Four Kinds of Atheists.

[David Sklansky]

1. Those who deep down want there to be no God so they don't have to answer to him

2. Those who feel that if God is as portrayed in the bible he is undeserving of worship.

3. Those who apply philosophical principles going back hundreds of years to argue agianst the necessity of a God to explain things.

4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible

Only the fourth type of atheist should be taken seriously.

This fourth type of atheists is a common one, but there is another related type who should be given the same respect. Consider those like, Marcel Proust who, although alive in a time of relative scientific simplicity, was intellectually incapable of religious belief. He, and many others were incapable as a matter of philosophical acumen. Pricipal did not allow them to take the easy route. Speaking from this viewpoint myself, I can say that it is not necessarily the need to explain away the phenomenon of our world that precipitates this lack of faith. On a basis of purely logical precepts without recourse to existents, religious belief can be obviated.
The reason I say this type of atheist is related is because of the affinity between science and philosophy. These two types may deep down be the same, possibly a matter of semantics. Posssibly this second type is one who intuitively senses the fact that science is more apt to deliver a logocally consistent articulation of the dynamics of our world.

Cambraceres

[Siegmund]

I think some of the Type 3s are very similar to the Type 4s - differing only in having spotted the pattern of the 'shrinking realm of the supernatural' sooner. It almost sounds to me like atheist mathematicians are Type 3s, and atheist scientists are Type 4s.

Science's basic argument isn't that its impossible for their to be a god, only unnecessary. Now then, if we apply Occam's Razor and say "then let's operate on the assumption there isn't a god", we are applying a 400-year-old philosophical principle that happens to have a place in modern science. Which category does that put us in?

I certainly agree that Type 1 and Type 2 atheists are something different from Type 3 and Type 4 atheists.

I tend to give David credit for intelligence and well thought out questions.

I am assuming that nowhere does David claims those four are the only reasons to be atheist. If that is the inference, altough not explicitly stated, I would feel like I had to barge in. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Even regarding only those four types, I feel that the type 2) could be qualified in a way that would need to take them seriously too. Lets say only a subset of 2) should not be taken seriously, the remainder should . /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

I feel that the type 2) could be qualified in a way that would need to take them seriously too.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem, at least as I see it, is that even if the Type 2 people are absolutely correct, they have *only* given a reason to *not worship* God, but failed to find any basis for asserting that the picture of God painted in Scripture is inaccurate. Conscientious objectors to the religious draft, as it were. We just need a more descriptive word to describe this belief than 'atheism'. Type 1s we could call 'insincere atheists'. I don't have a name for Type 2s but I wish I did now.

Nobody's challenging the idea that it's accurate to divide atheists into 4 distinct 'types'?

I'd have thought there'd be a million different reasons why people arrive at an atheistic position, or any position. And I suspect that if you had to come up with the most basic 'type' it'd be something like 'atheist is the default position, you have to prove god not disprove god'. I'm agnostic myself - but that kind of thinking clearly makes sense. Do I have to prove that flying giraffes don't exist?

[chezlaw]

Strangly I disagree.

Nothing in science has done anything to discredit god, so if it wasn't sensible to be an athiest 200+ years ago it still isn't today.

I notice you suddenly switched to 'biblical god' in 4) which is the only way what you said can make any sort of sense.

chez

[Charon]

I wonder, if you can't take an atheist of type 3 seriously, then is it possible to take any kind of religous person seriously?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder, if you can't take an atheist of type 3 seriously, then is it possible to take any kind of religous person seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]
3 is a strawman. The philosophical basis of athiesm is not that god isn't necessary to explain things.

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in science has done anything to discredit god, so if it wasn't sensible to be an athiest 200+ years ago it still isn't today.


[/ QUOTE ]
The point DS was making is that recent discoveries in science make the need for God's control less likely in order to keep the world spinning, universe ticking, etc.

I view it differently. The more we discover about how our universe operates, the more likely that it was very intricately designed rather than a random occurrence. It baffles me that someone could have kids and not see this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in science has done anything to discredit god, so if it wasn't sensible to be an athiest 200+ years ago it still isn't today.


[/ QUOTE ]
The point DS was making is that recent discoveries in science make the need for God's control less likely in order to keep the world spinning, universe ticking, etc.

