I might as well be atheist

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I might as well be atheist

I keep hearing this from atheists, particularly here and even in Breaking the Spell by Dennett, [of course not me personally]

 

This seems to apply to "liberal" or "moderate" Theists, it's as if there's a schema of Theists and any out group of that schema might as well be atheist.

 

Such as the beliefs and actions of Barack Obama. [Not trying to create an Obama religion debate, he's just the first example that came to mind]

 

 

My question of course, is why is this?  They still believe in God and follow their religions.

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Two years. Same ol' Same

Two years. Same ol' Same ol'.

Questions back:

Is it okay to allow people to continue to enable aberrant behavior without confrontation or discussion?

Simply because one disavows the extremist doctrine of their ideology does not exclude them from being culpable for the actions of the extremists.

This goes both ways.

There are those who espouse my same ideology(ies) that fail to meet my 'ideal standards' within loosely defined parameters.

E.g. "You're an atheist. You must worship satan."  or  "You're a socialist. You must want to kill rich people."

If you don't confront the satanists or the Gueveran revolutionaries then you are effectively endorsing their extremism by association.

 

Or not. Whatever. Like I said, two years.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, you will not hear

Well, you will not hear that from me. You are who you are. Tell us what that means and we can run with that.

 

Consider where I am at. I am a pretty hard core conservative republican. And I am also a hard core (Dawkins level 7) atheist. Basically I consider that the beginning of thought should be total nihilism. Nothing exists until you can prove it. If you have no proof, then your point is not valid as far as I can tell.

 

As far as what I see from you here, I see nothing in your postings that says you are not an atheist. But you have insisted that you are in the “other than atheist” category. So tell us how you feel.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Ken G (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheist,Socialist and Anarchist

When you think about it,we are all Atheist-Socialist and Anarchist when we're born,we learn about a god and in this country we view socialist as commies,read Einstein on Socialism and most people think that anarchist are just a bunch of trouble makers,who destroy property,but if one wishes to learn about anarchist philosophy read "Chomsky on Anarchism"or No Gods No Masters by Daniel Guerin or Peter Kropotkin-Anarchism:A collection of revolutionary writings,or the essays of Emma Goldman.So being an Atheist should be a badge of Honor,because we have learned how to FREE our minds and to use logic and reason.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I think

I think, and I may be wrong here, that when someone says of another "you might as well be an Atheist" they are referring exclusively to those of the population who, despite stating that they believe in god and possibly more specifically might say they are a christian, example no real demonstrative habits or actions indicative of this belief.

IE; this would be descriptive of the 'christians' who don't go to church, don't pay attention to doctrine, don't read the bible, don't pray, don't say grace, effectively, those who come closest to associating anything they might do with god only when they might stub their toe.

Effectively, the only reason one might think they believe in god is because they state it as such, therefore it leaves one to wonder whether they do and, more importantly, since god could be effectively removed from their lives in entirety with no visible changes to their demeanor, behavior, or personality, no matter how inconsequential, that this god might as well be removed as it is apparently nothing more than a useless facet of their existence, doing no more than cluttering the stage.

Deists would generally fall under this category, likely hence why the statement is supplied so often to you.

All of the above is, naturally, just my thoughts, with no data to support it whatsoever.

Furthermore, you will likely not have cause to see me stating anything similar to this.
Unless I do of course.

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Is it okay

darth_josh wrote:

Is it okay to allow people to continue to enable aberrant behavior without confrontation or discussion?

 

 

No, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

 

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

 

 

Well, you will not hear that from me. You are who you are. Tell us what that means and we can run with that.

 

 

I mean like trying to determine somebody's stance on the existence of God based on their action.

 

They did X therefore they might as well be atheist

They didn't do Y therefore they might as well be atheist.

 

 

Like using their behavior and irrelevant beliefs [such as political or economic for example] to determine whether or not they believe in God.

 

Like in your case, you said you were a hard core Republican so it's kinda like saying you might as well be Christian since the Republican party is usually associated with Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:since god

Sinphanius wrote:

since god could be effectively removed from their lives in entirety with no visible changes to their demeanor, behavior, or personality, no matter how inconsequential, that this god might as well be removed as it is apparently nothing more than a useless facet of their existence, doing no more than cluttering the stage.

I think this gets at the meat of it. Theists like Cpt Pineapple fail to apply Occam's Razor to their beliefs.

If we observe that masses are attracted to each other according to a particular mathematical formula, as the theory of gravity does, then it makes no sense to say, "Yes, it's gravity... PLUS magical elves pulling the strings." Why not just ditch the elves and go with the simpler theory.

If your perceptions and behaviours are identical to an atheist's except for the fact that you say, "Yes, it's reality... PLUS a magical god pulling the strings." Then why not just ditch the god and go with atheism?

