1. Comment #98328 by bartvdo on December 13, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Well, there is a chance that God exists. Because from a scientific view you can't say god doesn't exist unless there is proof (note that the evidence of the existence of God from a science point of view needs to be supplied by those who say he does, not those who say he doesn't).

But, we don't need a god to explain why we are here (we have no scientific proof that God exist at all!). We also can think up alternative gods up to infinity (or at least an enormous number).

So the actual chance that God exist (that we'll find proof of his existence) is extremely small.

That chance is really so insignificant, that you might as well say it won't happen.It's far more probable that I'll win the lottery while being bitten by a shark that is hit by lightning while.. etc. Would you call yourself a Potential lottery winner that wins while being bitten by a shark hit by lightning while etc... ?

No, so we don't either.

Other Comments by bartvdo

2. Comment #98332 by blueollie on December 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

All "atheist" means is a "non-belief" in deities. Technically speaking, no one can prove that Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, but most won't say that they have "suspended judgment" on the existence of these deities.

Neither do we claim to "suspend judgment" on the non-existence of the current standard deities.

We need evidence for something in order to "believe in it" and we simply don't see any evidence.

Other Comments by blueollie

3. Comment #98335 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

This is the reason that labeling oneself an atheist is a bad idea. Simply don't answer, or when pressed, use the term non-religious. Any label is charged, opening up for conflict the person that assumes it. Agnosticism is just a bad notion - for instance, the agnostic might claim that we are merely a computer simulation, like an MMO, or that we are part of (or living in) some larger organism. Agnostics sit on a fence and only face forward. Some of the atheists in this forum are, in fact, just as dogmatic as religionists. Without dealing in pure pluralism or theosophy, a person can easily rephrase religious notions or terminology into benign concepts (soul = mind, religious text = situational historical documents, prophet = amalgam of historical figures, etc) that allow the discussion/argument to progress.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

4. Comment #98348 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

There is confusion as to the definition of atheist (and agnostic).

A person that claims to *know* that there are no gods is just as dogmatic as a theist. Both are claiming knowledge that they do not possess.

In his book, Professor Dawkins proposes a multi-point scale from theist to atheist. Only the right-most point corresponds to this dogmatic atheist. Any other notch, on the atheist side, accepts the possibility of gods but rejects the current hypothetical gods of all current and past religions due to lack of evidence or flat contradiction with reality.

So, there is a tiny category of atheist that this question is addressed to. Professor Dawkins, myself and, I venture to suggest, most readers of this forum, are not in it.

Other Comments by rnewson

5. Comment #98448 by Blue Lithium on December 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm

People who are agnostic are still technically atheists because they lack belief in gods.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/atheist-or-agnostic.html - good article relevant to this topic

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

6. Comment #98480 by Intergalactic Hussy on December 13, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Not believing in god is dogmatic?? Because that's the definition of atheist. No atheist could rightfully claim with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist. But theists do it all the time.

Other Comments by Intergalactic Hussy

7. Comment #98502 by stereoroid on December 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I make a distinction between my purely philosophical position (agnostic, because I don't have knowledge of the whole universe), and my practical position (atheist, because I have a life to live, and "there are no gods" means I have no one to praise or blame but myself). As noted already, these are not mutually exclusive positions. Also, I think theists often confuse our scepticism on two different questions:

Question one is the theoretical possibility of anything supernatural in the universe. Logically, any entity in our universe IS natural - because the universe IS nature. 8)
- If we ever find something god-like, it will still be natural and subject to scientific examination, won't it? See Clarke's Third Law, about advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.
- If the claim is for something outside the known or knowable universe... how could we ever detect it? If that entity is to interact with us at all, it will have to enter the universe to do so, and will leave evidence in the process.
In other words: if it's in our universe, interacting with us: it's natural, and we'll want to examine the evidence for it. Until then, agnosticism can be a reasonable position.

