What are you? Atheist or Agnostic ?
By Brian Worley of Exminister.org
Flew Controversy Exposes an Atheist Blind Spot
This is an oft-asked question to people like myself that have rejected faith. Many skeptics like to place you within their agnostic or atheist “camp” like a church member does with their new convert. But some will insist and press on you until you answer this question for them, I say “not so fast”.
Getting Somewhat Biographical for a Reason
Before I tell you my position…(it is a little different answer than what you might expect) I need to explain a few things. I am very appreciative of my alma mater Tennessee Temple University (TTU) in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science with a major in Pastoral Studies. Yes, they taught me dogma and many other things that I later discovered were simply not true. But anyway, what I am grateful for is that they were consistent in their aim to provide a quality education. They taught us that a good education teaches you how to think for yourself. I’m sure that they wouldn’t approve of what I have done or become and frankly, I don’t care. They can relax, I won’t be asking for a refundJ.
Unless you live in a cave, you know that there are hundreds of Christian denominations out there. My alma mater didn’t have a denominational tag, but most students were from Baptist backgrounds. Schools similar to TTU are Liberty University and Bob Jones University. What the fortunate lifelong atheist and agnostic doesn’t understand is how a town can get so many churches. People understand that there are many differences, but how did it get to be that way?
LESSONS LEARNED FROM A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
An introduction to the box
It was explained to me like this, the term that was used to describe it is called worldviews. Worldviews are what you might expect; ways in which people look at the world based upon their belief systems. Christians have their own worldviews based on their interpretation of the bible and faith. There are countless possibilities in biblical interpretation. Christians differ on baptism; eschatology; worship styles; gifts of the spirit, etc…you get the picture. Just like a business must find its place in a given market, so must a church if it is to survive. Yes, churches do fail just like businesses do.
Most People Interpret by Worldviews
Putting your brain in a box
Imagine that a worldview is really just a “pair of glasses” that a person wears to see the world through. A Christian often views his world in say a Calvinistic, Charismatic, Amillenial, etc. “pair of glasses”. Change the lenses and the Baptist suddenly becomes a Presbyterian. Often they see things as black or white. They may notice the differing shades of gray but be too dogmatic to accept what they just saw. Christians often accept whatever their “glasses” worldview tells them and simply fall asleep safely in their worldview. Logic and reason is rejected. Not simply because of dogma, their dogma has programmed what they are allowed to view because it is safe. New or threatening viewpoints are quickly rejected because of a prejudiced dogma.
Christians aren’t the only people that reach their conclusions this way. Non-theists can also fall into this subjective mind trap of worldviews. It should be obvious that thinking through a worldview /paradigm presupposition has a tendency to render a subjective verdict. Basically, a person turns in faith like manner to their worldview, and asks this worldview to interpret the data. The worldview becomes the master, and the holder its slave. Most people will never change their worldview. When a person’s worldview repeatedly fails to answer individual, societal, and global problems a person gradually looses faith in that worldview. At this point, viewpoints similar to that which Exminister espouses are ready to be explored by people with a receptive mindset.
INSIDE A CHRISTIAN CLASSROOM
Keeping you in a box
I considered going to Liberty University to obtain a Master’s degree. The reason I didn’t was that I just had too many questions that I wanted to answer for myself. In Christian schools they tell you what to think, and how to think to reach the same conclusions that they have. Pity the bible student that asks the wrong question at the wrong place or time. Fundamentalist professors will toy with the brave student that asks the wrong type of questions. They do this in front of their peers to embarrass and discourage other similar types of questioning. If that student embarrasses the professor that student is subject to a visit to the dean’s office and can be sent home if they are not compliant. You can see how that they maintain control. I wasn’t comfortable having someone else do my thinking for me. I decided that once I received my Bachelor’s degree, that to further my education I would read and study on my own and think for myself. It took me nine years after graduating from TTU to get out of the religious box.
Lessons learned from a salesman
Personally, sermon preparation is not easy work if your goal is to educate and inspire people for a noble purpose. In the end, all that matters is that a persuasive message was delivered to the decision maker inside of man. If not, then the question that needs to be asked is why! Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time. I still hold this same mentality as a skeptic trying reach the Theist’s decision maker. The business organization maxim, “nothing happens until something is sold” is true. For something to be sold, you have to reach the decision maker. Salesmen make or break organizations; good ones find a way to remove obstacles that keep them away from the decision maker.
Conquering the ineffective Atheist strategy
Exminister wants to be effective in reaching those receptive to being exposed to a non-theistic worldview. Yes, we have worldviews but Exminister’s doesn’t include trying to win someone over with an argument that you cannot win with. Intellectually, there are many very smart atheists. Atheists are the last people I would want to have an intellectual fight with. But someone needs to show me who (Atheist) has proven that God does not exist? When I say prove, I am not accepting the verdict of winning an intellectual debate versus the Christian.
Logic and reason drive you in the direction of probabilities. But a probability is not a fact. What I object to is the taking of a faith like leap by using probabilities as if they were a proven fact! I see the Atheist trying to sell this viewpoint to the Christian, and they aren’t buying it! To me, logic and reason rule and the Christian is correct in rejecting a flawed argument. Atheists loose their intellectual firepower by claiming more than they can deliver. Simply stated, the Atheist needs a new and effective strategy to win new converts.
Now, about that strategy!
I have probably made a few Atheists out there angry by now. Atheist anger is part of the reason that they are as smart as they are. But this negative anger is what I feel is their greatest weakness. Christian tactics can piss off the most passive skeptic. Christians in their desperation to defend their viewpoint can really be annoying. Anger may make you fight stronger and longer, but this isn’t a battle to be won by attrition.
Viewing our motives, do we want to win an intellectual debate? Do you want to embarrass somebody? Christian’s tactics provoke these thoughts within me, but acting with this motivation doesn’t produce what I want to have happen. I feel that Christianity causes many problems and creates discord in relationships, families, workplaces and society. Christians are blind to this fact, those who have left the faith understand this and are often motivated because of this to oppose the faith message.
The atheist is certain that there is no god. The Christian is certain that there is. Both views are an exercise of faith. Neither viewpoint can prove that the other respective position is wrong. You simply cannot prove that god does or does not exist.
Imagine you’re in a court of law, when it is time for the Christian god to take the stand. What is going to appear? The God whom no man has seen nor can be seen? The Atheist cannot bring in this invisible God either, in order to cross-examine him and prove that he is a fraud.
The Christian has the easier task to prove that there is a god. You would think with all of god’s superlatives from the bible that some Christian would have had proof by now. The Atheist dilemma is similar to defending yourself against the charge “When did you last beat your wife?” You may have done nothing wrong, but can you prove it?
Now, I have tried to use my terms carefully. What can be proven is that the bible is morally perverted, internally inconsistent, historically incorrect, and scientifically wrong. In light of all of this, it is correct to say that the bible is a fraud. Since the bible states in John 1:1 the “Word was God”, we can safely say that the god of the bible does not exist as it claims.
MY ANSWER TO THE ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC QUESTION
I will gladly accept without apology the position of a religious/biblical atheist. Atheists have satisfactorily proven that this god of the bible has not and does not exist! But please, do not call me an atheist! Why, might you ask? I said I was a religious/biblical atheist, not an atheist. An atheist has not been able to prove that god doesn’t exist! I agree with the Agnostic that it is highly improbable that a personal god exists.I really do not know if there is a god out there somewhere or not. If there is one, they have failed to leave us any instruction manuals to guide us.
If you carefully read the last paragraph you would have noticed that I did not answer the question properly! I gave an answer of: 1) A Religious/Biblical Atheist 2) An Agnostic. When a skeptic has to give more than one answer to a question like this then you know that there isn’t an obvious, definite term that describes the position that I hold. I don’t feel that I am alone in my observations.
Hegel’s Dialectic in effect?
I would think that almost all Atheist and Agnostics would agree in having no confidence in any religious scriptures? If we are in agreement with this point, then all we have to do is admit our clumsiness in the matter of semantics and more clearly define what it is that we actually believe. Currently, what I see happening in our skeptic movement is similar to what has happened to the US “two” political party system. That is, much energy and passion with little effectiveness. In reality it appears to be Hegel’s dialectic in place to produce stagnation.
Most and maybe all skeptics have proven their courage by rejecting the faith worldview. So when someone prods them to “get off the fence” and align themselves as an atheist they perpetuate unnecessary toiling. Again, I feel most all skeptics reject a faith worldview. But, when all you have to choose from as a position tag is the atheist or agnostic label then the problem lies in semantics. This can be corrected, and this is what we need to focus upon.
What I propose to move forward with
This is what I propose. When I claim to be a religious atheist, then I share the same position as both an atheist and agnostic because I have rejected faith. The only question that remains to be answered is the possibility of God existing. This distinction is the very core of our struggles. I feel the atheist takes their position honestly because they don’t want anyone to confuse them as ascribing to religion or faith. I feel the agnostic takes their position honestly because they also reject religion and faith but they don’t want to claim as the atheist does a rejection of the possibility of a god.
The 2 New Positions defined:
Religious Atheist and Hardcore Atheist
The prevalence of the religious, faith meme forces skeptics to use a definition that comes from a denial. We need to accept this as a fact and just move ahead. I feel that the following two definitions will satisfactorily house all of the skeptical movement more clearly than the two terms we currently use, namely atheist and agnostic.
1) Religious atheist * rejects religion and faith but doesn’t address the possibility of a God question for whatever reason. In not addressing the God question this allows all Agnostics to unite with Atheist that are trying to avoid any association with a faith worldview. Deists could also identify with this group. Current atheist that are certain that there is no way a deity can exist need a more fitting label to define themselves with.
2) Hardcore atheist * rejects religion and faith and is certain that it is an impossibility that a deity actually exists.
By defining positions this way, we have removed some gray areas. Namely, the currently uncomfortable atheist who openly wants to deny faith, but wants to agree with the agnostic on the uncertainty of the possibility of a god has a home. This, what would be former atheist, has now made it clear: 1) no faith 2) agnostic on the possibility of a deity existing until proven differently.
The agnostic gray area has been removed because they have made a clear and positive statement against faith, but are allowed the freedom to be neutral on the possibility of God question until proven differently. For example: Webster’s New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1982) defines agnostic this way, “ one holding that it is impossible to know whether God exists”. While The Random House Dictionary of the English Language – College Edition (1968) defines it this way, “1. a person who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.”
Neutralizing the Anthony Flew “controversy”
Some will define agnostic by saying it is impossible to know (100% certainty), while others choose a lesser degree of certainty by doubting the possibility of ultimate knowledge. It is a semantic nightmare to try to determine when a speaker mentions or holds to agnosticism because you don’t know and often cannot ask which definition of agnosticism that they are referring to. If you feel that I am belaboring a point here, consider the stir about Anthony Flew being tossed about. He clearly stated his disdain for religion, in his May 11, 2006 speech at Biola. (See NY Times 11/04/2007 article by Mark Oppenheimer). At the Biola ceremony, Flew mocked the revealed religion of his audience and flaunted his allegiance to deism: “The deist god, unlike the god of the Jewish, Christian or, for heaven’s sake, the Islamic revelation, is neither interested in nor concerned about either human beliefs or human behaviour,” he told the small crowd.
I haven’t the time or the inclination to delve into this issue. To me, this just magnifies the need to clarify skeptic terms. If we did this, the Christian then would be an idiot to claim Anthony Flew, while Mr. Flew has his rightful place as a Religious Atheist. Oppenheimer’s article indicates that he probably wasn’t a Hardcore Atheist anyway. People like myself don’t know whom to believe about Flew’s “change”, and it wouldn’t matter because the argument was neutralized by correctly redefining our terms.