I view it differently. The more we discover about how our universe operates, the more likely that it was very intricately designed rather than a random occurrence. It baffles me that someone could have kids and not see this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe that's DS's point but its not right. Science may have provided insight into the nature of god's world (if god existed) but says nothing about the existence of god or otherwise.

chez

[Charon]

I was looking at the more general statement Sklansky seemingly tries to make that atheism purely on a philosophical basis should not be taken seriously. Maybe I misread him, but if this was his intention, it seems to me that likewise ANY religous person should in his opinion not be taken seriously.

But I dont read this forum often, so good chance I misread his intentions.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at the more general statement Sklansky seemingly tries to make that atheism purely on a philosophical basis should not be taken seriously. Maybe I misread him, but if this was his intention, it seems to me that likewise ANY religous person should in his opinion not be taken seriously.

But I dont read this forum often, so good chance I misread his intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]
You probably got it right but its just DS's funny ways. Obviously you don't need any reason at all to be an athiest. Reasons are needed to believe, not to not believe.

I take most people fairly seriously but why intelligent people think you need scientific evidence to see that theist's beliefs are not based on reason or evidence is a mystery. Just ask them why they believe.

chez

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Science may have provided insight into the nature of god's world (if god existed) but says nothing about the existence of god or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct.

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Those who deep down want there to be no God so they don't have to answer to him

2. Those who feel that if God is as portrayed in the bible he is undeserving of worship.

3. Those who apply philosophical principles going back hundreds of years to argue agianst the necessity of a God to explain things.

4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible

Only the fourth type of atheist should be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

What about the people who just don't give a [censored] and don't need to rationalize everything and look for approval?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1st farmer that killed his goat, only to realize that water and gorilla sht were the reason oats grew better had all the information needed to justify thinking, "hmmm, so it's not so bright to assume a incredibly improbable story that explains nothing just because I don't understand some detail yet."

#4 types are the ones I would respect the least, since they're thinking they need a reason NOT to believe. They are closet Gappers.. And their disbelief today is no more justified than it was 400 years ago.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I view it differently. The more we discover about how our universe operates, the more likely that it was very intricately designed rather than a random occurrence. It baffles me that someone could have kids and not see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf

Read pages 43-45.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Those who deep down want there to be no God so they don't have to answer to him

2. Those who feel that if God is as portrayed in the bible he is undeserving of worship.

3. Those who apply philosophical principles going back hundreds of years to argue agianst the necessity of a God to explain things.

4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible

Only the fourth type of atheist should be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which type are you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm #2 & #4... but more of a "skeptic" by nature... who has learned that things that are far fetched usally aren't true, and therefore I need more evidence of them being true. I'm not sure what #3 means, by the way. Maybe I'm that too.

Should an amalgamated atheist be taken seriously too? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[peritonlogon]

I thought this might be light and amusing... a sort of converse, kind of like Kant's 4 antinomes....

4 types of Theists

1) Those who deep down want there to be a God because they feel the need to answer to someone.

2) Those who feel that God is portrayed in the Bible and with all of his bloodshed and forgiveness, he is deserving of worship.

3) Those who apply philosophical principles going back hundreds of years to argue for the necessity of a God to explain the existence of things.

4)Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. And while, they notice just how far science has come, realize that the gulf between things know and things unknown always seems to grow, the more knowledge that is attained. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now even more reasonable than ever to expect that even more unexplained phenomenon will have to be attributed to the God of the bible.

*note, I am not a Theist, nor do I think that any type of reasoning whatsoever can lead one towards or away from God.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
*note, I am not a Theist, nor do I think that any type of reasoning whatsoever can lead one towards or away from God .



[/ QUOTE ]

Reasoning is precisely how one moves away from god.

[Lestat]

That's true, but what were a people of 1000 years ago to have thought of an event which ocurred last Dec 26th?

Bright sunny day, men are out fishing, woman are attending to their children and domestic chores. All of a sudden, out of nowhere the sea rises and swallows entire villages whole! Tens of thousands dead.

They knew nothing of tectonic plates shifting hundreds of miles away beneath the sea. There wasn't a cloud in the sky. No human could have possibly caused this. It seems an almost rational conclusion to believe that this havoc was wrought by an angry god or supreme being. What other logical explanation was there?

I'm pretty convinced it was events such as these, that started the "god concept" in the first place. And I don't blame them. It was not an intelligence issue, but rather a lack of knowledge about the environment in which they lived.

