smarter than average. In a predominantly atheist society, being atheist says basically nothing about you, while if you're a believer I'd expect you to be more gullible/superstitious than average. I'd say the unmarked case is neutral, while only the marked case actually says something about the person.

[Goldie]

I hate to use a double negative but you don't know for sure just like the theists don't know for sure. The facts are on your side, for now. Who knows what will happen in the future? The folks on Earth may not know for a long time and much more likely ever, but if there is a God and afterlife in which we can interact with, we're going to find out when we die. I find your "myth is myth" equivalent to a Christian saying "fact is fact" about the Bible. I know very, very many people who'd agree with me on this, that both sides are silly for a lack of a better term.

I also find the unicorns and fairies comparisons annoying. There's no real reason to believe in those where as there is plenty of miraculous and largely important unanswered questions that would give someone a reason to believe in a Deity or God. Apples and Oranges.

Just because you can't dis-prove something doesn't make it so.

I say that Bigfoot is in my backyard. I can't prove it to you... but you can't DIS-prove it, so does that mean that bigfoot is, indeed, in my backyard?
What we DO know proves that Bigfoot is probably NOT in my backyard, and until I can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, you probably shouldn't bet the farm that Bigfoot even exists.
That is the way I see God. People have written accounts of seeing Bigfoot. Many people believe that Bigfoot exists... but there is no solid proof. And... until I see solid proof, not just before my own eyes, I will not believe in Bigfoot.

[fromdownunder]

It's possible to be an atheist for completely irrational "reasons"; many believers have irrational-reason stereotypes about atheists. Like:

* We are "mad at God".

* We are depressed, and therefore sure that the Universe is not ruled by some beneficient Providence.

* We are too proud to acknowledge God's sovereignty. Something like what phiosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote: "If there are gods, how could I bear it to be no god! Therefore, there are no gods!"

You left out:

* what did the Church do to hurt you so much? :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

What I really find interesting, (and no, I cannot offer any evidence for it, and yes it is simplistic) that particularly vehement atheists largely appear to fall into two categories:

1. Former theists who have been through a bad time, blame God for the whole thing and decide to stop believing. This is simply a pissed off theist, and the "conversion" can be a temporary or lifetime condition. I believe that it at least arguable that this sort of person is an irrational atheist.

2. Former fundies who have actually done enough work and research as apologists and in attempting to defend whatever deity they hold to, who slowly discover that there is nothing left to defend. Some people like this (like former smokers) then vigourously condemn religions and theists for the rest of their life, as though they are trying to purge themselves of guilt for ever having believed in that stuff in the first place.

Probably moderate atheists were moderate theists once upon a time, and moved towards agnosticism/atheism, simply because when it came to believing on God, they could not find any "there" there.

As far as atheists being more rational that atheists, who knows for sure? I know rational theists, and as others have said, we have seen many examples of irrational atheists.

When I personally discuss religiion with Christians (not often these days) - and it is Christians because that is the religion with which I am most familiar - I find it essential to try to nail down (impossible!) their personal definition of God first. Without that the goal posts shift continually, and rational discourse becomes impossible.

That a particular Christian's definition of God usually floats around a lot, or their arguments contradict their own version of God is very telling. To me is a sign of a lack of rationality, and a lack of confidence in their own belief.

On a final note, I never say "a" god does not exist. I do define myself as an atheist, but for the most part, it has little or no bearing on my life. Australia is mostly pretty laid back about religion, although there is a fundie group in Queensland (the former AiG Australia, now CMI) who are making noises about getting ID taught in schools, in which case I will stand up to be counted.

But when cornered I usually make a reasonable argument against another persons specific personal definition of theor god and his actions, simply from their own words if they talk long enough.

Norm

[Luis Garcia]

and yes it is simplistic

and also bollocks.

[fromdownunder]

and also bollocks.