Eliminating the Christian’s “loophole”
By accepting these new atheistic definitions, the Christian has a clearly defined new enemy that isn’t divided. Both of these positions clearly reject faith and religion. The Christian that goes into a debate knows that they must defend their scriptures. The unanswerable question of a deity existing isn’t addressed when debating. We have also eliminated a Theist’s “loophole” when debating. When a Theist knows that you cannot prove or disprove God, they know going into a debate that they can neutralize the damage an Atheist caused because the Atheist didn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Skeptics then can pound away at the scriptures while they have the religious audiences ear when in debate. The weak point of religions is their revelations (scriptures). When these religious faithful loose confidence in their scriptures then skeptics will gain their ear as a receptive audience. The scriptures are the skeptic’s enemy. The scriptures tell people how they should live. Destroy the scriptures and at worse, these people become Deists, Benjamin Franklin being an example.
I don’t think that there are that many hardcore atheists around if we define our terms this way. The ambiguity of positions has been removed. If I am correct in my thinking, I feel we have unified at least 80% of skeptics under this Religious Atheists position.
WHY I AM NOT A HARD CORE ATHEIST
Simply put, the “hardcore atheist” hasn’t proven that “god” doesn’t exist. I don’t think that it is possible to prove this anyway, so why divide skeptics and weaken their clout? I feel like the skeptic that pointed out that the emperor has no clothes had felt, “Am I the only one that sees this”? As I continue to age, I have learned that the more that you learn you find out that there is so much more to learn. I’ve learned that carrying someone else’s flag is contrary to being a seeker of truth because it hinders the freedom of observation skills of the individual. You can claim that the Religious Atheist is “setting on the fence”, but they have freedom being outside of the box. I see the Hardcore Atheist being in a box, this is why some of them have such a problem with Anthony Flew “change” (if it is a reality). I don’t have a problem with the “change”, even if it is true. Why, because people that oppose faith and religion need to be able to vacillate between positions and it not be an issue. I myself think that the Hardcore Atheist is probably correct in this new definition, but I refuse to “sign up” because I distinguish between probability and certainty.
Exminister’s “Disclaimer”
Thinking out loud
I’m not an anarchist, but I do feel that this will stir many hardcore atheists. From my viewpoint, the combined intellectual firepower of both the Atheist and Agnostic position ought to make today’s Christians tomorrow’s dinosaurs. As I have said, it is improbable that a personal god exists. But, I do have an itch that needs to be scratched deep within my curiosity. I have questions about the force behind evolution? I do not claim to be a proponent of evolution, but I believe in the process. Who can deny that caterpillars become butterflies? I have questions about origins. I’m not satisfied with the answer of the creationist, nor the evolutionist. What appears to be synchronicity at work in our lives fascinates me! What is the significance of small world incidents, déjà vu moments? Why is it that in years past when I was financially busted that when I wanted to find a difficult book, I found it in a thrift store? I know that some intellectual superior to myself could probably give me some answers (this is stated tongue in cheek, but not sarcastically). I am open to enlightenment on what I have written in this paragraph. I am thinking out loud in these statements and probably won’t defend them for a variety of reasons. As with most everything I write, I try to make people think. I am not aware of anyone else that has expressed similar viewpoints. So here is my case! Memes when acted upon can actually change the world. My hope is that this one does, and in a positive way!
All rights are reserved by the author
Flew Controversy Exposes an Atheist Blind Spot
This is an oft-asked question to people like myself that have rejected faith. Many skeptics like to place you within their agnostic or atheist “camp” like a church member does with their new convert. But some will insist and press on you until you answer this question for them, I say “not so fast”.
Getting Somewhat Biographical for a Reason
Before I tell you my position…(it is a little different answer than what you might expect) I need to explain a few things. I am very appreciative of my alma mater Tennessee Temple University (TTU) in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science with a major in Pastoral Studies. Yes, they taught me dogma and many other things that I later discovered were simply not true. But anyway, what I am grateful for is that they were consistent in their aim to provide a quality education. They taught us that a good education teaches you how to think for yourself. I’m sure that they wouldn’t approve of what I have done or become and frankly, I don’t care. They can relax, I won’t be asking for a refundJ.
Unless you live in a cave, you know that there are hundreds of Christian denominations out there. My alma mater didn’t have a denominational tag, but most students were from Baptist backgrounds. Schools similar to TTU are Liberty University and Bob Jones University. What the fortunate lifelong atheist and agnostic doesn’t understand is how a town can get so many churches. People understand that there are many differences, but how did it get to be that way?
LESSONS LEARNED FROM A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
An introduction to the box
It was explained to me like this, the term that was used to describe it is called worldviews. Worldviews are what you might expect; ways in which people look at the world based upon their belief systems. Christians have their own worldviews based on their interpretation of the bible and faith. There are countless possibilities in biblical interpretation. Christians differ on baptism; eschatology; worship styles; gifts of the spirit, etc…you get the picture. Just like a business must find its place in a given market, so must a church if it is to survive. Yes, churches do fail just like businesses do.
Most People Interpret by Worldviews
Putting your brain in a box
Imagine that a worldview is really just a “pair of glasses” that a person wears to see the world through. A Christian often views his world in say a Calvinistic, Charismatic, Amillenial, etc. “pair of glasses”. Change the lenses and the Baptist suddenly becomes a Presbyterian. Often they see things as black or white. They may notice the differing shades of gray but be too dogmatic to accept what they just saw. Christians often accept whatever their “glasses” worldview tells them and simply fall asleep safely in their worldview. Logic and reason is rejected. Not simply because of dogma, their dogma has programmed what they are allowed to view because it is safe. New or threatening viewpoints are quickly rejected because of a prejudiced dogma.
Christians aren’t the only people that reach their conclusions this way. Non-theists can also fall into this subjective mind trap of worldviews. It should be obvious that thinking through a worldview /paradigm presupposition has a tendency to render a subjective verdict. Basically, a person turns in faith like manner to their worldview, and asks this worldview to interpret the data. The worldview becomes the master, and the holder its slave. Most people will never change their worldview. When a person’s worldview repeatedly fails to answer individual, societal, and global problems a person gradually looses faith in that worldview. At this point, viewpoints similar to that which Exminister espouses are ready to be explored by people with a receptive mindset.
INSIDE A CHRISTIAN CLASSROOM
Keeping you in a box
I considered going to Liberty University to obtain a Master’s degree. The reason I didn’t was that I just had too many questions that I wanted to answer for myself. In Christian schools they tell you what to think, and how to think to reach the same conclusions that they have. Pity the bible student that asks the wrong question at the wrong place or time. Fundamentalist professors will toy with the brave student that asks the wrong type of questions. They do this in front of their peers to embarrass and discourage other similar types of questioning. If that student embarrasses the professor that student is subject to a visit to the dean’s office and can be sent home if they are not compliant. You can see how that they maintain control. I wasn’t comfortable having someone else do my thinking for me. I decided that once I received my Bachelor’s degree, that to further my education I would read and study on my own and think for myself. It took me nine years after graduating from TTU to get out of the religious box.
Lessons learned from a salesman
Personally, sermon preparation is not easy work if your goal is to educate and inspire people for a noble purpose. In the end, all that matters is that a persuasive message was delivered to the decision maker inside of man. If not, then the question that needs to be asked is why! Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time. I still hold this same mentality as a skeptic trying reach the Theist’s decision maker. The business organization maxim, “nothing happens until something is sold” is true. For something to be sold, you have to reach the decision maker. Salesmen make or break organizations; good ones find a way to remove obstacles that keep them away from the decision maker.
Conquering the ineffective Atheist strategy
Exminister wants to be effective in reaching those receptive to being exposed to a non-theistic worldview. Yes, we have worldviews but Exminister’s doesn’t include trying to win someone over with an argument that you cannot win with. Intellectually, there are many very smart atheists. Atheists are the last people I would want to have an intellectual fight with. But someone needs to show me who (Atheist) has proven that God does not exist? When I say prove, I am not accepting the verdict of winning an intellectual debate versus the Christian.
Logic and reason drive you in the direction of probabilities. But a probability is not a fact. What I object to is the taking of a faith like leap by using probabilities as if they were a proven fact! I see the Atheist trying to sell this viewpoint to the Christian, and they aren’t buying it! To me, logic and reason rule and the Christian is correct in rejecting a flawed argument. Atheists loose their intellectual firepower by claiming more than they can deliver. Simply stated, the Atheist needs a new and effective strategy to win new converts.
Now, about that strategy!
I have probably made a few Atheists out there angry by now. Atheist anger is part of the reason that they are as smart as they are. But this negative anger is what I feel is their greatest weakness. Christian tactics can piss off the most passive skeptic. Christians in their desperation to defend their viewpoint can really be annoying. Anger may make you fight stronger and longer, but this isn’t a battle to be won by attrition.
Viewing our motives, do we want to win an intellectual debate? Do you want to embarrass somebody? Christian’s tactics provoke these thoughts within me, but acting with this motivation doesn’t produce what I want to have happen. I feel that Christianity causes many problems and creates discord in relationships, families, workplaces and society. Christians are blind to this fact, those who have left the faith understand this and are often motivated because of this to oppose the faith message.
The atheist is certain that there is no god. The Christian is certain that there is. Both views are an exercise of faith. Neither viewpoint can prove that the other respective position is wrong. You simply cannot prove that god does or does not exist.
Imagine you’re in a court of law, when it is time for the Christian god to take the stand. What is going to appear? The God whom no man has seen nor can be seen? The Atheist cannot bring in this invisible God either, in order to cross-examine him and prove that he is a fraud.
The Christian has the easier task to prove that there is a god. You would think with all of god’s superlatives from the bible that some Christian would have had proof by now. The Atheist dilemma is similar to defending yourself against the charge “When did you last beat your wife?” You may have done nothing wrong, but can you prove it?
Now, I have tried to use my terms carefully. What can be proven is that the bible is morally perverted, internally inconsistent, historically incorrect, and scientifically wrong. In light of all of this, it is correct to say that the bible is a fraud. Since the bible states in John 1:1 the “Word was God”, we can safely say that the god of the bible does not exist as it claims.
MY ANSWER TO THE ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC QUESTION
I will gladly accept without apology the position of a religious/biblical atheist. Atheists have satisfactorily proven that this god of the bible has not and does not exist! But please, do not call me an atheist! Why, might you ask? I said I was a religious/biblical atheist, not an atheist. An atheist has not been able to prove that god doesn’t exist! I agree with the Agnostic that it is highly improbable that a personal god exists.I really do not know if there is a god out there somewhere or not. If there is one, they have failed to leave us any instruction manuals to guide us.
If you carefully read the last paragraph you would have noticed that I did not answer the question properly! I gave an answer of: 1) A Religious/Biblical Atheist 2) An Agnostic. When a skeptic has to give more than one answer to a question like this then you know that there isn’t an obvious, definite term that describes the position that I hold. I don’t feel that I am alone in my observations.
Hegel’s Dialectic in effect?
I would think that almost all Atheist and Agnostics would agree in having no confidence in any religious scriptures? If we are in agreement with this point, then all we have to do is admit our clumsiness in the matter of semantics and more clearly define what it is that we actually believe. Currently, what I see happening in our skeptic movement is similar to what has happened to the US “two” political party system. That is, much energy and passion with little effectiveness. In reality it appears to be Hegel’s dialectic in place to produce stagnation.
Most and maybe all skeptics have proven their courage by rejecting the faith worldview. So when someone prods them to “get off the fence” and align themselves as an atheist they perpetuate unnecessary toiling. Again, I feel most all skeptics reject a faith worldview. But, when all you have to choose from as a position tag is the atheist or agnostic label then the problem lies in semantics. This can be corrected, and this is what we need to focus upon.