Yes, the intelligent farmer may have figured out the process of fertilization over sacrifice, but there were still many things that were best left explained by a god.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the intelligent farmer may have figured out the process of fertilization over sacrifice, but there were still many things that were best left explained by a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures. Religion is socially based, we're crowd followers mostly.

We evolved a cause-effect viewpoint, as do animals, we think in those terms because 'it works'. Watch a chimpanzee during an approaching thunderstorm. The alpha hears 'something' crashing stuff around, so he runs toward it, threatening the 'shaker of trees'. Loud Clap, and he runs back and 'presents himself' to the obviously approaching Meta-Alpha. And we're off to the races.

Some cultures managed to break loose of the 'Meta-Alpha' mindset sooner than others, but it's such a powerful social tool in many ways that it isn't easy. Zen concepts fit into the discoveries of modern science better than any other approach, it's just a matter of when a culture arrives at accepting the universe as it is, if ever.

My objection your objection, Midge, is that this atheist's view of God is too limited. A true atheist should not IMO just reject one version of God, but all versions as impossible. One can be a theist but still feel that the Christian God is unworthy of worship. He only needs to believe in another kind of god, who doesn't even need have to have a specific definition.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Those who deep down want there to be a God because they feel the need to answer to someone.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
nor do I think that any type of reasoning whatsoever can lead one towards or away from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute.
Seriously, #1 covers all believers if you just cut it off after "...feel the need." without qualifying it. All others are subtypes. You don't 'reason' yourself into faith, it's faith first, reasons to follow.

Comments by theists on their specific 'reasons to believe' usually coincide with the need being filled.

Or towards God. Reason is just a tool.

5: people who are atheists because they were raised that way, not because they came to it based on psychological need or philosophy.

Should their position be taken seriously?

[UATrewqaz]

Heck if you really want it break it down almost everything everybody believes is based on something other than a well though out rational position.

They believe it cause they were taught it growing up, or because they really WANT it to be true, or believe it to be mainstream or believe it to be anti-mainstream, etc.

"Heck if you really want it break it down almost everything everybody believes is based on something other than a well though out rational position."

Most people yes, and I'd agree that they should not be taken seriously. However, I hold out the hope that there are some who's ideas should be taken seriously, or I wouldn't read philosophy or browse this forum.

[RJT]

In the movie <u>Absence of Malice</u>, Paul Newman plays a liquor distributor with a shady past. Sally Field portrays a newspaper reporter covering a murder investigation. In her investigation she comes upon “evidence” that suggests that Newman’s character was involved in the crime. (He was not involved.)

At one point Newman asks Field, “What do you think you know?”

I can’t help but think of this line when I read things like:

[ QUOTE ]
4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not suggesting the #4 atheist feels that he knows anything. I am wondering, though, why this atheist feels he knows more than he would have known had he lived x number of years ago?

It seems to me that we know only more intricate details of how things work than we did years ago. I do not see ruling out God (or making Him more viable) as more logical today than it was yesteryear. (Certainly, some of the nuances of some beliefs have to be reviewed and either re- interpreted or ruled out.)

The last part of #4 is where I see men of science making their “error”:

[ QUOTE ]
…that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, things will be “explained by science”. But, I find nothing to justify “rather than …God” should be assumed. The scenario can just as well be explained by science yet still include God. The probability of God is the same today as it was years ago.

So I ask the (can be rhetorical) question: What do you (the #4 atheist) think you know?

RJT

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, things will be “explained by science”. But, I find nothing to justify “rather than …God” should be assumed. The scenario can just as well be explained by science yet still include God. The probability of God is the same today as it was years ago.

So I ask the (can be rhetorical) question: What do you (the #4 atheist) think you know?



[/ QUOTE ]

Man used to believe in many gods. Science and knowledge killed them off. The last remaining god is used to answer the question 'where did we come from'? The answers to that question have become much clearer in the last century. The discovery of DNA and its implications has probably done more to show where we came from than any other discovery. Once, I was convinced of evolution there was no need for the 'LAST' god.

[peritonlogon]

reason is a tool that can neither affirm nor deny god. "God" in its very nature is irrational.

[Piers]

You seem to assume that religion is the default, and someone needs a reason to be an atheist (whatever that is). For instance how about:

5 The person who was brought up to believe that religion was all aloud of nonsense, and can’t see what all the fuss is about.