Actually in eight or so years (on and off) of posting and reading BBs, I have seen numerous examples of both my "stereotypes". Would you be kind enough to suggest other potential categories of extremist atheists?

I often wonder what causes extremism, in any form. I find extremist atheists just as fundie and sometimes as funny, as extremist "anything elsists", be it religion, Bigfoot, Bermuda Triangle, cults (including things like Amway), believers in Von Daniken, Troofers, alien abductions....the categories are endless. If there is a subject about it, dig a bit and you will find a true believer.

Norm

[Jobar]

To be a disbeliever in a largely believing society, it could be argued that you have to be a more rational person than most.

But it could also be that for whatever reason, your susceptibility to social cues and pressures is subnormal, rather than being more rational. I note that lots of us skeptics are introverts; of course this may be an effect rather than a cause of our unbelief.

I sometimes think that the best stance to take for the best balanced personality is apatheism; simply not caring, since the existence of gods is so far outside our experience as human beings. Those of us who think about these topics a lot may just be wasting our time, and generating a lot of skull sweat to no purpose at all.

[mac_philo]

No, atheists are not more rational. People aren't on average more rational or intelligent in overwhelmingly atheist countries than in religious countries. I don't think there is any data to support that. Anecdotally, I have spent extensive time in highly religious and highly irreligious countries. If atheists were more rational, the populations of the latter would be more rational than the former. I don't think that's the case.

There may be various local correlations, negative and positive, but nothing as general as raised in the OP.

[Luis Garcia]

Would you be kind enough to suggest other potential categories of extremist atheists?


Which of those two would you put Richard Dawkins in?

My problem with your categorisation is that it's quite dismissive of peoples concerns about religion without actually addressing those concerns. Atheism vs theism is not just a minor philosophical point about epistemology, but a question of human rights, education, politics, family and sometimes murder. Your dismissive categorisation precludes atheists who care about these things from having a valid opinion on them.

[fromdownunder]

Which of those two would you put Richard Dawkins in?

My problem with your categorisation is that it's quite dismissive of peoples concerns about religion without actually addressing those concerns. Atheism vs theism is not just a minor philosophical point about epistemology, but a question of human rights, education, politics, family and sometimes murder. Your dismissive categorisation precludes atheists who care about these things from having a valid opinion on them.

I agree to a large extent. My qualifiers obviously were not sufficiently stated, which is always a problem on BBs when you type in a hurry.

I have not read Dawkins more "extreme" arguments, but my feeling from what I have read in threads, and in some of his early books is that he is remarkably annoyed at theists who try to bag science based on their religious beliefs and this has spilled over into his world view. I am probably wrong about this and will happily stand correction.

But I consider myself to be a "moderate" atheist (whatever that means), however three subjects really push my buttons:

1. attempting to bring ID/Creationism, or whatever the next version of Goddidit is into science classrooms

2. attempts, succesful to date, to oppose dying with dignity legislation in Australia based pretty much solely on the "God will decide when it's time to go" argument (the rest of their argument are just fluff and excuses).

3. the support of capital punishment by many of those who oppose my stance on point two. In fact the support of capital punishment by anybody at all.

Does that make me an extreme atheist? Somebody who only read my posts on the above three subjects could say so, but it is simply a stand on certain issues, not an extreme general world view. I rarely bring my atheism into these subjects unless somebody else raises a religious argument relating to these issues. Then it's boots and all.

Norm

[Luis Garcia]

But I consider myself to be a "moderate" atheist (whatever that means), however three subjects really push my buttons:


Ok, then perhaps you could outline what you consider to be a usable definition of an atheist extremist?

[Goldie]

Ok, then perhaps you could outline what you consider to be a usable definition of an atheist extremist?
I'd like to know that, as well.

[fromdownunder]

I don't know how a "usable definition" of an extremist atheist could be agreed to as it is a subjective judgement call - in this case my subjective opinion.