What I propose to move forward with
This is what I propose. When I claim to be a religious atheist, then I share the same position as both an atheist and agnostic because I have rejected faith. The only question that remains to be answered is the possibility of God existing. This distinction is the very core of our struggles. I feel the atheist takes their position honestly because they don’t want anyone to confuse them as ascribing to religion or faith. I feel the agnostic takes their position honestly because they also reject religion and faith but they don’t want to claim as the atheist does a rejection of the possibility of a god.
The 2 New Positions defined:
Religious Atheist and Hardcore Atheist
The prevalence of the religious, faith meme forces skeptics to use a definition that comes from a denial. We need to accept this as a fact and just move ahead. I feel that the following two definitions will satisfactorily house all of the skeptical movement more clearly than the two terms we currently use, namely atheist and agnostic.
1) Religious atheist * rejects religion and faith but doesn’t address the possibility of a God question for whatever reason. In not addressing the God question this allows all Agnostics to unite with Atheist that are trying to avoid any association with a faith worldview. Deists could also identify with this group. Current atheist that are certain that there is no way a deity can exist need a more fitting label to define themselves with.
2) Hardcore atheist * rejects religion and faith and is certain that it is an impossibility that a deity actually exists.
By defining positions this way, we have removed some gray areas. Namely, the currently uncomfortable atheist who openly wants to deny faith, but wants to agree with the agnostic on the uncertainty of the possibility of a god has a home. This, what would be former atheist, has now made it clear: 1) no faith 2) agnostic on the possibility of a deity existing until proven differently.
The agnostic gray area has been removed because they have made a clear and positive statement against faith, but are allowed the freedom to be neutral on the possibility of God question until proven differently. For example: Webster’s New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1982) defines agnostic this way, “ one holding that it is impossible to know whether God exists”. While The Random House Dictionary of the English Language – College Edition (1968) defines it this way, “1. a person who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.”
Neutralizing the Anthony Flew “controversy”
Some will define agnostic by saying it is impossible to know (100% certainty), while others choose a lesser degree of certainty by doubting the possibility of ultimate knowledge. It is a semantic nightmare to try to determine when a speaker mentions or holds to agnosticism because you don’t know and often cannot ask which definition of agnosticism that they are referring to. If you feel that I am belaboring a point here, consider the stir about Anthony Flew being tossed about. He clearly stated his disdain for religion, in his May 11, 2006 speech at Biola. (See NY Times 11/04/2007 article by Mark Oppenheimer). At the Biola ceremony, Flew mocked the revealed religion of his audience and flaunted his allegiance to deism: “The deist god, unlike the god of the Jewish, Christian or, for heaven’s sake, the Islamic revelation, is neither interested in nor concerned about either human beliefs or human behaviour,” he told the small crowd.
I haven’t the time or the inclination to delve into this issue. To me, this just magnifies the need to clarify skeptic terms. If we did this, the Christian then would be an idiot to claim Anthony Flew, while Mr. Flew has his rightful place as a Religious Atheist. Oppenheimer’s article indicates that he probably wasn’t a Hardcore Atheist anyway. People like myself don’t know whom to believe about Flew’s “change”, and it wouldn’t matter because the argument was neutralized by correctly redefining our terms.
Eliminating the Christian’s “loophole”
By accepting these new atheistic definitions, the Christian has a clearly defined new enemy that isn’t divided. Both of these positions clearly reject faith and religion. The Christian that goes into a debate knows that they must defend their scriptures. The unanswerable question of a deity existing isn’t addressed when debating. We have also eliminated a Theist’s “loophole” when debating. When a Theist knows that you cannot prove or disprove God, they know going into a debate that they can neutralize the damage an Atheist caused because the Atheist didn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Skeptics then can pound away at the scriptures while they have the religious audiences ear when in debate. The weak point of religions is their revelations (scriptures). When these religious faithful loose confidence in their scriptures then skeptics will gain their ear as a receptive audience. The scriptures are the skeptic’s enemy. The scriptures tell people how they should live. Destroy the scriptures and at worse, these people become Deists, Benjamin Franklin being an example.
I don’t think that there are that many hardcore atheists around if we define our terms this way. The ambiguity of positions has been removed. If I am correct in my thinking, I feel we have unified at least 80% of skeptics under this Religious Atheists position.
WHY I AM NOT A HARD CORE ATHEIST
Simply put, the “hardcore atheist” hasn’t proven that “god” doesn’t exist. I don’t think that it is possible to prove this anyway, so why divide skeptics and weaken their clout? I feel like the skeptic that pointed out that the emperor has no clothes had felt, “Am I the only one that sees this”? As I continue to age, I have learned that the more that you learn you find out that there is so much more to learn. I’ve learned that carrying someone else’s flag is contrary to being a seeker of truth because it hinders the freedom of observation skills of the individual. You can claim that the Religious Atheist is “setting on the fence”, but they have freedom being outside of the box. I see the Hardcore Atheist being in a box, this is why some of them have such a problem with Anthony Flew “change” (if it is a reality). I don’t have a problem with the “change”, even if it is true. Why, because people that oppose faith and religion need to be able to vacillate between positions and it not be an issue. I myself think that the Hardcore Atheist is probably correct in this new definition, but I refuse to “sign up” because I distinguish between probability and certainty.
Exminister’s “Disclaimer”
Thinking out loud
I’m not an anarchist, but I do feel that this will stir many hardcore atheists. From my viewpoint, the combined intellectual firepower of both the Atheist and Agnostic position ought to make today’s Christians tomorrow’s dinosaurs. As I have said, it is improbable that a personal god exists. But, I do have an itch that needs to be scratched deep within my curiosity. I have questions about the force behind evolution? I do not claim to be a proponent of evolution, but I believe in the process. Who can deny that caterpillars become butterflies? I have questions about origins. I’m not satisfied with the answer of the creationist, nor the evolutionist. What appears to be synchronicity at work in our lives fascinates me! What is the significance of small world incidents, déjà vu moments? Why is it that in years past when I was financially busted that when I wanted to find a difficult book, I found it in a thrift store? I know that some intellectual superior to myself could probably give me some answers (this is stated tongue in cheek, but not sarcastically). I am open to enlightenment on what I have written in this paragraph. I am thinking out loud in these statements and probably won’t defend them for a variety of reasons. As with most everything I write, I try to make people think. I am not aware of anyone else that has expressed similar viewpoints. So here is my case! Memes when acted upon can actually change the world. My hope is that this one does, and in a positive way!
All rights are reserved by the author
I understand all your points and where you are coming from. I don't see why any real athiest would be "angry" at your view points and comments. We became athiests by the very path you are examining. I do, however, disagree with one area.
ReplyDelete"The atheist is certain that there is no god. The Christian is certain that there is. Both views are an exercise of faith. Neither viewpoint can prove that the other respective position is wrong. You simply cannot prove that god does or does not exist."
The christian certainty is based all on wishful thinking, while the athiest view is based on testing the god hypothosis. I have tested every view of every religion (god) and it fails miserably where it promises. That proves everything. That proves there is no god with no doubt and you know I am basing my so-called eternity on it. I use the unicorn as an example to every xtian. There are no unicorns and I have proven it. Let's say for shits and giggles there is a unicorn in another place and/or time. It still defaults to non-existent because of my limitations and in the end, I have no responsiblity for its existence. I can't be responsible for the existence of something that is detached from me. I am saying if I don't have an attachment of responsibility to it, it does not exist. That is my personal responsibility to deem it non-existent. This may be my world view, but I won't add unicorns to it just case they exist. We live in a Must Know world, while some add imaginary knowledge and truth. We must not imagine anything. Speaking it into existence does make it so or even maybe.
I have proven any god void in the world. All the beliefs fail, therefore any knowing of any god defaults to non-existent. If you can't know something for sure and it takes faith to prop it up, it fails to exist in the first place. Example: My father exists, but I have never met him. By definition of father, he does not exist (he is impotent). He is no father of mine. God by defintion does not exist because he fails by definition. ie. love, mercy, just, all powerful, and etc. When religion fails to produce the attributes of claims, it proves god non-existent by itself. Its on the xtian to prove god exists and it has failed, therefore, there is no god. xtians will use mental gymnastics any way they can to show the existence of a god, but it continues to fail. god only exists in the minds of believes. Invisible and non-existent look exactly the same.
The key here is god is proven impotent and worthless. The Impotence of this so called god would mean they are no god at all, therefore god does not exist.
My personal view is the believer is a god by proxi. They just don't know it.
"Imagine you’re in a court of law, when it is time for the Christian god to take the stand. What is going to appear? The God whom no man has seen nor can be seen? The Atheist cannot bring in this invisible God either, in order to cross-examine him and prove that he is a fraud."
Again, the proof falls squarly on xtian. To bring in god to prove he is fraud is mental gymnastics. Back to the unicorn on that one. I can't bring in a non-existent pink unicorn. We can't use our imaginations to prove anything. Especially when its impotent.
Again, god is impotent in his definition, therefore god does not exist. This is no mental gymnastics on my part. It takes no faith in the failures and impotency of the perceived god or gods. Its common sense. I am not on even ground argumentively with the faithful. They make claims that are impotent and back it up with more impotency, wishful thinking, cliche's, analogies, and bible puzzle pieces. Their worldview is based on personal views, group views, and a calamity of positive bible verses given by a preacher on sunday. They disprove the existence of their god every Monday.
What is the significance of small world incidents, déjà vu moments? Why is it that in years past when I was financially busted that when I wanted to find a difficult book, I found it in a thrift store?
ReplyDeleteThough you begin by disclaiming the reach of probability, here the answer is precisely "probability". The phenomena you mention in the quote above are really not that improbable given the law of large numbers. What you have to consider is the vast majority of time in which it seems that nothing noteworthy is happening.
Also, I'd like to clarify that a useful definition of atheism is the absence of faith that a god exists. It is not a positive assertion about a god's non-existence, it is a lack of any reason to presume otherwise. In this way, it is nonsensical to assert that atheism is a position of faith.
Brian, great post. This is a dilemma that I've often faced in my thoughts and discussions with other people. I want to identify my disbelief in religious claims but always feel like my arguments lose steam when I openly admit that, no, I cannot disprove god at all. Then a discussion/debate spirals into a long tangent wherein I feel I have to explain what I mean.
ReplyDeleteSometimes when talking with agnostics I'm struck by a notion of spirituality or belief in an unknown god. I sometimes feel like they have lost their belief because the cannot escape the logic or evidence, but they cannot release the need for a system of belief. in essence I feel that I'm not of that camp as well.
So your post really resonates with me because there is a need for another definition or understanding that we can use to help us quickly and succinctly explain our position. Thanks
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you article, and your desire to sort out the terminology that often confuses and derails discussion among believers and non-believers. However, I honestly think that you have made the situation more complex than it needs to be, and have fed into a common and unfortunate stereotype. I think this stems from ambiguities in the words "disbelief", "atheist", and "agnostic", and what it means to "not believe" or "lack belief". It's common for each of those words and phrases to be used in slightly different ways by all parties in a discussion, which invariably plunges the discussion into a heated exchange.