Question Two is about the claims made by today's organised religions.
- These are not vague claims of "gods somewhere in the universe": they are specific about the gods and our relations to them.
- I am expected to respond to these claims by believing them, and when I don't, I'm damned, apparently.
- The claims are so specific that you'd think they were based on evidence, but on closer examination they all turn out to be based on testimony: things people say, reports of things they think they saw, or others saw... no actual physical evidence that backs up the claims.
- In response to those claims, and what I'm supposed to do about them, I'm willing and happy to call myself an atheist, because I'm not buying them or their implications.

Other Comments by stereoroid

8. Comment #98770 by neyne on December 14, 2007 at 8:40 am

agnosticism is intellectual laziness, in best case. It has no meaning. Why is it limited to knowledge about god ? We are agnostic about anything we don't know for a fact. I am agnostic about an existence of a left-handed woman in New York named Tabitha who is eating scrambled eggs at this right moment. Should i turn it into life's philosophy ?

Other Comments by neyne

9. Comment #101839 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 2:41 am

I find it entertaining that the terms 'Atheist' and 'Agnostic' are thrown around and contrasted like they're so easily quantified.

Just what -is- an atheist? Just what -does- 'agnostic' mean?

I ain't gonna answer either of those. I have my own answers, and they're all mine; go find your own.

Or don't. Whatever turns your crank.

;)

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

10. Comment #104052 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm

My definition of atheist is a practical agnostic in regards to supernatural in general.

Other Comments by notsobad

11. Comment #105162 by kgif15 on December 30, 2007 at 7:39 pm

"Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic."- First of all this is clearly an opinion, second of all, it is literally impossible for the position of agnosticism to be correct because a god either exists or doesn't. Third, to claim that it is "reasonable", even though it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to be correct is absurd. And lastly, to restate what has been said 89234972 times the burdain of proof is on the believer. you can't prove a negative.

Other Comments by kgif15

12. Comment #106332 by sstrang on January 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I think in many cases, people say they are agnostic because of social conditioning. On the one hand, they question the existence of God and they are driven by logic. On the other hand, their family and/or society has taught them that God IS real, and that those who question the existence of God are damned for eternity.

The fear and guilt of not believing prevents some people, in my opinion, from completely making the transition to atheism. Some people also find it too hard to bear, going through life knowing there is no God to turn to...this leads some people to choose to believe in God, if only for a sense of comfort and structure in a world that is hectic and unordered.

Other Comments by sstrang

13. Comment #111029 by Riley on January 13, 2008 at 11:00 am

Theists have created the term "agnostic" to describe someone who does not claim to be able to prove that "God" does not exist. But the label "agnostic" to be meaningfully used, must be applied consistently.

Anyone who claims neither to be able to prove nor disprove the existence of "God", deserves the label: "agnostic".

..

Other Comments by Riley

14. Comment #111851 by thunder2384 on January 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Some atheists may be just as dogmatic as theists, but not all are. I know because I'm not. I do not amdmire anyone who says no evidence at all could even conceivably be presented to them which would at least make them view God's existence as more plausible. You have to be willing to look unwaveringly at the evidence and accept it's implications, no matter what they are.

However, I do not at all think it's necessarily reasonable to be agnostic about God's existence. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the probability of his existence. I would argue that the existence of fairies and leprechauns is quite improbable and yet, considerably more probable than God's existence as they aren't nearly so complex or demanding in terms of an explanation.

For me, I certainly can't say I absolutely know God does not exist, but his existence seems very improbable.

Other Comments by thunder2384

15. Comment #115790 by omrsafetyo on January 24, 2008 at 7:39 pm

I think you will be very hard pressed to find someone who is truly "agnostic". In fact, I find that to be rather impossible. You can read all about that at my myspace blog, but to make a long story short:

A theist is someone who believes there is a God.
An atheist is someone who does not believe there is a God.

All rational atheists, and all rational theists (there are very few) know that the existence of a creator cannot be "truly" known. This is not a question that science can address. It can be proven to be highly unlikely - and I believe it has; but it cannot be proven outright.