As near as I can personally get, I would argue that such a person is one who uses his acceptance that there are no gods (or perhaps focuses purely on the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God) as the basis of his/her entire world view, and live only for, and argues everything with this basic tenet in mind. Sort of a Bizarro World Kent Hovind

Could such a person exist? Do such people exist? I don't even know. I have seen posts by people who have kept this sort of thing up for a long time, but it could have been just trolling, or a baiting technique. I certainly don't know any personally. Perhaps I should not have even used this word.

Norm

[Luis Garcia]

Perhaps I should not have even used this word.

Norm


Well, ok, but your original phrase was "particularly vehement atheists".

Meaning....? Those who are more vehement than you? Those who are more angry than you about the human rights abuses perpetrated by religions?

They and their arguments can all be dismissed for being either irrational or because you decide that they would just be "fundie" about something whatever happened?

[fromdownunder]

Meaning....? Those who are more vehement than you? Those who are more angry than you about the human rights abuses perpetrated by religions?

Possibly, but it depends to me how they phrase their POV. One can feign anger and use sarcasm, satire and totally demolish an argument using a scalpel, rather than an axe. I personally prefer to see people using a scalpel until it becomes obvious that the other poster is simply oblivious to all logic (theist or non theist, or any believer of woo). If a person continues to use an axe, and only an axe, then they appear to me to be a one-trick pony. That is why I said the whole thing is subjective.

They and their arguments can all be dismissed for being either irrational or because you decide that they would just be "fundie" about something whatever happened?

No, I would discuss any issues they had, if I was interested in the subject, by attempting to use logical and reasoned points. Ad Hom arguments are an utter waste of time and bandwidth. And do not get anybody anywhere. My view as to what I thought of them personally would, hopefully, not enter the discussion.

Norm

[Luis Garcia]

So, would a fair example of the type of argument with an axe that you dislike be someone arbitrarily dividing people into two categories, one of which is a strawman version of those who have been hurt by religion, the other of which is an ad hom attack on their motivation for discussion?

[tjakey]

Interesting thread, and for once it looks like I’m not the only “militant atheist” in residence. Which sparked a bit of a question; when did saying that one “knows” there is no god become the “militant” position? Am I militant about Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? Am I militant about the earth being old and round? Of course not. Even fundies don’t (usually) suggest that people who believe the science are being militant. Yet even our fellow non-believers (agnostics) throw the “militant” label around simply because we suggest that one can have knowledge of a god’s existence, and thus rightly know that the gods don’t exist.

Knowledge about a god’s existence, and the interactions such an existence must have with the cosmos at large (if the term “exist” is to have any meaning) is not different from any other kind of knowledge. It is not some kind of “magic” knowledge. The agnostic position seems to pare down to nothing more than the claim that a god might exist in such a way that its non-existence would be an identical state of being. Why bother to shave such a delicate, nonsensical place for a god to lurk out of the cosmos? There are no gods. We know that. Let it go.

[Jobar]

Tjakey, the trouble is that there's no clear and undisputed meaning for the word 'god'.

I've spoken to deists and panentheists who presented non-self-contradictory arguments for their beliefs. For any sort of god that is deliberately hidden from its creation, although there's no reason to believe in such a being, there isn't really any logical reason to *dis*believe it, either.

I usually avoid claiming strong atheism because of this. For a deos (=deistic god) I am an agnostic, even a strong agnostic ("we cannot even possibly know whether or not such a god exists").

O'course, I haven't yet seen any way that this makes any practical difference in my overall skepticism. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to...

[Luis Garcia]

Jobar, the trouble with that is that it's silly. Although I have no reason to believe I'll be eaten by a dragon in the next 24 hours, I have no reason to *dis*believe it either. The fact that there is no universally accepted definition of "dragon" is irrelevant.

Nonetheless I'm happy to bet you at any odds you care to name that I won't be.

So, if you won't name your odds you'll need to explain the functional difference between the two.