Let me offer what I think are very simple definitions; not everyone here will agree with me on this, but perhaps you will agree that they are at least consistent, and that they avoid the difficulties you perceive.
disbelieve: One disbelieves a proposition if one believes the NEGATION of the proposition. Hence, to disbelieve in god is to believe there is no god. (Of all the definition I offer here, this is my least favorite because it is somewhat nonstandard. I'm open to suggestions on this, and will happily adopt another convention if someone has a better idea.)
lack belief or to not believe: One lacks belief in a proposition when one cannot affirm that the proposition is true, regardless of one's position regarding the negation. Hence, to lack belief in god is to feel there is no reason to affirm her existence, whether or not one feels there is sufficient reason to affirm her NONexistence. Similarly, I lack the belief that there is life on other planets, as I have no evidence of such, yet I acknowledge that possibility--in fact, I'd be positively delighted to discover that there is extraterrestrial life.
atheist: One who lacks belief in gods and or goddesses (commonly understood to be invisible conscious beings with great power).
agnostic: One who thinks it impossible to *know* whether or not gods or goddesses exist, whether or not they hold such a *belief*. (This was the original meaning of the word. Unfortunately, it has gradually become a synonym for "unsure", which now causes no end of confusion.)
I firmly believe that painting atheists as those who INSIST that there is no god is a mistake of catastrophic proportions. That is precisely the tactic used by countless religionists, and it is precisely why they almost invariably attack straw men. Atheism is not a dogmatic assertion of non-existence (although it would include that position as well). It is the position of NOT BELIEVING in a god, for whatever reason, such as there being NO EVIDENCE for such a being.
To make this clear, I consider myself an atheist because I see no reason to AFFIRM the existence of gods or goddesses, not because I possess "proof" (or even evidence) that there are no such entities. My position with regard to extraterrestrial life is similar (although not identical). That is, I see no reason to AFFIRM that there is life elsewhere, yet I certainly cannot "prove" that there is not.
I agree that one CAN legitimately argue that some specific deity does not exist (such as Yahweh) because of contradictory features that this entity supposedly possesses. Therefore, I think it a defensible position to be a so-called "strong atheist" (i.e. one who DISbelieves) with regard to a specific well-defined deity. However, it makes no sense whatsoever to take this position with regard to "gods" in general, as the term is not even properly defined. Hence, I think it is nonsense to equate "atheist" with DISbelief (as I have defined it above). If one takes the term "atheist" to mean one who simply lacks belief in gods, then
1) It includes all those who are not theists (for whatever reason), and
2) It undermines the disparaging straw man arguments often deployed by theists,
3) It focuses on what the actual issue is: reasons FOR BELIEVING in a deity, or the lack of such.
The only legitimate reason I have ever heard for NOT defining an atheist in this way is that it would then include those who don't believe in a god because they have never been exposed to the idea, or are infants, or are mentally incapacitated, etc. I agree that it does not seem useful to include the aforementioned people in the category of "atheist", but I don't see the harm either (aside from the stigma that is, unfortunately, associated with the word "atheist").
Does that make sense to you?
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI am with you. I left religion because I wanted to be free to do and think whatever I wanted.
I do not fit any definition, so I am who I am and don't believe what I don't believe.
Now, if you ask me who I like to hang out with, I'll respond--hands down--atheists. Because they're so smart and great to talk to.
Maybe I am an atheist, too. Who knows? Or better said, Who needs to know?
Perhaps a good definition of my position is that I am an atheist in reference to any of the gods humans worship and pursue. And if there is any other god out there, I chose to ignore it.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteif so, what is the difference between your atheism and agnosticism?
It's maybe you who cause the confusion.
Lorena said: "Now, if you ask me who I like to hang out with, I'll respond--hands down--atheists. Because they're so smart and great to talk to."
ReplyDeleteI can relate to Lorena on that. Ever since I abandoned the christian faith and stopped going to church, I have found that I don't have much in common with other christians.
Anytime I talk to christians today, I like I am on eggshells. I feel more comfortable around "Non-Christians", who have open minds because it seems you can just be yourself and not have to worry about being judged.
I tried very hard to maintain my friendships with other christians after I left the flock, and found that I was not able to be myself.
I am now finding out that once you get away from all the christian brainwashing and manipulation, that is when you find "True" and "Real" freedom.
It just gets me how christians claim that anyone who does not have Christ in their life is in bondage and is miserable. They wish. lol!
Now when I hear these christians talk it's like my eyes have been opened to how delusional they really are. They remind me of drug addicts who deny that they have drug addiction.
I think the breakdown in the word and definition of "athiest" comes from xtians. Athiests define themselves in several ways to include non-believers and having no faith in a god. I think xtians refer to athiests at ones who "reject" their god. They have sort of twisted the definition to attach to their belief. I am not sure if xtians created the word "athiest" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAgain, they believe the truth so much that they have defined athiests as rejecters of their faith and no one in their right mind would reject their truth. In conjuction with that, they say they "don't believe in athiests". This makes sense to them.
Athiests are rejecters of their complete faith and place us in a box of their own. Because god exists to them, we are only rejecting it. In a weird way, because we reject their god, it proves to them that god exists. But at the same time, in order to prove our position better, we must shut up and say nothing.
As an athiest, I do not reject the xtian god. I reject religion that created the myth. I am insulted everyday that xtianity is mentioned. I think all athiests feel that and it makes it necessary for us to be angry.
To Brian: Like some of the other commenters have already said, I think you are mistaken about some things.
ReplyDeleteNow, you can call yourself whatever you like, but just according to your article, I'd put you down as an agnostic.
I, however, am an atheist, and I'm proud to say that. The whole argument basically comes down to semantics.
I don't believe in God. I am an atheist. Some people put forth the hypothesis that there is a god. I do not find anywhere near sufficient evidence, so I lack their beliefs. It's as simple as that.
Let me give you an example of what I'm getting at. Suppose I tell you
that I'm levitating right now as I type this. Would you believe me? Just like the Christians you mentioned, I could quite correctly say that you can't prove with 100% certainty that I'm not levitating right now, but that doesn't mean that you have to be undecided or act like the question of me levitating does not warrant an answer of "yes" or "no".
So if you ask me if I can prove with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, I'll say that I can't. If you ask me to prove that elves, fairies, gnomes, unicorns, and minotaurs (including invisible ones that you can't touch or smell or hear) don't exist, again, I also can't. But I can be pretty darn sure that they don't exist. And, to me, that's atheism. For those who have lingering doubts that are big enough to be worth caring about, I'd put them in the agnostic category.
To Trumpeter (a troll that really does exist): You seem to be getting at the fact that atheists are not rational. So I would like you to tell all of us about what you believe or don't beleive in (e.g. Is there a God? Is Jesus the son of God?), so we can assess you and see if you are rational, yourself. I think it's only fair.
Trumpeter: I'll say a prayer to my Lord and saviour 'no-god' for you tonight.
ReplyDeleteRiley, Theists(Christians) have their own test. I'll illustrate it my something I once heard Billy Graham say when asked, "How do I know God exists? Answer: "I spoke with him this morning". Skeptics would be wise to avoid anything that could filter down to a test that can be made subjective. Christians specialize in this area. Again, we win the debate but fail to reach the Christian decision maker. Thanks Shaggy for the probabilities comment. Your suggestion about atheist definition is good for me and skeptics, but Christans are the reason we need to clarify our terms. Your definition allows for the Christian loophole to continue. Rick, you really understand the situation and it shows in what you said. Thank you! Jim, you want to clarify 4 terms and needed much "ink" to do so. It doesn't resonate with me. Remember that it is the theist that we seek to reach. They will understand my definitions clearly. If there were no Hardcore Atheist around then I think that we could rework a better definition, but I suspect that there are. Because of this point our cause is better serve with the Hardcore Atheist definition as I stated. In summary, most definitions fail to reach the Christian decision maker. I think these new definitions and strategy reaches our target audience. I hope that they get the chance to "get to work".
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteYou are clearly right on the point of reaching the decision maker. I know we fail, but I don't think its all on us athiests. xtians have a built in presumption of their religion and anything outside it is "demonized". xtianity has been demonizing since its invention, especially after Constantine made it law in about 300 AD.
There is no way to reach believers. We can only reach agnostics and doubters. I have never heard of an athiest reaching a TB xtian. An xtain must realize for themselves. I never set out to change a believer. I only stick up for my free thought or when I feel ostersized.
The Billy Graham comment is exactly why the god hypothesis does not stand up. xtian must use an aray of falicies to hold it up. Strawman and slippery slope are the bigggest examples.
All and all, I am with you on the reaching the believer. I don't how much of it us and how much it is of them. I agree athiest is a bad term now. Bright is no better to me. I would prefer free thinker, but it falls short to the xtian. The xtian attitude hold us back because the xtian is busy trying to convert us and when we ask them questions about their faith, they think we are still searching. They think we are only criticizing the one thing they can't believe others don't believe. I remember feeling like that. Telling an xtian that are living a lie is like telling my wife her emotions are BS. It questions their livelyhood. I am starting to believe after 3 years as an athiest that xtians are unreachable. Although, I do feel the fence riders who hate religion can be reached. I think they tend to pick and choose for moral or family reasons.
I can also in retrospect that we all could be called agnotic since really 100% don't know, but that shuts us out on having any ground to expose the myth. I know deep down some xtians know its a myth, but a "good" myth when picking and choosing. The world has not offered any other alternative or
xtianity has killed off any chance of another alternative.
religion only evolves. We can't stop the myth. We started with nothing in the beginning, created myths as a survival skill, and continue to use them. Love is a perfect example of an ideal that we created and ran with. Love changes, but will never go away. The Jebus mobile hijacked love and for good reason. Everyone wants love to the highest degree, but it fails miserably. Because the love hypothesis fails, people turn to xtianity. Love is fleeting just as xtianity is fleeting. We all are hypocrites on Monday. We all have our ideals and turn around and contradict them. Anyone who says different is lying to themselves.
I compare love to xtianity because they are similar in ideology and they both fail the same. Examples:
We don't want to be lied too, but yet we lie. We don't want to be hurt, yet we hurt others. Its all about self-denial in order to survive (xtianity). In truth, our lives are meaningless unless we create BS to fill it. The thing is xtianity is biggest BS story ever (G. Carlin).
To sum it up, xtians can never be changed because we have nothing to offer outside of their imaginary friend except the truth. They are told there is nothing outside of religion.
They fear the nothingness of the future. They love the lie and lie to love. When one successful turns lies into personal truths, it brings peace beyond all understanding. They do not want to "break the spell". They know that they know! It is taboo to talk bad about ones imagination.
I don't see how your approach will work any better than anothers. We can't change the dogmatic either way. We can only be there for the doubters.
Obviously, there are multiple domains/contexts that can be entertained when discussing theism, agnosticism, and atheism; logical, social, cultural, psychological, etc.
ReplyDeleteRegarding, the logical/epistemological domain.
If a person doesn't accept a theological first principle to establish the existence of a God(s)... they fall under the atheism category. Agnostics fall within the category of atheism, because they don't affirm a theological first principle to establish the existence of a God/s.
However, they do presuppose a theological first principle, and cite human limitations in the area of knowledge, as being the key stumbling block to ever elevate the presuppositional theological first principle, to an established theological first principle that affirms the existence of God/s.
As a naturalist that falls under atheism I don't entertain a theological presupposition, to establish my position. My position is established independently of theological assumptions. The primary first principles I hold, don't necessitate the need to establish a theological first principle.
I'd also like to note; that agnostics can differ in their practice. While it may be true, that an agnostic is an atheist in terms of the logical domain/context, I have known agnostics to practice social or cultural theism.
Personally, no social/cultural need would ever be great enough, to force me to sit in a room for hours, listening to a religious leader "prove" by implication, etc., the existence of supernatural beings, and what they would like me to do.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean "xtians have their own tests"? All they have is positive thinking and Self- reinforcement. A real test would not require "faith". xtianity and other faiths work on the gize that if you want it to be true, it will be. That is the trick. That is why they tell people to pray and read the word. Its built to take those who want it to be true. One must ignore their own personal skeptisim to believe. The reason it takes faith is because its a bunch of impossible lies. "Extra-ordinary claims take extra-ordinary evidence. xtians have no tests for this. They base their tests and claims on a strong curve.
trumpeter,
ReplyDeleteRead my post. I already addressed your question directly.