No one can say that they are agnostic without being either theistic or atheistic, because atheism is not the downright refusal that there is a God (in all cases), but can be as simple as not knowing, and having no explicit belief that there is.

A self-proclaimed agnostic is just that. They have no explicit belief that there is a God, but they don't want to commit to one side of the fence or ther other. To me this is being atheist without knowing it.

Other Comments by omrsafetyo

16. Comment #117251 by decster on January 28, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Agnostics are the middle men who cannot make up their mind either way.
How is that reasonable.

Other Comments by decster

17. Comment #122093 by AlwaysLearning on February 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

It's not that agnostics can't 'make up their mind', it's that they understand that 'things change'...and 'beliefs change'...just as many atheists changed in their understanding/belief that god does not exist.

It boils down to a present vs. future perspective.

Can an atheist KNOW for CERTAIN....100%...that some 'being' will not arrive on Earth, claiming they designed us out of manufactured DNA?

No, they simply can't. They can only believe that it won't happen.

And, as it has been said here many times, 'belief' in something, does not make it 'truth'.

It's also been said, the only thing we know for sure....is that we are 'aware'.

I would have to add to that...that we are 'always learning'.

We simply do not know what our future holds...we can only speculate.

Granted, even if a being did arrive and claimed such, and 'proved' they HAD designed us from DNA....would they be gods? Or just some veeerry old scientists?

Would we believe in their 'proof'? Would it not depend on their 'sources of facts' against our sources of facts?

That's the paradox...technically, the term 'fact' is just as much a 'concept' as is 'god'.

The 'truth' for you is based on your own conclusion....at THAT specific point in time.

'Truth' as we know it, can only exist in a singularity of time.

Things change.

Other Comments by AlwaysLearning

18. Comment #124214 by Strappado on February 8, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Being an agnostic would be logical if the two propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" were equally reasonable. But they are not.

There are no scientific observances of God, while all other scientific observances fit in with Atheism.
So, while a nitpicking agnostic may say that this does not rule out the existance of God it gives a good statistical measure of the probability.

Agnostic: One who knows alot about logics, but nothing about statistics.

Other Comments by Strappado

19. Comment #125757 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 1:47 am

this is mostly a ploy put out by theists and taken by non-believers (fallacy known as the falacy of the middle, that when there are two extremes the truth must be somewhere in the middle.) and this is what cause agnosticism. and deism. which are nearly identical.

the theists want to have atheism be just another religion, its easier to marginalize them that way, and easier to keep others from going to them. religion knows very well how to keep people from going to another religion, but keeping them from just NOT having a religion, a ground state, ia harder.
christians for instance have a monopoly on faith, they can throw their weight around and keep anyone from joining any other faith, so they want atheism to be a faith so they can handel it like usual.

and then what could be otherwise reasonable atheists buy into this crap, they then see both sides as equally bad and thus the truth must be somewhere between them, in terms of the PH scale, agnosticism would be a 6 and deism an 8, with atheism at one (because its corrosive) and theism at 14 (because its basic) neither are true neutral.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

20. Comment #130213 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 7:16 am

To be dogmatic one needs to assert and defend a belief and ignore or suppress evidence and argument against it. You have a belief in god and I don't, there is nothing for me to defend. Only you could be dogmatic should you so chose.

Other Comments by martino

21. Comment #132524 by Prom_STar on February 24, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Dogma: a belief held without evidence.

Obviously, this cannot apply to a rationalist, an empiricist, a utilitarian, an atheist, an agnostic, etc. ad nauseum. There have been nonreligious dogmas (the ideologies of Nazism and Stalinism, for example) but I don't think there's ever been a non-dogmatic religion.

Other Comments by Prom_STar

22. Comment #142292 by daniel_garrison on March 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

A person of religion traditionally believes, without question, what their particular religion tells them to believe. An Atheist will believe what ever can be proven with demonstrable evidence.

