The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Southtown]

The simple fact is that this is a group of people coming together and defining themselves with certain perspectives.

I can respect that.

 

It very much is an ideology, but it's not one which is global. It's a local description to which only a subpopulation of people subscribe.

As long as they realize that's how religion started.

[Qfwfq]

First, atheism more properly indicates the belief that no god exists, otherwise it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist.

 

Second, militant doesn't necessarily mean belligerant. Aside from a gun in the hand, the term is even used for as little as an activist. Resort to objectionable behaviour is already a medium to strong sense of the term. Cases such as Emmeline Pankhurst are often considered strongly or extremely militant.

 

One thing tytpical of atheists, they are often arguing against the most highly untenable or counterfactual beliefs and presuming to thus prove against any notion of a god. This is clearly non sequitur and hence not so scientific after all.

[modest]

While there will be exceptions, those actions which would be advocated by Christians, by Muslims, and by Jews would very likely also be advocated by non-theists.

 

Yes, I agree this would by and large be the case.

 

Along similar lines, the Muslims do NOT believe in the second coming of Christ (the armageddon mention), so arguments in favor of that would be localized and dependent upon the single ideology/worldview.

 

You might be thinking of Judaism.

 

Muslims do believe in the second coming of Jesus. He comes back to lead an army of believers against the antichrist (al-Masih ad-Dajjal) in "one final apocalyptic battle". Jesus and his fellow Muslims win the battle then he rules earth for a short time followed by Judgment day (Yawm ad-Din).

 

Second Coming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I appreciate the concern you've raised, but I don't find it very likely, as even those who are religious will often concede that killing, raping, harming others is bad (despite their teachings to the contrary in the book of fairy tales). In sum, their "belief" in the coming armageddon isn't likely to be argued or advocated by non-fundies. I could be wrong, though.

 

Yeah, I certainly hope you're not wrong. There is an interesting argument relating the modern belief that war is evil with an apocalyptic kind of unrestrained warfare. It's made by David Bell, professor of history at Johns Hopkins, in "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It". I'll quote a snippet from that link. It's a really interesting perspective:

It was during this time, Bell argues, that our modern attitudes toward war were born. In the eighteenth century, educated Europeans thought war was disappearing from the civilized world. So when large-scale conflict broke out during the French Revolution, they could not resist treating it as "the last war" — a final, terrible spasm of redemptive violence that would usher in a reign of perpetual peace. As this brilliant interpretive history shows, a war for such stakes could only be apocalyptic, fought without restraint or mercy.

 

Ever since, the dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of total war have been bound tightly together in the Western world — right down to the present day, in which the hopes for an "end to history" after the cold war quickly gave way to renewed fears of full-scale slaughter.

 

I could give you a humanist argument right now that concludes nuking North Korea is a good idea. Killing up to a quarter of their population could be seen as a positive result on the whole of humanity averaged over the next century. I could make that argument logically and flawlessly. And, people have believed those arguments in the past. Stalin did indeed frame his arguments in atheistic, humanistic terms. His comrades saw the logic and bought into it. I know that’s not something atheists like hearing (let alone saying), but it’s true.

I don't think your comparison is valid.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "comparison". I guess I'm comparing a Marxist-Leninist argument that Stalin made to one I could make. Why that would be invalid... :doh:

 

Stalin did not engage in those actions as a result of his atheism. His atheism did not inform his decision to kill all of those people.

 

Did I say Stalin's atheism informed his decision to kill? You're trying to refute things I didn't say or imply which is slightly irritating.

 

He used logic with which people agreed, but those militant activities of his were not informed by atheism. That would be like saying that my lack of belief in the tooth fairy caused me to rape a child. It's completely unrelated and nonsequitur.

 

Actually, the strawman you built is only a non sequitur because you haven't finished building it. If I defined Nihilism as "a lack of belief in morality" and I said "John Doe is a Nihilist and killed 20 people therefore Nihilism informed a decision to kill people" then that would be a non sequitur only because I have not yet established a link between Johnny's Nihilism and his decision to kill. Such a direct link can be made. The definition of Nihilism does not a priori preclude the possibility.