6. Someone who just thinks it’s obvious that religion is a silly fantasy. No $hit, just gut instinct.

Maybe you could argue that they have not thought enough about the subject to be take seriously. Although they might argue the subject is not important enough to be worth the effort.

7. Also what about someone who asks the question why does religion exist?

Comes to the conclusion that the reason is entirely due to our inbuilt desire to create religious belief. Hence religion exists independent of the truth of the matter. (If God exists believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did not exist, If God does not exist believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did exist.)

Such a person might well conclude that a typical religious belief should therefore be treated at the same level as any other human fantasy. “I reckon it’s as least as likely I can get to Narnia through my bedroom wardrobe than a biblical God exists”.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I always consider the argument “I can not understand this, hence God, as farfetched as the idea must exist” to be horrible, but typical human arrogance.

Compare it to the argument of the poker player who reasons, “I have had a significant loosing steak. I know I am a winning player, hence as farfetched as it might seem the loosing steak must be due to the site/casino being rigged against me.”

Why do people not accept their limitations rather than invent fictional structures to get around them?

I believe that even in the pre technological age, there were still people who could accept that not being able to understand an unexplained phenomenon just meant they could not understand it. And did not use this as an excuse to fantasise explanations just to satisfy their ego. Although I admit modern science makes this position more natural.

[snowden719]

what about
5) those who believe that a Christian God cannot exist as the amount of evil in the world is incompatible with a god who is perfectly good and omnipotent/omniscient

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd have thought there'd be a million different reasons why people arrive at an atheistic position, or any position. And I suspect that if you had to come up with the most basic 'type' it'd be something like 'atheist is the default position, you have to prove god not disprove god'. I'm agnostic myself

[/ QUOTE ]

An Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction. Historically it was an oratorical change, Atheists were thought of as asserting that there is no god, rather than simply not affirming one, so "Agnostic" was coined to assert a lack of knowing that there is a god.

As an aside, Atheists are perhaps the group of people most persecuted for holding an idea in history. Which is ironic since all they do is not hold its converse.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures. Religion is socially based, we're crowd followers mostly. </font>

I'm showing my ignorance, but I can't think of an ancient godless culture. The ancient Egytians certainly believed at the very least, in an after life. Can you provide an example of an ancient non-religious culture?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures. Religion is socially based, we're crowd followers mostly. </font>

I'm showing my ignorance, but I can't think of an ancient godless culture. The ancient Egytians certainly believed at the very least, in an after life. Can you provide an example of an ancient non-religious culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking this as well.
Invariably, your successful ancient cultures were very religious (and probably, IMO, religion was neccessary for their success -nothing sets up a hierarchy better than religion).

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures. Religion is socially based, we're crowd followers mostly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm showing my ignorance, but I can't think of an ancient godless culture. The ancient Egytians certainly believed at the very least, in an after life. Can you provide an example of an ancient non-religious culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a guess, but perhaps the godless cultures lost out to those with gods. Perhaps the tendency to postulate a god (or gods) is a life-preserving trait.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures. Religion is socially based, we're crowd followers mostly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm showing my ignorance, but I can't think of an ancient godless culture. The ancient Egytians certainly believed at the very least, in an after life. Can you provide an example of an ancient non-religious culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a guess, but perhaps the godless cultures lost out to those with gods. Perhaps the tendency to postulate a god (or gods) is a life-preserving trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess there weren't any godless cultures. Probably godless "bands"

5) those who like to hold it over their peers for a sense of superiority because they dropped out of college after 2 weeks to play poker........nah.....

[BluffTHIS!]

Those in in the 1st case don't seem likely to admit such, and will likely assert one of the other rationales. But I think you are giving too short a shrift to #3, simply because the existence of God or not, cannot be proven with 100% certainty either way, thus making the application of reason/logic suitable, even if it itself cannot be conclusive or even extremely convincing as to non-existence. Plus it is obvious that so many scientific theories were "reasoned" out decades before any technology existed to prove/disprove them empirically.

[Lestat]

Very good point. I seriously think that this is both plausible and likely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd have thought there'd be a million different reasons why people arrive at an atheistic position, or any position. And I suspect that if you had to come up with the most basic 'type' it'd be something like 'atheist is the default position, you have to prove god not disprove god'. I'm agnostic myself

[/ QUOTE ]

An Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction. Historically it was an oratorical change, Atheists were thought of as asserting that there is no god, rather than simply not affirming one, so "Agnostic" was coined to assert a lack of knowing that there is a god.