Other Comments by daniel_garrison

23. Comment #156056 by aavanton on April 6, 2008 at 3:04 pm

The beauty of the scientific method is that it requires no belief.

Other Comments by aavanton

24. Comment #209535 by desn on July 12, 2008 at 2:36 pm

In theory, I would have to say that atheism and agnosticism both assume to much about "god" - in my opinion, in order to discuss the question or even think about the question of whether 'god' exists or not, one must first have a very specific definition and understanding of what is meant by the term in question - 'god' - neither atheism or agnosticism deal with this primary question - if this primary question is not answered and if that answer is not found to be scientifically falsifiable, then the question itself is scientifically meaningless - ignosticism is the one label for us 'non-believers' that truly seems to encompass the process of science in whether or not the question of the existance of 'god' has any meaning at all.

Other Comments by desn

25. Comment #214902 by JeebusFreak on July 21, 2008 at 3:10 am

Oh... the tediousness! But let's go with an old favourite:

"There is an invisible celestial teapot in orbit around the sun."

"No there isn't."

"So you're a teapot-atheist?"

"Yes."

"Well, then you are just as dogmatic as teapot-theists! Any reasonable person would be a teapot-agnostic!"

"I suppose, but what you are claiming is completely ridiculous, and scientifically so improbable as to make even CONSIDERING it a complete waste of time. So instead of giving credence to your ludicrous claim by calling myself a "teapot-agnostic", making it sound as if I'm actually spending time and energy on it, I will rather call myself a "teapot-atheist" until you present me with evidence worthy of consideration."

"Nazi!"

Other Comments by JeebusFreak

26. Comment #218922 by powerboy on July 25, 2008 at 8:16 pm

The atheist's proposition is reasonable, and that is to say simply: it can't be said there is no God, however, it can be said there is no evidence to support the notion that one exists. In addition, the evidence given by those who believe, are explained through rational inquiry.

The agnostic's proposition is also somewhat reasonable, and that is to say: mankind's body of knowledge isn't adequate enough to know.

The problem is this; atheists are correct in their assertion that the God described in the monotheistic texts doesn't exist, because the description of him isn't congenial to the realities of our world and cosmos, and that the metaphysical claims of these religions have been proved false.

Anyone who thinks that this is "dogmatic", could confuse a brick wall with a bowl of jello; or as the British would call it, Jelly.

Other Comments by powerboy

27. Comment #226872 by planeswalker321 on August 8, 2008 at 7:35 pm

That, sir, is a hasty generallization fallacy. While there no doubt are atheists who are atheist because they're told to be, that hardly describes the lot of 'em. To whit; I am atheist because I see no supporting logic behind a god. Unlike agnostics, though, I remember to apply DesCartes' method of doubt for all unsupported conclusions.

Other Comments by planeswalker321

28. Comment #237661 by accelerant on August 26, 2008 at 10:45 pm

It depends on the type of god.

a) A god that interferes in the current universe.

There is actually overwhelming evidence to suggest that this is unlikely. If such a god did really exist, we would be able to measure deviations from the "blind pitiless indifferece" of the laws of nature.

b) A pure observer god

I don't see how such a god should be in any way relevant to my life. I mean, if I can't have any interaction with him whatsoever then what's the point?

c) A creator god

That theory only compounds the problem. Who created the creator god?

So I guess you could say I'm either an atheist or an apatheist, depending on what god you're talking about.

Other Comments by accelerant

29. Comment #238262 by Jacquelyn on August 27, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Bertrand Russell said it best: "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Technically, I am an agnostic, but I don't like to claim that label because religious people see it as a lack of conviction, rather than a semantic issue of whether or not a god's existence can be proven. When pressed, I like to paraphrase Dawkins in saying that I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about fairies. It's all a nice way of saying, "As far as I'm concerned, God doesn't exist, but I'm not going to talk to you about it because you're brainwashed, and it would be a waste of my time."

Other Comments by Jacquelyn