For the others here... This is EXACTLY why the gradual shift in the meaning of "agnostic" is so unfortunate. Folks like "trumpeter" think all self-described atheists are dogmatists because there is already a word for those who do not claim to have proof of non-existence. What a mess.
Jim, i know you need more people in your group of great ex-c's. but language has social function. if you wanna make your own word, do it in your diary. ok? ha ha...
ReplyDeleteSeems to me with all this classification Religious, hardcore, Atheist, Agnostic All you are doing is creating Another faith for people to follow trying to rally more people to "YOUR" cause and create your own denominations inside an anti christian community explain to me how this is any different from the Christians to begin with? it still appears you all need a label to follow no matter how open minded you have become.
ReplyDeleteTrumpeter, when you have something interesting to add to the discussion, please let us know, okay? Ha ha ha...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, many debates are ultimately over little more than semantics. Often some of this can be avoided if one is careful about what one means by certain words. If you think that carefully defining some words is the equivalent of creating religious cults, then all I can say is that you have a very odd worldview.
By the way, I do not foist my labels on anyone else. If someone wants to be called an "agnostic", that's fine with me--I'll refer to them as an agnostic. It's helpful if they explain what they mean by it, however, as the term is now so ambiguous.
Jim, I think you are spot on in your assessment on the quagmire that entangles atheism, agnosticism and even theism.
ReplyDeleteI only percieve of "two" broad categories; theism and atheism.
Either a person establishes a theological first principle to support the existence of a God according to their terms - or they don't. If they do = theism… If they don’t = atheism. Agnostics, fall under atheism, because they do not establish a theological first principle to support the existence of God/s.
It's that simple.
Below, those two main umbrellas... there are a plethora of ways, reasons, and causes people use to substantiate their claims... for both theists and atheists… and as you alluded, some fall under atheism by sheer circumstance – infant, mentally handicapped, etc.
Kudos, for your post.
S'like....what are you? A Yankee's fan?...or a lover of popcorn?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you can be both. Likewise, you can be both an Agnostic, and an Atheist. There are Agnostic believers; there are Agnostic non-believers...ha ha.
ha ha
ha ha
ha ha?
Good grief, Trumpet blower...your "can" apparently is empty. Beat it...scram...shoo!
Anony: "Seems to me with all this classification Religious, hardcore, Atheist, Agnostic All you are doing is creating Another faith for people to follow trying to rally more people to "YOUR" cause and create your own denominations inside an anti christian community"
ReplyDeleteActually, I'll admit that I have a bias towards using "reason" to establish my belief(s), and philosophy. Why? Because, it allows me to be successful in life, whatever I determine to be successful. Being "successful", doesn't just touch the logical domain by the way... it crosses "all" domains, to include cultural and social.
Don't you believe that people should be cognitively free to find happiness? If "reason" is a religion - then sign me up.
Anony: "...explain to me how this is any different from the Christians to begin with? it still appears you all need a label to follow no matter how open minded you have become."
Wrong. You only need a label, if you express yourself to others. However, I take the liberty of assigning a person to a label, for my own understanding (not to create some anti-religious movement) based on their practices and actions - people are what they do.
Classification of practices and beliefs does not equate to trying to create a new anti-religious movement.
If that is the case; then every time a scientist classifies a new animal, they have created the potential for the anti-animal hate club - per your reasoning.
How very myopic of you. So... just because there are Asian people by category, does that mean that there inherently must be Asian hate groups?
Do you actually buy that everyone in the world seeks to classify others, for the sheer purpose of hating them? Or, to "use them" in order to gain a "following"?
Something to think about.
Riley, Christians are very reachable, skeptics just need to learn how to speak with them. Fundamentalists in my eyes are the easiest to reach because they believe that the bible is true. I was open to truth prior to leaving the ministry. Problem was that skeptics didn't know how or were too politically correct to risk trying. Hardcore Atheist can teach a believer many things, problem is who wants to listen when they have an attitude. People don't care how much that you know until they know how much that you care. I say that skeptics should only talk with those who are open and don't be pushy with those who are not open. Remember, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
ReplyDeleteJim, another point that I failed to address earlier. Your line, "I firmly believe that painting atheists as those who INSIST that there is no god is a mistake of catastrophic proportions." I feel your being a little too dramatic with this statement. I view this very differently, because the Hardcore Atheist claims something he can't prove is just as guilty as the theist by using faith. Do you think the Christian will forget this point? Especially when they are threatened for their survival when in a debate forum. As I said, when they debate the damage is neutralized by the Christian being able to walk away because of the loophole THAT WE ALLOW TO EXIST. I realize that people (Atheist) do not like to change. I see the Hardcore Atheist as the weak link in the skeptical chain because they are resistant to make a "half time adjustment" in order to win!
Ricky, do you want to win? The last paragraph answers my thoughts about your statement. It seems to me you want to be clever and are too proud. You are clinging to the failed Atheist strategy that hasn't produced. If Hardcore Atheist had a CEO, they would or should fire their sales and marketing department for failure to produce! Christians often use the saying "Your preaching to the choir". Your point only resonates with the skeptic. I see your point but it fails with Christians.
Riley, your statement "What do you mean "xtians have their own tests"? All they have is positive thinking and Self- reinforcement". I'm laughing, not at you, but at your insistance to prove a point that Christians will only say SO WHAT to.
To all: We all need to swallow a little pride, refocus and think of an effective strategy to reach our target. This target being truly open minded Christians. Let's not waste our time on Christians whose worldview hasn't failed them yet. They need time. They do have a flawed worldview and it will eventually fai them if they are not totally deluded. When they are open then they will be ready to speak with us IF WE ARE APPROACHABLE!
This is my strategy. I haven't heard anyone else propose a "new and improved" strategy in response to what I have written. I think my background provides a little better insight than that of an Atheist who had never "walked in a pair of Christian's shoes" before. To me, it is just a question of do we want to win, and if so, are we willing to do what is necessary to get there?
I've been told that that it's apparent that I believe in God, since I cuss him so much.
ReplyDeleteHey BoomSLANG, I agree, in the social/cultural domain, a person can pretty much call themselves anything they care to :-)
ReplyDeleteToday I believe I'm the Pope :-0) because I get to meet cool people, and it meets my social need(s), albeit I don't hold a theological first principle that establishes the existence of a God/s - thus, I logically fall under the umbrella of atheism.
When we leave the epistemo-logical domain, it's the wild-wild west - anybody can call themselves anything they want, and even act contradictory to what they say. Now, that's a mess.
There has to be an anchor, by which to classify, and I use epistemology, since a person either "knows" or "doesn't know", the logical foundations for their position. If a person can't logically explain their position, then, there are other reasons they classify themselves under a particular belief system.
Empty Mind, has an issue, because they obviously believe that using reason within a logical domain to capture the essence of a persons' more accurate position, is an evil-attempt by users of reason to redefine the religious lanes/lines and "steal away" a piece of that fertile "social" domain turf, that religions are "built upon".
Who cares, a person is classified by how they believe, if all they know about a religion is social gatherings, in a church, then they are social theists - I dare say, I have not yet met one logically "sound" theist who can establish a theological first principle. However, if one of them wants to pick up a loaf of bread and call it "God", then, there's hope :-)
Brian Worley: "To me, it is just a question of do we want to win, and if so, are we willing to do what is necessary to get there?"
ReplyDeleteWhat are the strategic goal & plan, and operational objective(s) that all atheists are supposed to be trying to tactically engage? Just curious.
Brain said "...the Hardcore Atheist claims something he can't prove is just as guilty as the theist by using faith. Do you think the Christian will forget this point?"
ReplyDeleteBrian, it seem that by "Hardcore Atheist" you mean an atheist who makes a broad dogmatic claim. If someone wants to make such a claim, let them, and let them defend it. Personally I think it's idiotic to claim to *know* that X does not exist when X is such a broad and nebulous concept.
I think I'm about as "hard core" an atheist as you are likely to find, yet I do not go around pronouncing things absolutely non-existent, nor do any associates of mine. As a practical matter, yes, we (atheists) all treat god as non-existent, just as we treat unicorns, dragons, and leprechauns as non-existent, and for the very same reason: THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THEM.
I honestly don't see why you want to focus on atheists who make overly-broad claims. Do you think that position is indicative of the class as a whole? I don't. To me it does nothing but obscure the real issue, which is the presence or absence of credible evidence.
As for a simple strategy, please tell me what is wrong with this: "I don't share your belief in god because I've never seen any credible evidence for him/her/it. If you claim to possess some, let's examine it together." I DO NOT claim that this is necessarily the best strategy, I just honestly do not see what is wrong with it. I'm listening...
...because the Hardcore Atheist claims something he can't prove is just as guilty as the theist by using faith.
ReplyDeleteHeavens-to-betsy! Okay, firstly, "Atheism" is NOT a proclamation that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!" It is simply non-belief that such a being does exist. Secondly--and that said--what, exactly, is the difference between a "Hardcore Athiest"(complete with upper case "H", no less), and simply an "Atheist"? Tell me, is it the same difference between one who doesn't believe in the Easter bunny, and one who really, really, really, REALLY doesn't believe in Easter bunny????? Please explain, bearing in mind, that the word/label "Atheist" is only necessary because of people who INSIST that God/gods exist. And don't you find that ironic?...that Theists make Atheism necessary? I sure do.
I realize that people (Atheist) do not like to change.
This is an absurd generalization/characterization. To the contrary, Theists resist change because they claim their respective "faiths" are the final answer/authority on everything. Nonetheless, I'm curious, would a person(a non-believer in gods) be considered one who resists "change" if they don't happen to believe in the Greek pantheon of gods?
To me, it is just a question of do we want to win, and if so, are we willing to do what is necessary to get there?
Forgive me, but you seem to be suggesting that there is also a "one-size-fits-all" approach when it comes to being an Atheist. Many of us just broke away from that "one-size-fits-all" crap when we were Theists. Suggestions are one thing, but it helps to clear the misconceptions about Atheism, first, before anything productive can happen.
Somehow, I get the impression, from Brian, that all hard-core atheists are going door-to-door selling their world-view.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that there were atheist missionaries on the loose.
Hard-core means "strong personal conviction", and does not necessarily imply a seek-and-destroy model for theist belief systems.
One can hold a strong personal conviction, and still be open to intellectual discourse.
If the goal, is to "be there" for Christians who are coming out of a bad fundy relationship; well, then, if they are seeking answers, they can find people here on this site to talk to, even hard-core atheists are willing to openly engage in debate and discussion.
However, if there is this desire to "persuade" Christians to "move away" from their current state of belief, then I'd also like to hear some strategies. I mean, if a theist is having their social needs met by going to church, it's quite obvious that the need will have to be fulfilled elsewhere - am I suppose to be the one to fulfill a social need - for team Atheism?
Here's a novel idea - education.
Hi D8,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I like what you said once, and it stuck: "Existence precedes consciousness"[paraphrased correctly?] Then, existence would be a first Principle, I believe. What is..IS.
I help people in my community, because I'm a good citizen... "Not" because I fall under the umbrella of Atheism, and adhere to its social contract/manifesto. If someone needs a ride to work; I don’t demand they take the atheist bible, or listen to my atheist radio station on the way.