As an aside, Atheists are perhaps the group of people most persecuted for holding an idea in history. Which is ironic since all they do is not hold its converse.

[/ QUOTE ]


Certainly agree with the second point - not convinced atheism is 100% the neutral starting point, but it's much closer than theism is.

On the issue of atheism vs agnosticism. The semantics are becoming blurrier these days with all the 'apathetic' atheists, where historically atheism was a very involved and pro-active statement. Nevertheless, I'm not sure an agnostic is exactly an atheist without conviction, though I'm aware many agnostics would be covered by that description. In my own case, I'm probably closer to being a theist without conviction - you certainly can't be an atheist swinging in either direction. You're right that agnosticism is a fence sitting position, but for many it's the result of some kind of process, as oppose to a generalized ambivalence or flakiness.

Also significant is that there are two very different types of agnostics: those who say they don't know, and those who assert it's impossible to know.

I personally can't see how any intellectually honest person can make a public argument that God does or does not exist with any kind of reasonable substance. If someone intuitively or emotionally believes in God then fine, I don't question their intelligence or challenge their beliefs. But to try and prove any of this through logic and method is futile, we just don't have access to the info.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

"early" was partly as a refutation of DS's #4

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to discard the Gap reason for believing in a xtrian type Alpha god was available much earlier ( I simply said earlier, not ancient, but that may well apply too), but essentially not going to happen in a Zeus or Thor based culture.
Whether atheist Buddhism or even Jainism type religions where there isn't a Alpha creator qod that runs around causing things. Some variations of these are older than xtrianity.

Being able to break from 'god does it' thinking is more culture based than technology based. Always has been.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally can't see how any intellectually honest person can make a public argument that God does or does not exist with any kind of reasonable substance. If someone intuitively or emotionally believes in God then fine, I don't question their intelligence or challenge their beliefs. But to try and prove any of this through logic and method is futile, we just don't have access to the info.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right on, but then again, most people aren't intellectually honest.

As far as the semantics of Atheist Vs. Agnostic. Linguistically it is A- (alpha privitive, in greek, meaning not) theos- (god) hence one who does not believe in god... it is historically the general case of simply the non-god-beliver.. but in the Bible, in St. Anselm's Ontological proof of god, in Descaretes' equally rediculous proof, in the writings of Fracis Bacon, and almost anyone (at least in the few dozen books I've read on the subject) who has endevored to talk about Atheists before the late late eighteen hundreds has invariably refured to these non-believers as fools or heretics. As an Atheist, before I realized that almost everything people have to say as evidence or reason for or against god is just crapping out the mouth, and also before I learned that trying to clarify what I meant was usually better than debating a person, I used get pushed into positions where I found myself defending some position I neither agreed with nor particularly cared about... My guess is a lot of street-walking Atheists a few hundred years ago suffered from the same fate.

The term 'Agnostic' was only coined in the late eighteen hundreds... once Darwin made it cool not to believe (which is really amazing for two reasons, one, that while he himself was a nonbeliever, he beleived "the masses" ought to remain ignorant of his new found knowledge (or, new found lack of it) and also that he was the one who had the big impact, since the only real change in evolution theory that he made was 'natural selection.' Before that the buzz was that a creature's environment actually affected the compostition of a creature directly... as in the giraffe's neck is so long because generations of giraffes kept on reaching and reaching and this act of reaching itself made the neck longer (google Lamarck)). Agnostic (A-alpha privitive, gnosis-to know) so one who (claims) not to know. Which is another way of saying "I don't believe," since a great many theists, if they were honest with themselves would be agnostic as well, but, still a lot claim to have "knowledge of god" (that's all the mormon's ever say... I know, I know, I know). Either they mean something enirely different by "knowledge" then I do, or they just aren't honest with themselves.... But then again... I've never seen Europe... so, maybe I don't really know it exists... as Plato would term it "correct opinion".

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]
There haven't been any that I have found. Every few months I search again, but it seems every group of humans we currently have knowledge of invented a religion.

[theBruiser500]

wow David again another revolutionary post. how do you keep coming up with this stuff? you were absolutely correct when you said you could have won the nobel prize if you wanted to.