[fromdownunder]

So, would a fair example of the type of argument with an axe that you dislike be someone arbitrarily dividing people into two categories, one of which is a strawman version of those who have been hurt by religion, the other of which is an ad hom attack on their motivation for discussion?

Again, this depends. I said it is all subjective, and I used the term "extremist", which would need to be based on what I personally read into the posts I was looking at. When I see what I consider an "extremist" Bizarro World Kent Hovind I will let you know.

You may be reading more into my earliest post on this thread than was intended. My statement was that "extremist" athiests often come from these two areas, not that everyone, or even the majority of atheists from these two areas are "extremists" That was what was intended, and if people have taken it to imply otherwise, then that is the fault of my writing.

Norm

[Michael]

Are atheists on average more rational than religious people? I used to believe so, but now I'm not so sure about that.

What is it to be rational?

[Jobar]

Jobar, the trouble with that is that it's silly. Although I have no reason to believe I'll be eaten by a dragon in the next 24 hours, I have no reason to *dis*believe it either. The fact that there is no universally accepted definition of "dragon" is irrelevant.

Nonetheless I'm happy to bet you at any odds you care to name that I won't be.

So, if you won't name your odds you'll need to explain the functional difference between the two.

Luis, all the definitions of 'dragon' that I've seen tend to converge on a very limited range of ideas. 'Dragon' is a more definite, a more concrete, word than is 'god'. In fact if you get stranded on the wrong Indonesian island, it's possible to get eaten by a dragon! Even the dragons of fantasy are pretty specific creatures.

God(s), on the other hand, are about as indefinite as you can get. I've talked to people who won't define their version of god any more than "The Infinite"- and I for one am not willing to say that we aren't part of an infinite universe. I just don't know- and so for that version of god, I'm an agnostic.

You may say that it's silly to actually *believe* in such a god- and hey, you'll get no argument from me! It explains nothing, really, nor does it benefit the believer that I can see. But I can't say that idea of a god self-contradicts, or is logically impossible; and so I can't say I know it's an impossibility. And agnosticism is about knowledge, yes?

[Quizalufagus]

Why does certainty always get conflated with knowledge in these discussions? Certainty is impossible with respect to even relatively mundane facts (e.g., I'm typing on a computer), but we all think that we know those facts in the usual sense. So why do so many demand a certain answer to this one question?

[Luis Garcia]

Luis, all the definitions of 'dragon' that I've seen tend to converge on a very limited range of ideas. 'Dragon' is a more definite, a more concrete, word than is 'god'. In fact if you get stranded on the wrong Indonesian island, it's possible to get eaten by a dragon! Even the dragons of fantasy are pretty specific creatures.

God(s), on the other hand, are about as indefinite as you can get. I've talked to people who won't define their version of god any more than "The Infinite"- and I for one am not willing to say that we aren't part of an infinite universe. I just don't know- and so for that version of god, I'm an agnostic.

You may say that it's silly to actually *believe* in such a god- and hey, you'll get no argument from me! It explains nothing, really, nor does it benefit the believer that I can see. But I can't say that idea of a god self-contradicts, or is logically impossible; and so I can't say I know it's an impossibility. And agnosticism is about knowledge, yes?


Jobar,

Yes, agnosticism is a question of knowledge, and yes, it is impossible to know for certain that no entity that it would be appropriate to call a god exists, however it's equally impossible to know for certain that carpets do exist, so either a consistent agnostic spends their life in a solipsistic whirl of confusion or they are applying a different standard of knowledge to this one particular question than they do to every other facet of life.

So why do you hold the god question to a different standard than you do for anything else?




Why does certainty always get conflated with knowledge in these discussions? Certainty is impossible with respect to even relatively mundane facts (e.g., I'm typing on a computer), but we all think that we know those facts in the usual sense. So why do so many demand a certain answer to this one question?

'zactly. Have some rep.