 

Likewise, Lenin and Stalin and their cohorts may well have been informed by atheism when they crucified priests, poured molten lead in the mouths of nuns, and boiled monks in tar. You can't arbitrarily rule it out. But, if I were to make the argument (which, of course, I'm not) then I would use the word "anti-theism". Their anti-theism informed their decision to eradicate the church.

 

But, that is all beside the point. I was establishing that bad things can be done in the name of an atheistic ideology just as they can be done in the name of a theistic ideology. If we can lay the crimes of the Spanish inquisition at the feet of Christianity (a theistic belief system) then we must be able to lay Soviet crimes of the first half of the last century at the feet of Marxism-Leninism (an atheistic belief system). Either can be militant.

 

In other words, the often quoted Steven Weinberg is wrong:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

That is bullshit. An atheistic ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things. My example of Stalin is not invalid. And, you should maybe read the chapter “the Clergy” in Alexander Yakovlev’s “A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia” to get a feel for the details and the scope of the example.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

First, atheism more properly indicates the belief that no god exists, otherwise it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist.

I feel that this deceased equine has been sufficiently beaten, but I suppose it needs repeating.

 

Atheism is a lack of theism. It literally means, not-theist.

It is not a belief system any more than my dismissal of astrology and numerology is a belief system, or my lack of belief in the tooth fairy is a "belief system."

Further, it is not an assertion that there IS NO god, so you're presenting a very common strawman.

 

If you wish to argue this point, and if you cannot overcome your desire to state that atheism is "the belief that there is no god," then you must clarify and at least demonstrate some academic integrity by adding the descriptor "hard" before the word "atheism." ... since that is what you are describing ("hard atheism"), not atheism as commonly experienced in the populace.

 

Further, your choice of the word agnostic is limited. It implies that people feel there is a 50/50 chance there is a god, which is hardly accurate. It's better represented as a spectrum, since there are different levels of agnosicism... all the way from, "pretty sure there is a god, but not certain" to "pretty sure there is NOT a god, but not certain," all of which is book-ended by the extreme "I'm absolutely certain there is a god" to "I'm absolutely certain there is NOT a god."

 

Most atheists recognize the lack of certainty, and would not assert a certainty that there is no god, which makes your claim specious and false.

 

Interestingly, it seems that it's the theists who are "absolutely certain that there is a god," but I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.

 

 

I don't have to prove that there is no god. I can simply point out the blaring lack of evidence available to people who think there is.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "comparison". I guess I'm comparing a Marxist-Leninist argument that Stalin made to one I could make. Why that would be invalid... ;)

 

<...>

 

Did I say Stalin's atheism informed his decision to kill? You're trying to refute things I didn't say or imply which is slightly irritating.

I've obviously misunderstood you, and responded off point. Your points make sense now that you've clarified. Thanks for that. I think much of the rest of our disagreement evaporates with that noted and acknowledged.

 

 

In other words, the often quoted Steven Weinberg is wrong:

I'd label it as "not fully accurate" or perhaps "not fully representative of the truth," but it's clever and poignant, all the same... and the description of "wrong" seems to rob it of that poignance.

 

Speaking of Weinberg (who gave a lecture at the University about a year or two ago which I was privileged to attend), he did an interview with Dawkins which was super cool. I bookmarked the playlist, and encourage others to check it out. Here's the link (since it's a playlist of 8 vids, I disabled the embedding... which would only have allowed viewing of the first one... and you'll need to copy/paste it to a browser):

 

 

 

 

That is bullshit. An atheistic ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things.

Okay, now I'm confused again, and could use your help clarifying. When you say, "atheistic ideology," what exactly do you mean? Could you give an example or two? The sticking point for me is that, earlier in the thread, you conceded and asserted yourself that "atheism is not an ideology," which doesn't seem to align well with the statement above (which is suggestive of the contrary). I sense that there is a subtle distinction, and that you are not referring specifically to atheism, but other ideologies which themselves tend to lack theism. Either way, instead of me guessing, it'd probably be better for me to let you clarify since the point is fuzzy on a few fronts right now.