ReplyDeleteHey Boom :-)
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to a site that is centered on objective thought.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html
The site as a whole, is a breath of fresh air. Our foundations are the basis by which we know our world. I'm not through building my philosophy, but I do have a solid foundation, and that's where it all starts - Enjoy.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteIt is really getting old. I only hear xtians say this and they say it to shut everyone up.
"classification Religious, hardcore, Atheist, Agnostic All you are doing is creating Another faith for people to follow trying to rally more people to "YOUR" cause and create your own denominations inside an anti christian community explain to me how this is any different from the Christians to begin with?"
Here it is plain and simple. Belief labels are not like politics where there are democrates and republican. Can you wrap your label making brain around that? Atheist is the absense of belief in any god or gods. It is not the other side of things as simple people think (they let others think for them). As another pointed, we dont' go to door. We don't collect money or have TV evangelists robbing people blind.
Again, the atheist label is not the same. Its not about faith either. Its about "knowing" there is no god by evidence.
I also know you are not here to make a real point with your comments. You are here to rope atheists into believing we are the same as xtians and you know how much we distain the christain.
Atheist is not a faith!
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% when you say this:
"Brian, it seem that by "Hardcore Atheist" you mean an atheist who makes a broad dogmatic claim. If someone wants to make such a claim, let them, and let them defend it. Personally I think it's idiotic to claim to *know* that X does not exist when X is such a broad and nebulous concept.
Jim, that is exactly what I am referring to as it is a HUGE obstacle that makes the atheist arguement an impossible sell to the Christian. IF I could poll all skeptics and ask if anyone of them held to what I define as a hardcore atheist and found that NO ONE held to this hardcore atheist position then positive change could come quickly. It would be THAT EASY. That is a big IF.
Simply put, the hardcore atheist is the Christian's loophole when in a debate forum. The only way that I can see to make this problem go away is to define a more concrete definition than what we now use in the ambigous term atheist.
I'll say it in a different way. Do you feel my definition of religious atheist would house ALL of the skeptic movement? IF YOU SAID YES TO THIS AND everyone agreed to this then their is NO NEED for the hardcore atheist definition.
Do you feel that our skeptic movement could get agreement on this? I would hope so, but I am skeptical of this happening.
Addressing Boomslang's quote,
Heavens-to-betsy! Okay, firstly, "Atheism" is NOT a proclamation that "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!" It is simply non-belief that such a being does exist. Secondly--and that said--what, exactly, is the difference between a "Hardcore Athiest"(complete with upper case "H", no less), and simply an "Atheist"?
I like your definition and would find difficulty finding fault with it. But this definition does not address the possibility of a god existing, you just say that you have a non belief that such a being exist. Webster's New World defies atheism this way, "the belief that their is no god". The point is that their is NO STANDARD or uniform definition, but a lot of ambiguity when people refer to the word atheism. Is it absense of belief, or assertion that their is no god?????
Although Mr. Flew mocked the Christian god, these same Christians are claiming him! Why? Because the ambiguity of terms when defining atheism and agnosticism are real.
Let me ask everyone reading this, how would you classify Mr. Flew now? The Christian claims him as a Theist but he hasn't claimed any of the smorgasboard of gods that currently exist has he? Many of you would probably agree with this assesmentof him being a Theist. To show you how important semantics is listen to how The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (College Edition) 1968 defines deism "belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
I think it is interesting to note that Theist should have to name their god before they can claim the title of a theist, otherwise then in Flew's case specifically he should be only referred to as a deist.
I don't know where this whole business started of some missionary cause or door to door evangelism. When I stated reaching those who are open, this is exactly what I mean. If a Christian isn't open then don't force open the door. They need to loose enough faith in their Christian worldview before they will be ready to speak with you anyway. I don't care about saving the world as some type of hero, but I do want to contribute in making the world a better place to be. Frankly, if William James question about religion, "Does your religious belief make you a better person" were true about Christians then I would say, let them be. Carefully read and not read into what is stated please.
ReplyDeleteAs for my strategy, since some did not understand me. 1) Fix the semantics problem 2) Focus on debate on revelation issues 3) learn how to work/talk with Christians instead of being pissed off at them and making fun of them.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteHere is how I see it, based on only informal evidence (i.e. no scientific polls):
1) The majority of self-declared atheists either do not bother defining exactly what their position consists in (as they feel no need to do so), or they claim to simply NOT BELIEVE in a god (i.e. they do not affirm the existence of such a being).
2) The majority of self-declared theists define an atheist as someone who dogmatically DENIES the existence of god (as per the majority of dictionary definitions).
The reason for this should be clear. Theists prefer to view atheists as being dogmatic, as people have a tendency to project weak positions onto their philosophical adversaries. On the other hand, most atheists (in my experience) prefer not to be dogmatic. Now, I have a simple question. Who do you think is in a better position to define what "atheist" means: an atheist or a theist?
But I think there is a simple way to avoid all these semantic difficulties. When you discuss theology with someone, simply ASK them what there position is. Don't assume based on a label, and don't force a label on someone that they don't approve of. We spend far too much time haggling over labels, don't you think?
Riley,
ReplyDeleteatheism is a type of faith, even bad faith...
the reason it's faith is you can not prove what you are shouting. or if you can, Riley, do it here. ha ha....
trumpeter, I'm not sure how you manage to do it, but it seems you continually fail to absorb a single thing from this discussion. Do you actually read any of the comments here, or do you just blurt out random nonsense for fun?
ReplyDeleteOh, I almost forgot.... ha ha ha
Brian: "As for my strategy, since some did not understand me. 1) Fix the semantics problem"
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a semantics problem; each atheist is their own position. If all of atheism came together, then another logical fallacy would be used to assault everyone - like claiming atheism is just like a religion, or the Tu Quoque logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
If a person is going to engage the debate scene, (at this is not necessary for anyone), it would be prudent to understand one's position and be able to identify logical fallacies as they are thrown out, in endless droves by the theist.
But, this is a logical domain concern. There are theists, who don't care to establish their position, beyond "I believe in God", as their theological first principle. When one gets into a debate with a social theist, it's nothing but emotional pleas, and endless persuasion tactics that are rife with logical fallacies.
A social theist, isn't going to be won over with logic, they are comfortable in their social domain. If someone wanted to debate them, they would be the one to most likely throw smoke screens, as they would be out of their element per se.
Brian: "2) Focus on debate on revelation issues"
There are books written on the topic. Most of us, have the arguments on file. Here is a good start with the NT, and forgeries.
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html
Brian: "3) learn how to work/talk with Christians instead of being pissed off at them and making fun of them."
What is the work/talk supposed to accomplish?
I'm curious now Brian, I have family that lives right down the road from TTU, and I attended CSU, formerly known as Baptist College at Charleston, SC, convocation and all.
Do you "really" understand the fundamental sticking point between those who are theists and those who are atheists in the U.S.?
The "target" of my "contempt", is "not" the Christian or person. The target of opportunity for me, is the doctrine, and the fallacious reasoning used by religious leaders to manipulate followers.
Now, if a Christian's Self-Identity is welded to the pages of a book, and they perceive the judgment of logical fallacies on the Christian doctrine to be a personal attack... that is something therapeutic intervention can help with - someone is having an "identity crisis".
I am not going to dance around a Christian's identity crisis, by overlooking the obvious attack on reason and manipulation going on in public law, education, economics, etc.
If you want to "strategize", why don't you think of a good way to bring all religious followers on the page of "reason", so that there can be productive conversation :-)
Well, intuitively speaking, Asian translators obviously swap LOL for Ha Ha Ha, and yes, deism falls under theism, because a deist promotes a theological first principle to establish the existence of a God/s.
ReplyDeleteIn response to all the misconceptions concerning non-belief in deities, I previously said: Okay, firstly, 'Atheism' is NOT a proclamation that 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!' It is simply non-belief that such a being does exist. Secondly--and that said--what, exactly, is the difference between a 'Hardcore Athiest'(complete with upper case 'H', no less), and simply an 'Atheist'?"
ReplyDeleteB.W. responds: I like your definition and would find difficulty finding fault with it.
Yet, you evidently manage to do just that.
B.W. continues: But this definition does not address the possibility of a god existing, you just say that you have a non belief that such a being exist.
Um, whAT? Yes, I have a "non-belief" in God/gods---"Atheism" is the NON-belief in God/gods. So why would that definition; why should that definition, be so comprehensive as to "address" the possiblity that deities "might" exist? Again, Atheism deals with belief; it doesn't concern itself with knowledge, or what "might" be "possible".
B.W.: Webster's New World defies atheism this way, "the belief that their is no god".
Really? Webster's dictionary says, quote: "their is no god"? That's odd. So then, I wouldn't trust that source.
B.W.: The point is that [there] is NO STANDARD or uniform definition, but a lot of ambiguity when people refer to the word atheism.
If it's ambiguous, I venture to say that that generally stems from people who are not Atheist......'what do you think?.... thus, it may not be that they don't understand it, but that they won't understand it.
B.W.: Is it[Atheism] absense of belief, or assertion that [there] is no god?????
It is the absence of belief. As for making assertions---if one disbelieves in something... say, invisible purple pixies....then it is implicit that one is asserting that said pixies don't exist, according to the one lacking the belief. Mind you, such a thing is not even falsifiable, in an objective sense. On the other hand, invisible divine beings(i.e.."Gods") with blatantly contradicting characteristics assigned to them, can be shown to not exist with near certainty, if not complete certainty. Atheism would be inclusive of these types of "gods", as well.
In other words, if a theist assigns "all-loving" to a deity, yet, that deity only loves those who love it back, then I can rightfully proclaim that such a being DOES NOT exist. Square circles do not exist. 'Get it yet?
"ha ha", blah blah, "ha ha", blah blah.
ReplyDeleteEmpty Can...AKA "Trumpeter", isn't it arout time you should be reaving?
So i guess you have some serious mental problem. if you don't proclaim or say whay you believe, what do you proclaim or say?
ReplyDeleteHaiey, Empty Trumpteting Can, I think it is you who may have the reading comprehension problem. To be sure, I most definitely "proclaim" that I don't believe in disembodied flying undead zombie-men, i.e.."gods". Watch: Hello, world?...I most definitely DO NOT believe in God/gods.
Clear enough?
Regardless, my position, the "Atheist" position, is not a proclamation that "gods" don't exist, absolutely.... unless, again, if said god has attributes that blatantly contradict. Now, do you think that you can at least absorb that much? Ret me know, m'kay, ha ha?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good points, so I will cut and paste for everyones benefit the part that we need to remember. After I read what you state below,your viewpoint got me to think of something in a way I haven't thought about it before. Boom's thoughts also helped me.
1) The majority of self-declared atheists either do not bother defining exactly what their position consists in (as they feel no need to do so), or they claim to simply NOT BELIEVE in a god (i.e. they do not affirm the existence of such a being).
2) The majority of self-declared theists define an atheist as someone who dogmatically DENIES the existence of god (as per the majority of dictionary definitions).
The reason for this should be clear. Theists prefer to view atheists as being dogmatic, as people have a tendency to project weak positions onto their philosophical adversaries. (quote ends)
Now when you ask WHO should define the atheist position.....I really want to agree with you and say the atheist should. BUT I CANNOT, Why? Our definition works within our community but not outside of our community.
Christians have done a great job in positioning us in the meme marketplace for their benefit. We need to admit our clumsiness in definitions and not allow someone else to define us. This only happens when we clean up the semantic problem THAT DOES CLEARLY EXIST.Boom, when you say that you wouldn't trust Webster's. I agree, but try to sell that to Christians...they won't buy it.