'Agnostic' does not mean 'does not believe'. This is a mistake that many not so bright people also make with the term skeptic. Both refer to a suspending of judgment. That means an agnostic would not say that there is no God but instead that there is no proof either way. They 'suspend judgment'.

pragmatist

David:

What do you mean by 'science'? You talk as if there is unquestioned doctrine called 'science'. If you are using science in a way that claims science has "recently explained" things you are closer to the bible lover than you might expect. Be careful or science will become your religion.

pragmatist

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
'Agnostic' does not mean 'does not believe'. This is a mistake that many not so bright people also make with the term skeptic. Both refer to a suspending of judgment. That means an agnostic would not say that there is no God but instead that there is no proof either way. They 'suspend judgment'.

pragmatist

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately many not so bright people also don't get that not believing in something and reseving judgement as to whether or not a thing exist are equivalent. As well as the fact that the question of proof for or against god is a fools errand to begin with.

Not believing something is not an affirmative act, it is the lack of affirming it's opposite.
Saying I do not believe there is a god is denying a belief.
Saying I believe that there is no god is asserting a blief.

Put sylogistically they both mean:

I am a non god-believing person.

Howerver the latter also means

I am a person believing there is no god

which is a particular case of the former.
ex. All persons believing there is no god are
persons who do not belive in god.

Howerver All persons who do not believe in god are not
persons believing there is no god

An agnotsic is still a person who does not believe in god precisely because he witholds judgement. Because of the tautology that All people who do not believe in god are non god believing people.

If someone reserves judgement he does not believe.

Hence, what I said earlier, an Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction, ie he does not ASSERT anything


And also a skeptic most certainly denies that what we know of in the world is knowledge.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]


An agnotsic is still a person who does not believe in god precisely because he witholds judgement.


Hence, what I said earlier, an Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction, ie he does not ASSERT anything



[/ QUOTE ]
Theism / atheism is a matter of belief.

Agnostisism cocerns the nature of such beliefs.

I am an atheist but I belief the existance or non-existance of God cannot be proved. Iam an atheist and an agnostic

Some theists are also agnostics.

Some theists believe the existance of God can be proved, they are non-agnostic theists.

[ QUOTE ]
Some theists believe the existance of God can be proved, they are non-agnostic theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think too. Although, I just used the term "gnostic theist" -- which could be misinterpreted, especially within Christianity, but it seemed proper.

"Not believing something is not an affirmative act, it is the lack of affirming it's opposite.
Saying I do not believe there is a god is denying a belief.
Saying I believe that there is no god is asserting a blief."

Your reasoning is circular. The fact that you can see what I wrote and not understand it is not the most shocking part though. The most shocking part is you translating what I said into you cirular position. Any peorson who claims to be an "agnostic", for his or her position to be possible, must "suspend judment". That mean when you ask an agnostic whether or not they believe in God they will remain silent because they see your question as NONSENSE.

[purnell]

As I have stated here before, IMO whether or not one is taken seriously is irrelevant.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Those who deep down want there to be no God so they don't have to answer to him

2. Those who feel that if God is as portrayed in the bible he is undeserving of worship.

3. Those who apply philosophical principles going back hundreds of years to argue agianst the necessity of a God to explain things.

4. Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible

Only the fourth type of atheist should be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear, because I belong into group 4.

[MaxPower]

I am the group 4 type and it took a while for me to accept it. The key thing for me was consciousness. I already had my doubts about god, but once I realized that is was possible for science to understand consciousness, it became clear that everything we experience can be explained without talking about god.

We don't understand everything about consciousness yet, but it is only a matter of time.

[peritonlogon]

Show me how my reasoning was circular, don't just claim it. But, you won't be able to because you have probably not taken a logic class and did not realize that what you quoted was a series of propositions that were written in logical form (ie.a is b, b is not c..etc.) to illustrate a point. There wasn't even any reasoning in what you quoted, just identities. In what you quoted and in the rest of what I wrote about, 'judgement' wasn't even at issue. And the fact that you are so resistant to and repulsed by what I said is at best interesting. Since, in reality we were only debating the definitions of words, nothing else. And a debate of definitions ends when one party simply says 'that's not how I use the word,' which seems to be what you have done.

Another thing, since you are a new poster here I have this advice for you. Do not go around calling people stupid or implying that they are stupid, because, at this forum most people are probably smarter than you, almost everyone who posts is a good deal above average, and no one is stupid.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't understand everything about consciousness yet, but it is only a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No neccessarily.