[Boerseun]

That is bullshit. An atheistic ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things.

This assumes some definition of morality with which "evil" is defined.

 

Seeing as any "atheistic ideology" is merely an ideology which does not take any deity into account, it will, by definition, be "evil" from the point of view of religion, where morality is meted out by some invisible imaginary entity.

 

And it will be "evil" for you, if you share their point of view.

 

But morality as defined by religion is subjective.

 

I can say that a "religious ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things" with exactly the same authority. Consider the Crusades, the Inquest, modern-day suicide bombers. They are acting perfectly moral according to their personal religious ideology.

 

The point is that religion have hijacked morality thousands of years ago. And there are plenty religions. So which one is authorative?

 

Keeping the above in mind, if an atheistic ideology leads to evil, then that evil was defined in the ideology to begin with and the adherents knew what they were getting in to, meaning they were a bunch of evil bastards to begin with, or the ideology was misinterpreted. But when religious ideology leads to evil, it's because the religion was followed to the letter. Consider the explicit instruction in the Bible to stone homosexuals and adulterers. A very good argument can be made that when a religious ideology in the Abrahamic mindset leads to anything good, the scripture was misinterpreted.

[enorbet2]

To quote George Bernard Shaw

 

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means”

[modest]

Atheism is a lack of theism. It literally means, not-theist.

I agree. I think it used to be used more in the other way (as an affirmation), but used more now to refer to all non-theists. B)

 

I've obviously misunderstood you, and responded off point. Your points make sense now that you've clarified. Thanks for that. I think much of the rest of our disagreement evaporates with that noted and acknowledged.

 

Very good to hear.

 

I'd label it as "not fully accurate" or perhaps "not fully representative of the truth," but it's clever and poignant, all the same... and the description of "wrong" seems to rob it of that poignance.

 

Yes, I'd like to rob it of that. Saying something clever is no excuse for saying something that's flat-out wrong, and the sentiment that a certain kind of ideology (any kind of ideology) can cause no harm (which Weinberg says in no uncertain terms) is a recipe for disaster.

 

Speaking of Weinberg (who gave a lecture at the University about a year or two ago which I was privileged to attend), he did an interview with Dawkins which was super cool. I bookmarked the playlist, and encourage others to check it out. Here's the link (since it's a playlist of 8 vids, I disabled the embedding... which would only have allowed viewing of the first one... and you'll need to copy/paste it to a browser):

 

 

Thank you. I've watched the first three and plan to watch the rest tonight.

 

That is bullshit. An atheistic ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things.

Okay, now I'm confused again, and could use your help clarifying. When you say, "atheistic ideology," what exactly do you mean?

 

An atheistic ideology is any which does not base it's morals on theistic or supernatural ideas.

 

Could you give an example or two?

 

Sure, the two examples which I've used are secular Humanism and Marxism-Leninism.

 

The sticking point for me is that, earlier in the thread, you conceded and asserted yourself that "atheism is not an ideology," which doesn't seem to align well with the statement above (which is suggestive of the contrary).

 

I don't see how you're getting that. The term "atheistic" works just as well for describing an ideology or a belief system as it does for describing a person. The biggest difference between something like Judaism and something like Humanism is that the first is theistic while the second is atheistic. This does not make (or imply that) atheism is an ideology any more than theism is an ideology (where theism is the belief in one or more gods and/or the supernatural).

 

I sense that there is a subtle distinction, and that you are not referring specifically to atheism, but other ideologies which themselves tend to lack theism.

 

Yes. Maybe you should look at my posts again. "ideologies which themselves... lack theism" are the only things I've referred to or discussed. The very first thing I said when starting this discussion was:

I don't think atheism can be militant because it's not a belief system. But, there are atheistic belief systems such as Humanism...

The Soviet "League of The Militant Godless" had many members which were both militant and atheists and the organization itself was both militant and atheist... but "atheism" itself cannot be militant because it is not a person, an organization, or an ideology. I've said this I think 3 times now and very explicitly.

 

Either way, instead of me guessing, it'd probably be better for me to let you clarify since the point is fuzzy on a few fronts right now.