As annoying as trumpeter can sometimes be, he has made some very good points. When he uses the pre-established position that Christians have framed or positioned the atheist inside of. I know atheist are annoyed by what he is saying, here is what he said to: Riley,
atheism is a type of faith, even bad faith...
the reason it's faith is you can not prove what you are shouting. or if you can, Riley, do it here. ha ha....
Do atheist want to have to continue to keep dealing with this stuff? The answer is yes if they keep the same definition that they have thrust upon you. Take responsibility atheist and position yourself with a definition/position that actually works. I wish people would re-read my article, especially about definitions, strategy and Hegel's dialectic question.
Dave, "There isn't a semantics problem; each atheist is their own position." I would ask you to see Jim's words at the beginning of this. He expressed it well! Not one of us would be for any hinderance of freethought. Atheist have allowed themselves to be positioned by the theist by following the position you express, Jim points this out. My definition would thwart what I view as as Hegel's Dialectic that is intact to produce stagnation.
I am surprised that nobody has commented about Hegel's Dialectic upon the theism/atheism debate. Atheism, if positioned and defined correctly is the strong man here. The atheist strongman is neutralized by his lack of attention to detail by allowing himself to be miscast into the marketplace.
The atheist didn't win me over when I was a Christian because he never caught my ear. The atheist never caught my ear because he was miscast in the marketplace. The atheist using Boom's definition was correct, but at that time I was looking at the "Hardcore Atheist" definition, not Boom's definition which is only good within the atheist community. I lost faith in my Christian worldview and then began to look elsewhere. Dave's website Exchristian is awesome, I can't say enough positive things about it.
Overall, I am very enjoying our discussions here. You guys are making me think. Remember, using Boom's definition I am also an atheist. But, as I have said this definition is useful only in our community.
Brian, everybody who has not declared "I believe God exists", is part of the realm atheism.
ReplyDeleteExplain.
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteSo it seems we've made some progress. We agree that the term "atheist" has been given an unnecessary connotation by theists (whether intentionally or not), and that among atheists this extra connotation (i.e. the dogmatism) is widely perceived to be incorrect. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. I believe your suggestion is to introduce a new term--one that can be given a crisp and correct definition by atheists themselves (not that all atheists will ever agree on anything). I suppose I've been implicitly suggesting several different approaches: 1) define the term when you use it (i.e. don't let others tell you what your position is), and 2) avoid labels altogether if possible. These probably don't address your major concern, which is how theists (Christians in particular) view atheism from within their theistic bubble--i.e. when no representative of the position is there to correct their misconceptions. Is that accurate? If so, then I agree that my implicit suggestions are not a remedy. More later, as time permits...
Hey Trumpeter,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you don't have a whole lot going on in your life these days.
I'm sorry that you don't have a job or a girlfriend.
B.W.: Now when you[Jim Arvo] ask WHO should define the atheist position.....I really want to agree with you and say the atheist should. BUT I CANNOT, Why? Our definition works within our community but not outside of our community.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, there is something about this aspect of the discussion that's beginning to irk me. Anyone agree? To begin with, I frankly couldn't give a sh*t less if the label that I'm caused to give myself, or the one that I am given, is "user friendly" in the Theist "community". Moreover, I really don't think that it matters how you "define" the non-belief in deities---I think that what matters(to theists) is that people DO exist who are not theists; people exist who do NOT believe in God/gods. This is obviously a threat to them. That said, I think that theists will continue to bend, manipulate, mischaracterize, and weasle-word whatever-the-hell "definition" anyone comes up with.
BTW, Brian...does the definition of "Theist" either explicitly, or implicitly, allow for the possibility that God does NOT exist? No, of course not.
B.W: Boom, when you say that you wouldn't trust Webster's. I agree, but try to sell that to Christians...they won't buy it.
I believe you've misunderstood what I said. To quickly review, you quoted Webster's dictionary(using quotes) and misused the word "their" for "there"...e.g.. "their is no God". So, I was calling your wording into question .... not Webster's. 'Follow?
I think Boom is right. Theists will invariably distort any definition and any argument that is given to them about belief systems other than their own. Lest anybody think I am being unfair to theists (not likely on this site, but bear with me) I'll point out that this is true, to some degree, for everyone. We all fall victim to confirmation bias, and one manifestation of that is mischaracterizing views that we do not personally hold, particularly if they are perceived to be a threat.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe that Christians have such tremendous difficulty grasping atheism because characterizing it fairly would leave them vulnerable; it's difficult for them (most of them) to admit that we atheists simply reject their arguments as unconvincing. That's too reasonable a light to cast on atheists, so they must find something more damning (both literally and figuratively). For all you Christian visitors out there, feel free to explain why I am wrong about that--I'd be quite interested to hear what you have to say.
So, does that mean we should do nothing? Personally, I believe the best thing we can do is to express our individual views clearly when asked, or when appropriate situations arise. From my own experience with family and friends, I know that it has made an impression when I have matter-of-factly stated where I stand and made it clear that I have thought it through carefully; that I have rejected Christianity not through ignorance or malice, but through reason. I also patiently address any and all questions they might have.
But how does that help all those Christians who are being bombarded with idiotic characterizations of atheism from their pastors and dozens of garden-variety apologists? Well, I think it will take time. As more and more of them come to know atheists at work, school, etc., and see that rational thinking people can live perfectly normal and productive lives without a god concept, it will leave an impression. They will find it hard to swallow all those nasty characterizations when they hear them.
I don't think there is a silver bullet. It will take time, and a continued effort to educate. There are signs that we are moving in the right direction, so I remain cautiously optimistic that things will improve.
BoomSLANG: "Honestly, there is something about this aspect of the discussion that's beginning to irk me. Anyone agree?"
ReplyDelete:-) Amen.
BoomSLANG: "To begin with, I frankly couldn't give a sh*t less if the label that I'm caused to give myself, or the one that I am given, is "user friendly" in the Theist "community"."
:-) Right on. There are two "General" categories. They by definition aren't particular - until the definitional terms are given context.
A "crisp" definition, would "require", the "generally" defined atheism, to be defined in "particular" terms. So, we lose the general term atheism in the process.
What's left, is Brian's general definition of theism, and one particularly defined atheism. So, when a person doesn't accept a God, or doesn't believe in the specifics of the "crisply" defined atheism - do we create a "third term" - the "Other-ism" or "Just don't Care-ism", to capture those who fall outside of the scope.
Once the general definition of "atheism" is made concrete and "crisp", in the terms of theological concerns - I'd be waiting for the book; "The Theology of Atheism", to come out in book stores... it would be the "next" charge levied at atheism by the theist... and there would be a "book of proof", kind of like a "bible".
BoomSLANG: "Moreover, I really don't think that it matters how you "define" the non-belief in deities---I think that what matters(to theists) is that people DO exist who are not theists; people exist who do NOT believe in God/gods. This is obviously a threat to them. That said, I think that theists will continue to bend, manipulate, mischaracterize, and weasle-word whatever-the-hell "definition" anyone comes up with."
:-) Until the day, that they stop perceiving a benefit for choosing/accepting their theism, they’re going to fight for what they “believe” they know.
I'm reminded of that article that came out on this site a while back, regarding some "New Atheism" - it drove me nuts.
There is no "New Atheism", there are people with different ways of expressing their Atheism, as an atheist sub-group.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a Harvard... member (don't remember the professional status), advocating for some "crisply" defined sub-category of atheism, to distance itself, from this "other" rebellious sub-group of atheism.
And, while this is probably the "best" strategy, I can't help but see the parallel with Christianity and its 33K splintered denominations of belief, because of the differences of opinion, in regard to a single Myth. Great post BoomSLANG.
BW: "People don't care how much that you know until they know how much that you care."
ReplyDeletePeople, who appear mentally desperate to "prove" their point, by hounding citizens - don't get my vote for "caring for me"... I can't, but believe, they are desperate to "prove" something for themselves.
Jim makes an excellent point. When another person "cares" enough about themselves to "ask a question" honestly, the best we can do, is have an answer and be patient. Likely, the patience only reserved for mythical deities and educators ;-)
BW: "Imagine you’re in a court of law, when it is time for the Christian god to take the stand. What is going to appear? The God whom no man has seen nor can be seen? The Atheist cannot bring in this invisible God either, in order to cross-examine him and prove that he is a fraud."
Brian, let's go through just a few concerns I have with just this "one" paragraph. First... I am asked to "imagine", in order to "understand" the point.
Second, the term "Christian God", holds no meaning, it has no "context" in Reality... is this why I am "imagining"?
Thirdly, it is fallacious reasoning to suggest, that "I", or any other person who falls under the general umbrella of Atheism, has to "prove" the theists "case".
The theist is making the claim, "I believe God exists". As long, as they keep that to themselves, fine. The second they proselytize, and state their "belief" as a "fact", in "that context", and they are trying to "persuade" me, then I demand the evidence.
The "failure" of the theist, doesn't prove whether a God/s exist or not... what it does prove, is that such a theist, isn't capable of making their "case", and should honestly recognize that "fact".
Dave,
ReplyDeleteIt would be good if you actually read what I have written. I really think that you just like to argue with me. For example:
Brian Worley: "To me, it is just a question of do we want to win, and if so, are we willing to do what is necessary to get there?"
What are the strategic goal & plan, and operational objective(s) that all atheists are supposed to be trying to tactically engage? Just curious.
Answer: It is written in my post...seems you want to argue and sidetrack the discussion.
Several times you have made up something. For example:
Somehow, I get the impression, from Brian, that all hard-core atheists are going door-to-door selling their world-view.
This is a Christian like tactic that you are using on me. You said, "I get the impression"
I never said or implied anything like this.....what is your issue Dave?
Brian: "2) Focus on debate on revelation issues"
There are books written on the topic. Most of us, have the arguments on file. Here is a good start with the NT, and forgeries.
Dave, I have a 7,000 volume library and have probably forgotten more than what you have learned on the subject.
Dave8 said...
Brian, everybody who has not declared "I believe God exists", is part of the realm atheism.
Explain.
Once again, you are putting words into my mouth that you thought up.
These are all just diversion tactics to distort what was said.
I am growing weary of all of this and I see it as a waste of time. I was correct in stating that there is an atheist blind spot.
I want to post again, continuing what I was getting at. (Although "BoomSLANG" also did a good job.)
ReplyDeleteNow, if you want some definitions, just go to Wikipedia and search for "atheist". There, you will find "strong" and "weak atheism" (both explicit), as well as implicit atheism. There are your terms. No need to create more.
Now, to illustrate our beliefs, let me give you an example. Imagine that instead of God, people believe in the Easter Bunny. Now, the Easter Bunny just isn't any bunny. It's large, walks on two feet, talks, and hides painted eggs every Easter.
Religious person - There is one Easter Bunny, and He hops around the night before Easter, hiding painted eggs for every good boy and girl.
Agnostic A - There is no way to be sure if the Easter Bunny exists or not.
Agnostic B - I'm not sure if the Easter Bunny exists or not.
Implicit Atheist - I've never heard of the Easter Bunny.
Explicit Weak Atheist - I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'm not saying that there's no way it can exist.
Explicit Strong Atheist - I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Show me some evidence that it exists.
Now, the usual response from the Religious person is, "Atheists are using 'faith', just the same as us. Even bad faith. Disbelieving in the Easter Bunny is wrong. Prove that this bunny that talks and walks on two feet and delivers eggs (even an invisible one) is false, or you're just being as irrational as the religious people you hate."
Then, often, the Explicit Strong Atheist feels guilty and says, "Yeah, you're right. I can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. So I'll be an Agnostic on the issue, or at least a Weak Atheist.
Sad, isn't it, how stupid we are.
(By the way, no offence against Agnostics (or for that matter nice religous people), but one thing I can't stand is putting down people who THINK!)