[Ian Nerr]

The problem is that whenever atheists bring up God or religion, they instantly criticize Jesus and Christianity. Now I realize that it's the largest religion in the West (and the world for that matter) and perhaps the most influential, but I really get annoyed by atheists who denounce the mere thought of God because of their ripping Christianity to shreds. Most atheists I encounter are like this unfortunately.

I'm Agnostic and I do not understand how people can be so dogmatic on both ends of the spectrum. Religious people are obviously worse but there's a good share of atheists that get on my nerves. The worst ones are those that say agnostics are "pussy atheists" or people who are afraid of denying God's existence. I find it more like atheists are afraid of admiting we cannot know.

Most atheists are agnostic. Most agnostics are also atheists.

Theist: I belive in God.
Atheist: I don't believe in God.

Gnostic: I know whether there is a God.
Agnostic: I don't know if there is a God.

Gnostic theist: I know there is a God.
Gnostic atheist: I know there is no God.
Agnostic theist: I believe in God, but I don't know for sure.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe in God, but I don't know for sure.

Unless you are an agnostic theist, you're an atheist too.

[Alethias]

What is it to be rational?http://dict.die.net/rational
I think 1,2 and 4 are most consistent with how the word is being used here.

adj 1: consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational
behavior"; "a process of rational inference";
"rational thought" [ant: irrational]
2: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind;
"intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over
the animal side of man" [syn: intellectual, noetic]
4: having its source in or being guided by the intellect
(distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational
analysis"

[tjakey]

Jobar, you are helping me make my point. The reality is the term “god” has no meaning at all. We can’t even define this thing that we think might have a possibility of existing. It is so bad that, in the attempt to find room for this “god” existence somewhere in the cosmos, we end up draining all meaning from the term “existence” as well. The concept of “god” is so utterly meaningless that it sucks the meaning out of every word that is sentenced to being associated with it. That is meaningless cubed and cubed again.

Something that meaningless is beyond any chance of actually existing. All by itself language proves to us that “gods” don’t and can’t exist. The agnostic position fails again, (as has been pointed out by others in this thread) because they abuse the term “know.” If they attempted to use the same level of knowledge on everything else in life that they do on “god” they would sit inert, unable to function at all because they would have no knowledge on which to base any activity, even thought. (I know I am using the argument of the extreme, but in this case it helps.) On the other hand if I use the same level of “knowledge” about “god” as I do about everything else I need to understand to function in this world the conclusion is easy and irrefutable. There are no “gods.”

[Alethias]

How I put it to a christian friend of mine:

If I pretend(and act on that pretense) that there is no light, it has a major impact on how i lead my life. Same is true to a lesser degree with sound. Also, if I pretend that my computer monitor in front of me doesn't exist it would have a rather strong affect on my ability to interact with it(we were camping and I pointed to the tree I was leaning against, but you get the picture).

I pointed out to him that if I pretend that God doesn't exist, nothing changes. It has no similar profound effect on how I lead my life.

His answer to that was to tell me that I think too much. :rolleyes:

I guess rationality is thinking too much.

[Preno]

Most atheists are agnostic. Most agnostics are also atheists.

Theist: I belive in God.
Atheist: I don't believe in God.

Gnostic: I know whether there is a God.
Agnostic: I don't know if there is a God.

Gnostic theist: I know there is a God.
Gnostic atheist: I know there is no God.
Agnostic theist: I believe in God, but I don't know for sure.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe in God, but I don't know for sure.

Unless you are an agnostic theist, you're an atheist too.You forgot:

Normal person: there clearly isn't any reason to seriously consider this "God" idea, so why are we even talking about it?

;)

[VoxRat]

You forgot:

Normal person: there clearly isn't any reason to seriously consider this "God" idea, so why are we even talking about it?

;)
Apparently I'm a normal person.
I'm quite pleased to learn that - I've gotten mixed opinions about that in the past.

But here in the US of A, it appears that normal people are such a small minority, it's inconceivable that one of them could, for instance, be elected president.