If you've got evidence for this god, then provide it. If not, then why bother staying with the god concept? It's a failure to apply Occam's Razor. That's all.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Natural, you have a way of

Natural, you have a way of simply saying things that I would make a literary mess out of. I cannot post after you, except to say, "what he said ^"

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, you will not hear that from me. You are who you are. Tell us what that means and we can run with that.

 

Consider where I am at. I am a pretty hard core conservative republican.

 

This might be distracting from the conversation, but this is interesting. Are you just a hard core republican for economic issues? Or are you a conservative when it comes to social issues as well?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And I am also a hard

Quote:
And I am also a hard core (Dawkins level 7) atheist.

There's a scale? Link? Sticking out tongue

Sorry for the interruption.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:And I am

Vastet wrote:

Quote:
And I am also a hard core (Dawkins level 7) atheist.

There's a scale? Link? Sticking out tongue

Sorry for the interruption.

I beleive it was in The God Delusion that Dawkins talked about rating atheists on a scale.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

I'm not sure I buy the idea about being a complete agnostic on this scale.  It seems you either believe in a god or you don't.  If you're not sure there's a god...wouldn't you be an atheist as you lack a belief in god?  Atheist seems to indicate everything except actual belief in a god.  It would be entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist, though.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
This goes against the idea

This goes against the idea that a/gnosticism is an adjective to a/theism. BTW, is it possible to be a gnostic atheist? And what would that mean?


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Aye, which is why I don't

Aye, which is why I don't buy it, so to speak.  It fits cultural perceptions, sort of, but isn't actually accurate.

Gnostic atheist would be a strong atheist.  You don't believe in God, and you know he isn't there.  Or she.  Or them.  Whatever.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
thats interesting. Youre


thats interesting. Youre applying gnostic to your certainty to atheism. I was thinking that it would mean I believe it should be possible to know of God but I dont think he exists. After looking at the scale I think this would be closer to a 50 if it was possible. I dont know too many 50s. This would be someone who is searching for proof that God exists maybe. Also, I kind of disagree with the dawkins scale.

 I like the idea of probabilities but now I'm thinking the word "agnostic" adds nothing to the conversation because then we just argue about what "knowledge" means to you/me. Facts may turn out to be false. Its about justification really. And that can always be argued about. Its obviously different for believers and non believers. We all agree God is unknowable in the classic scientific defn of knowledge. I would think the probs of God go more like this:

100 is "knowledge of God" - though technically impossible, even   though I may have said it myself at times
90-99.9999 is a strong believer like myself
10-89 is the average religious person
.1-9 is the typical atheist
.000001 -.1 is the strong atheist, largely because there is no definition for God; the concepts dont make sense, etc.
0 is "knowledge of no God" which is impossible as is 100. But in a sense, we all can expect God to be different than what we think if he exists. So there is a 0% chance that we have it absolutely right; but that is a little different concept.
 


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
all Im saying is that we all

all Im saying is that we all agree God is unknowable in the scientific sense so far. (Maybe not all)

I guess that is the point of Creation Science which is a bad idea. And ID is bad if you take it to be science. But if you take it to be philosophy as I always have then its not bad.

So Rook is saying agnostic doesnt put you at 50%, it puts you more toward 1% because why should you believe something you cant know. Dawkins is a more willing to put an agnostic in the middle. But in reality I think most agnostics are not searching and are closer to 1 than to 50. Perhaps a searching person could be near a 50 (or they wouldnt be searching). Then they could be called a gnostic atheist until they got to 51. You dont need to search if you know its unknowable.

So my point is your personal probability is also tied to what you are looking for and what you count as evidence. So your philosophy helps determine your probability for God. If your philosophy says a God can reveal himself to you somehow in a nonscientific sense, then you would be a gnostic.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

all Im saying is that we all agree God is unknowable in the scientific sense so far. (Maybe not all)

I guess that is the point of Creation Science which is a bad idea. And ID is bad if you take it to be science. But if you take it to be philosophy as I always have then its not bad.

So Rook is saying agnostic doesnt put you at 50%, it puts you more toward 1% because why should you believe something you cant know. Dawkins is a more willing to put an agnostic in the middle. But in reality I think most agnostics are not searching and are closer to 1 than to 50. Perhaps a searching person could be near a 50 (or they wouldnt be searching). Then they could be called a gnostic atheist until they got to 51. You dont need to search if you know its unknowable.

So my point is your personal probability is also tied to what you are looking for and what you count as evidence. So your philosophy helps determine your probability for God. If your philosophy says a God can reveal himself to you somehow in a nonscientific sense, then you would be a gnostic.

