Atheism and Agnosticsm

[fluffy]

I was watching an you-tube live video-cast another castanut turned me on to this morning and this was a topic that took up quite a bit of time, the thought of the considerable overlap in terminology people use to describe their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. From my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition we have the following:

agnostic n [from the Greek agnostos, unknown, unknowable] 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly one who is not committed to believing in either the existence of the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

atheist n : one who believes that there is no diety.

For argument's sake I would like to suggest that those who wish to don the title of "atheist" must by definition deny the slightest possibility of the existence of any form of higher power, and that as soon as any shred of doubt or indecision enters the picture they are no longer an atheist, but have moved their tent to the agnostic camp. There has been mention of varying degrees of atheism, but I submit that the true definition of the term precludes any from membership other than those in express denial of any diety.

[JLives]

I word it this way: "The current evidence does not support the existence of a god or gods." It has nothing to do with belief for me. I consider myself an atheist.

[Nom_de_Plume]

I thought that was a very interesting discussion, this morning fluffy.
the whole debate topic was spawned by an interview on big think with Neil deGrasse Tyson basically trying to separate himself from the "atheist" term, mostly because it has such negative connotations lately. Most of his fellow atheists, see this as a cop out on his part for not standing up for his beliefs.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic
I personally am an atheist going by the above definitions. I have been shown no evidence that there is a god(s). Therefore I don't believe a supernatural entity(ies) is possible.
If sometime in the future it becomes scientifically proven that there is a God then of course I will change my opinion.
Just like anything that hasn't been proven yet.

[fluffy]

I word it this way: "The current evidence does not support the existence of a god or gods." It has nothing to do with belief for me. I consider myself an atheist.

I personally am an atheist going by the above definitions. I have been shown no evidence that there is a god(s)
If sometime in the future it becomes scientifically proven that there is a God then of course I will change my opinion.

But doesn't the dictionary definition carry a commitment to disbelief ? I'm just wondering if donning the title of "atheist" means denial of the possibility that there may be something out there of a supernatural sort.

I see what you're both saying, 'there is no current evidence to support any doubt in my mind, but I'm open to revision'.

I guess to me it comes down to being able to say "I don't know for sure", which would be an agnostic point of view.

[1nick]

I don't know.
I highly doubt it.
So I guess I'm agnostic with a heavy slant to atheism?
If there is a god he's an atheist.

[fluffy]

I've met some people who have not given the higher power concept any thought at all, but call themselves atheist just to put themselves apart from any association with religion. Sort of "in-your-face" atheists but whose philosophy would be more agnostic than anything else.

[Mr Danksworth]

[Hmmm]

I was watching an you-tube live video-cast another castanut turned me on to this morning and this was a topic that took up quite a bit of time, the thought of the considerable overlap in terminology people use to describe their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. From my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition we have the following:

agnostic n [from the Greek agnostos, unknown, unknowable] 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly one who is not committed to believing in either the existence of the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

atheist n : one who believes that there is no diety.

For argument's sake I would like to suggest that those who wish to don the title of "atheist" must by definition deny the slightest possibility of the existence of any form of higher power, and that as soon as any shred of doubt or indecision enters the picture they are no longer an atheist, but have moved their tent to the agnostic camp. There has been mention of varying degrees of atheism, but I submit that the true definition of the term precludes any from membership other than those in express denial of any diety.

If someone will NEVER change their mind, no matter what, thats called closed minded.

[Hmmm]

I word it this way: "The current evidence does not support the existence of a god or gods." It has nothing to do with belief for me. I consider myself an atheist.

I would say the current evidence, gives support to design. We DO see design and order throughout the universe. Down to the atomic level at that. What might be more accurate is saying the current social climate prefers not to believe in God or gods due to the incredible hypocrisy and ridiculousness of religions.

For example, lets say we lived in a world that had 7 billion people on it and 1 billion believed in a certain religion. The whole world was angry, self obsessed, dishonest, violent and so forth, except that group of 1 billion. There religious book agreed with science and was free of fables and had advice that always proved best.

In that scenario, when these ones spoke about their beliefs and showed convincing evidence of a higher powers support being with them, what would you say then?

[cliffy1]

For example, lets say we lived in a world that had 7 billion people on it and 1 billion believed in a certain religion. The whole world was angry, self obsessed, dishonest, violent and so forth, except that group of 1 billion. There religious book agreed with science and was free of fables and had advice that always proved best.

In that scenario, when these ones spoke about their beliefs and showed convincing evidence of a higher powers support being with them, what would you say then?

Highly speculative make believe. Proof of the divine cannot be contained in any book or books. The divine is a personal experience or it is not experienced at all. Proof is subjective not objective which is why it can and never will be proved to anyone who has not experienced it or who is closed to the idea.

According to this site, secular non believers, agnostics and atheists make up the third largest group of people on the planet: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html. 1.1 billion. Buddhist also do not believe in god or gods or at least that such a being is unknowable.

[Hmmm]

Highly speculative make believe. Proof of the divine cannot be contained in any book or books. The divine is a personal experience or it is not experienced at all. Proof is subjective not objective which is why it can and never will be proved to anyone who has not experienced it or who is closed to the idea.

According to this site, secular non believers, agnostics and atheists make up the third largest group of people on the planet: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html. 1.1 billion. Buddhist also do not believe in god or gods or at least that such a being is unknowable.

The point was, that the overall failure lie's with religion and not Gods. However you're right on the proof not being experienced in a book. I do believe that due to ones own disposition, God will in fact show himself to you or not. I would suggest prayer to him out of sincerity to know him and go from there.

I personally feel there is more than an abundant evidence of proof God exists and helps those who call upon him sincerely.

[Mr Danksworth]

I personally feel there is more than an abundant evidence of proof God exists and helps those who call upon him sincerely.

What about those who have sincerely called out to their gods during an existential crisis or dark night of the soul, and heard nothing? Were they doing it wrong? Not "sincere' enough to get the special feeling/knowledge? Wrong gods? What? If what you say it true, it should be measurable, testable and repeatable. If it isn't, it's all in your head.

[Glacier]

Lots of people believe in the Pangea even though it's not measurable, testable and repeatable...

[Hmmm]

What about those who have sincerely called out to their gods during an existential crisis or dark night of the soul, and heard nothing? Were they doing it wrong? Not "sincere' enough to get the special feeling/knowledge? Wrong gods? What? If what you say it true, it should be measurable, testable and repeatable. If it isn't, it's all in your head.

Have you done that recently? Before or after your avatar with what looks like Jesus with a smoke? You can't be totally disrespectful and at the same time sincerely pray to him.

[Mr Danksworth]

Does it only work if you pray to Jesus, or can you go for any other pantheon? There's lots of gods and goddesses out there.