Brian: "It would be good if you actually read what I have written. I really think that you just like to argue with me."
ReplyDeleteAsking for clarification of your purpose, is perceived as "arguing"?
Your suggestion that I am being argumentative stems from my quoting you?
Dave8 quoting Brian: "Brian Worley: "To me, it is just a question of do we want to win, and if so, are we willing to do what is necessary to get there?"
Why does "your quote", Brian, seem argumentative?
Dave8 asks Brian: "What are the strategic goal & plan, and operational objective(s) that all atheists are supposed to be trying to tactically engage? Just curious."
Brian: "Answer: It is written in my post...seems you want to argue and sidetrack the discussion."
How argumentative, and red herring of you.
Brian: "Several times you have made up something."
Really?
Brian: "For example:
Somehow, I get the impression, from Brian, that all hard-core atheists are going door-to-door selling their world-view."
Brian, you assert that hard-core atheists are dogmatic... and further... equating to preaching atheism, without "proof" of the non-existence of God/s.
I am not "obligated" to prove my position to a theist, period. And, I hold that with "strong-conviction", not to be construed as a dogmatic atheist who sits out in public preaching the Theology of Atheism.
Brian: "This is a Christian like tactic that you are using on me. You said, "I get the impression"
I never said or implied anything like this.....what is your issue Dave?"
Obviously, I don't understand what you are actually trying to communicate. Are you wanting to create a New Atheism definition and "movement"?
Brian: "Brian: "2) Focus on debate on revelation issues"
Dave8: "There are books written on the topic. Most of us, have the arguments on file. Here is a good start with the NT, and forgeries."
Brian: "Dave, I have a 7,000 volume library and have probably forgotten more than what you have learned on the subject."
Really... I guess that makes you educated. By your standards.
"Dave8: "Brian, everybody who has not declared "I believe God exists", is part of the realm atheism. Explain."
Brian: "Once again, you are putting words into my mouth that you thought up."
No, Brian, those were "my" words. I made a "statement"... watch.
"Brian, everybody who has not declared "I believe God exists", is part of the realm atheism."
See, that is a statement.
Now, I then followed with "Explain", to see what your thoughts were on "my" comment.
Brian: "These are all just diversion tactics to distort what was said."
Actually, Brian, I am still trying to figure you out. The more I read what you say, the less I understand you.
Brian: "I am growing weary of all of this and I see it as a waste of time. I was correct in stating that there is an atheist blind spot."
Self-fulfilling prophesy, hope you get over it ;-) In psychology, we call that projection, or in Freudian terms, a mental defensive mechanism. If you need some wood to build that bridge, let me know :-)
Brian: "As for my strategy, since some did not understand me. 1) Fix the semantics problem"
ReplyDeleteWhy? To be better understood by Christians? And, if that is the objective, what was the vision? To get Christians to better "relate" to the atheist?
I have a few comments, beyond the points made by others, about the efficacy of semantic clarity and how it will positively influence Christians.
If that is the train of thought; it's synonymous with a Non-Sequitur fallacy, or, the logic just doesn't follow to the conclusion.
As well, when speaking in general terms for extremely diverse categories of people, on matters of "acceptance" and "perception", I'll throw out...
Hasty Generalization: "Makes an unjustified general inference from an insufficient sample."
It is fallacious, to talk in generalizations, for "both" categories of theism and atheism.
Theism and Atheism hold people with extremely diverse beliefs and values.
Not everyone who falls into the category of Atheism, is going to "buy-in" to being restricted to a clear and neat definition for atheist - I know of at least "one" person who will likely refrain.
Under theism, and specifically Christianity, each persons' particular reason has to be entertained. To suggest that fixing a semantic issue, will somehow go a long ways to buy good-will from Christians, suggests logically, that all Christians hold their belief, because of "semantic" reasons.
While it may help, those Christians, who "really" value a good semantic statement, that is crisp and clear, I can't help but wonder; that "semantics" was "not" the reason I became a Christian. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single Christian, that fell in love with Christianity, because of words, but perhaps, you know a few.
Basically, I "trusted" those of authority, to "guide" me, and tell me the "truth", that's how I became a Christian.
Looking at the pros and cons of fixating on a specific definition, of atheism, or "semantic clause", that "totally" encapsulates what it "means" to be an "atheist" - the cons have it.
The only uniting factor that holds atheism as distinct from theism, is the "lack of a theological first principle", such as "I believe a God exists".
Beyond that, I dare say, that a plan for "institutionalizing" such a semantic product, is not forthcoming. While, in theory, it may be interesting to tease an atheism theology, in the end, the "individual" person, has to "buy-in" to the product. If not accepted by all, then, it's not a semantically air-tight tool for a Christian to use, in order to make "generalized" statements - they don't even have a probability to work with in order to establish a general statement with confidence.
If you actually, want to address the issues Brian, let me know. I perceive a vast difference between what a "perfect" theoretical model for atheism "should be", and then, what reality shows us, "Is".
Any degree of success you are going to have, with this "first notion", is going to be measured by how many atheists actually "care" to accept "any" notion, beyond, not holding to a theological first principle.
In the end, because not "everyone" will buy into this, it will by-default fall under the "general" umbrella of atheism, as a sub-category, along with Agnosticism, Atman Buddhism, Humanism, Naturalism, Scientific Methodologist, etc., etc.
Many comments are now "under the bridge". I have really enjoyed discussions with Jim Arvo, Riley, Rick to name a few of you guys. Trumpeter has also made some good points, remember that English is not his native language. But I must ask Trumpeter..." Are you one of Sun Myung Moon's boys (follower)? I was busy working on the newest post yesterday, hope that you will read THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS, especially when I speak of definitions and dictionaries. This also would apply to our discussions.
ReplyDeleteNow, if we can add something more to this that is worthy of our time, I am open to this.
It seems that Dave8 (not to be confused with the webmaster) has sought to derail our fruitful discussions. Whenever anyone uses these tactics: needless arguementation, failure to read and comprehend, distortion, hyperbole, diversion, straw men amongst other you know that they are weak and loosing, grasping for straws. I hope I covered it, so I will ignore anything else he says. Please understand this, what we are discussing is very important.
I often read those whom I disagree with, they make you think. But sometimes you just have to pull the plug. Goodbye Dave8. As a parting gift please visit this site and continue your nonsense there.http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm This addresses Boom's definition also. Now Boom, you are just too crude to help any theist, I don't take you as a bad guy. I just disagree with your process and method. We just disagree so let us both move on. Maybe you are irked because those Christians don't like that devilish rock music....LOL I say rock on, but stay away from the theist because you piss them off and make them more difficult for the rest of us to later deal with.
That link is a very good one, he does a good job with the "lack of belief definition".
BW: "It seems that Dave8 (not to be confused with the webmaster) has sought to derail our fruitful discussions."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Brian fails to focus on the content, and has made Dave8, the target of discussion.
BW: "Whenever anyone uses these tactics: needless arguementation, failure to read and comprehend, distortion, hyperbole, diversion, straw men amongst other you know that they are weak and loosing, grasping for straws. I hope I covered it, so I will ignore anything else he says."
Brian, and the whole world reading Brian's message here. This is what people who are educated, call an ad hominem attack, meant to disparage a person's character, and evade directly engaging the content presented.
BW: "Please understand this; what we are discussing is very important."
Actually, Brian Worley, it's not the discussion or content of the discussion you have focused on.
No, one, thus far, has agreed with your agenda, the the implied thesis of this thread Brian - zilch.
Brian: "Please excuse me for borrowing a Christian term (devil) since I am a religious atheist."
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/11/devil-is-in-details.html#c5738663252618035604
Your new thread dovetails with this thread nicely, Brian.
Your principle of "cleaning up the semantics", is a pledge you have undertaken to create what you obviously consider the "Reformed Atheist Church of Brian".
You disparage anyone who doesn't agree, with this "New Movement", proposition, that "you" feel is so important - how ambitious of "you".
Of course, to attempt to prime this movement, and keep anyone from dissenting or attempting "intellectual inquiry", Brian choice tactic, is to ostracize anyone that just doesn't "fall-in-line", or "pull-the-party-line".
No need to point it out, it's right above this post, for anyone to witness and read, by Brian's own words.
You are suggesting that there be a "New Religion" called Atheism, so you can be part of this new sub-category "Religious Atheism"
Clearing up semantics, is interpreted as "Brian's bylaws", and how to construct the True principles of his "Reformed Atheist Church", or perhaps, it would be more technically correct to call it the "First Atheist Church (of Brian)".
Of course, your church would just be a sub-category still, that's how the english language works, and how taxonomies are created - Brian.
Brian Worley (BW): "I often read those whom I disagree with, they make you think. But sometimes you just have to pull the plug. Goodbye Dave8."
:-) Goodbye? Perhaps, for you Brian, the WM has created this site for those who have "left" religion and have been emotionally hurt, from power centric and ambitious zealots. In order to "get through" such emotional suffering, one has to think with a clear mind, and I have no intention of letting posts, rife with illogical conclusions, get through.
BW: "As a parting gift please visit this site and continue your nonsense there."
:-) I don’t' think so. Brian, you are right here, right now. Make your case, respond to intellectual inquiry, and call your position for what it is - that simple.
BW: "http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm This addresses Boom's definition also."
Really. I went to that site, I read, two sentences, and a logical fallacy jumped out - Appeal to Tradition.
EvilBible.Com: "A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used."
BW: "Now Boom, you are just too crude to help any theist, I don't take you as a bad guy."
Ad hominem, and how pompous that "you" actually believe you have the authority to tell someone else how the will, or will not positively influence a person (theist) you don't even know.
I'll list the list of logical fallacies that follow that comment, but, I think it's quite obvious for anyone reading.
BW: "That link is a very good one, he does a good job with the "lack of belief definition".
Over 7K volumes at your fingertips, and you pull from "this" website. Here is the lack of belief definition, not the opinion of someone on a website, who has created an argument, based on their fallacious "opinion".
Atheism: "2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Thanks, Dave8, for covering the bulk of Brian's mellow-dramatic diatribe---an long-winded tirade on none other than, um, people who disagree with Brian on how to disagree with Theists. How f%cking silly. Oops!..there I go again... being crude. That must make my logic "wrong", right?
ReplyDeleteIn any event....
Dear Theists, Agnostics, and Religious Atheists,
I don't believe in God/gods. Get over it.
Hey Boom, this thread isn't about trying to come to a common understanding of reason, it's about starting a True Religion, in order to beat back the unrelenting onslaught of "all" those corrupt atheists ;-0)
ReplyDeleteNothing like starting the "Atheist Reformation" early ;-) prior, to the original theological formation... now that's ambitious :-)
Well, you crude man, hope you can sleep at night, knowing how the up and coming religious leader disapproves of you - I suppose you're not a "quality" candidate or "best-fit" man for those upcoming and vacant "Atheist Missionary" jobs - I suppose you'll be banned from posting your clergy resume on Monster.com now as well.
Seneca The Younger: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the philosophers as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Clear...Honest...Well Said...and helpful...
ReplyDeleteits really funny that you mention the "I really do not know if there is a god out there somewhere or not. If there is one, they have failed to leave us any instruction manuals to guide us". thats what the bible is for an instruction manual to guide us. who are you to assume that because there is no proof of the lord he does not exist. ASS/U/ME.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Christian...who are you to assume that because there is no proof of the lord he does not exist. ASS/U/ME
ReplyDeleteBoy, this is tough one. Okay, who are you to assume that because there is no proof of Poseiden, the Great Pumpkin, and the All Mighty Allah, that they don't exist?
You are not making an "ASS" out of "ME"; you are making one out of "U".