 

The problem I see with your first statement is the theistic tendency to say "God is unknowable so let's stop looking" (not applying this to you unless it fits).

Perhaps ID isn't bad as a philosophy - the problem I see is that it then makes a leap from "intelligent designer" to the God of the Bible. This is not a leap supported by anything including ID.

I'm not sure what you mean by philosophy determines probability - It sounds too much like "If you're determined to find/not find God you will find evidence acceptable to you no matter what. My problem with that is that I want evidence that is obvious to anyone and everyone - theistic beliefs fall very short in my opinion.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't disagree. Im just

I don't disagree. Im just trying to analyze the consequences of our definition of "agnostic". I think its a philosophic question rather than a religious question.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Treating any question as  a

Treating any question as  a 'philosophic' question does not give it any more status, you are still ultimately treating it as a purely speculative concept, with no particular claim to be taken seriously. It just means you are playing around with the idea in a particular way.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
I didnt mean to say any

I didnt mean to say any philosophy deserves attention. But if you are telling people that they either disbelieve or believe then I'm saying thats not quite the whole story. Why not make a scale that fits people where theyre at. I'd just like us to agree on what we disagree on. There are degrees of belief. There are opinions on what is knowable. Probably more than 2. -yes/no. (Maybe some atheists think there will be scientific evidence for God someday.) There is a reason there are no people calling themselves gnostic atheists and I'm trying to figure out what that is. Otherwise, it seems to imply there is no need for the word agnostic as an adjective to atheism.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Agnostic atheist" seems to

"Agnostic atheist" seems to make sense - someone who simply thinks there no evidence for a God, or at least is unaware of any, but still allows for some finite possibility that God may exist.

"Gnostic Atheist" doesn't sound right, because "gnostic" is not a commonly used term in the same way that "agnostic" is, and has different connotations that just being a the opposite of "agnostic".

Word usages and understandings typically do not follow the meaning you might derive from analysing the structure of the word, especially if the word is in common usage.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree that I would try to

I agree that I would try to align with the most common usage. Almost all atheists think there is no evidence for God. If the agnostic bumps them up a little in probability, that is not what I was understanding it meant. I thought it was the addition of God being unknowable to "I don't believe." I thought it pushed the probability lower. Because a main reason I wouldnt believe would be if I thought it was unknowable. It kind of ends the discussion. I'm beginning to think the word agnostic is undefinable and thats why there is so much confusion. But that could just be my pessimism coming out...or I should say aoptimism. Eye-wink


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Gnostic Atheist

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

This goes against the idea that a/gnosticism is an adjective to a/theism. BTW, is it possible to be a gnostic atheist? And what would that mean?

 

I am a gnostic atheist.  I don't believe in god, and I believe that the existence of god is a verifiable/falsifiable question (falsifiable from my stance).  I would say that god does not exist and that such a fact is provable.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Zaq

Zaq wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

This goes against the idea that a/gnosticism is an adjective to a/theism. BTW, is it possible to be a gnostic atheist? And what would that mean?

I am a gnostic atheist.  I don't believe in god, and I believe that the existence of god is a verifiable/falsifiable question (falsifiable from my stance).  I would say that god does not exist and that such a fact is provable.

Thanks for responding, Zaq! That makes it a little more clear. I guess there is a dichotomy among people who believe the question is knowable. I was thinking knowable in the future as science explains where the universe came from and other dimensions. I would think some atheists with P(God) closer to 50 might say that someday it might be known.

I guess strong atheists believe that is it knowable and like you that God does not exist and that it basically has been "proven" to their own standards or degree of necessity. In that sense, I agree that the concept of God is not well defined and we have to do that before we can answer whether it is "knowable".

Do you think every atheist should eventually be a strong atheist? (it does appear the natural transition is theist/deist/agnostic atheist/strong atheist) .The term "agnostic" can either increase or decrease your probability as can the term "gnostic". I don't know if they're helpful. Some strong atheists say their P(God) is undefined. That may make more sense than to put a small number on it. Its hard to put a number on a moving target with no clear concept.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Re: JustAnotherBeliever

A better-defined concept of God is most helpful when dealing with questions about said god.  I tend to go with the Judeo-Christian god because that one is what most people think of when you say "god."

 

I'd say that once one reaches atheism, the logical progression is towards a lower P(God), which depending on your definition of gnosticism/agnosticism might be a treand towards gnosticism (but will never be a trend towards agnosticism).  The idea is that there is almost never any supporting evidence towards the god hypothesis.  Most things that people claim as evidence towards god is really just evidence against science, and they rely on a false dichotomy (Science or God, no alternative answers).  Thus I find it difficult for one's P(God) to logically increase through observation.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I've decided to bump this  

I've decided to bump this