 

Allow me to just reiterate my overall point. Atheistic ideologies are not exempt from being used to do harm (as Weinberg claims). They can be militant and serve as the ideological basis for crimes against humanity. I worry about this as I would worry about any ideology or belief system which claims moral superiority and the right to kill others. But, this in particular, because I am a Humanist and I supported the invasion and occupation of another country for Humanist reasons. I essentially asserted that my morals were correct over the morals of another group of people and allowed for the killing of a few thousand of those people comforted in the fact that it was the right thing to do based on the morals of my ideology.

 

I don't have a solution to this problem which worries me. But, I do think we (as rational, atheistic Humanists) should be more aware of the possibility rather than blaming religion for all society's woes.

 

~modest

[modest]

That is bullshit. An atheistic ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things.

 

<...>

 

I can say that a "religious ideology can convince good and well-meaning people to do evil things" with exactly the same authority.

 

Right, that's essentially what I'm saying. Both theistic and atheistic ideologies and belief systems can convince good people to do evil. Neither is exempt from this possibility. Both can be militant and both can lead to crimes against humanity (as I would define them).

 

That said, I believe religion is much worse and has a much worse track record in this regard. The reason being rather obvious: theistic morality is based on something imaginary and outdated.

 

~modest

[sman]

My feeling is that the drama of human history, including the current events, can be narrated without the fancy costumes ending in -ism, with the same effect. We can say that Christianity (theism) is responsible for systematically burning people alive during the middle ages, but we can just as well say that medieval Europeans were responsible for systematically burning people alive during the middle ages. Theism has a bad track record (compared to non-theism). This is a valid statement, but uninformative, because ALL humans are theists, accept for a very few, very recently. In my mind it is just a variation of: Humanity has a bad track record.

 

Primate social groups behave a certain way. They are cohesive, because that is adaptive and augments population growth, until the population reaches a point where cohesion is no longer adaptive. At that point they bud off, they split, not always evenly in two. They split along lines of criteria that are salient to primates, virtuoso categorizors that they are. Any criteria. It’s important that the criteria is not the cause of the split, it’s the population size, in a given area, with finite resources. Dietary variation within the group, for example, can be made into a salient category to facilitate the split, and grow into food taboos. Any variation will do, even ideological ones.

 

This is, of course, a recipe for warfare, and primates, over time, have become adapted to warfare. Righteousness (I’m rightness) is a hallmark of our thinking weather we are theists or atheists, and our champions of chivalry have been invariably men of violence. Warfare is not a symptom of ideological thinking. Rather warfare and ideological thinking are symptoms of humanity.

 

Allow me to just reiterate my overall point. Atheistic ideologies are not exempt from being used to do harm (as Weinberg claims). They can be militant and serve as the ideological basis for crimes against humanity. I worry about this as I would worry about any ideology or belief system which claims moral superiority and the right to kill others. But, this in particular, because I am a Humanist and I supported the invasion and occupation of another country for Humanist reasons. I essentially asserted that my morals were correct over the morals of another group of people and allowed for the killing of a few thousand of those people comforted in the fact that it was the right thing to do based on the morals of my ideology.

 

This, to me, is the real difference between our age and the rest of history. Other differences are just shifts in magnitude, but this is structural. “Am I doing the right thing?” “Have I supported the right people?” This kind of thing is brand new. It demarcates our time against all history, and Humanism against other -isms. And, IMHO, it places Modest among the champions of our age.

[modest]

This is, of course, a recipe for warfare, and primates, over time, have become adapted to warfare. Righteousness (I’m rightness) is a hallmark of our thinking weather we are theists or atheists, and our champions of chivalry have been invariably men of violence. Warfare is not a symptom of ideological thinking. Rather warfare and ideological thinking are symptoms of humanity.

 

Yeah. Very profound and well said.

 

~modest :D

[Qfwfq]

I feel that this deceased equine has been sufficiently beaten, but I suppose it needs repeating.

At least it isn't off topic in here, but in any case I would call it a futile insistence on a semantic choice of yours, which isn't universally accepted. You give the word atheist a meaning which comprises that of agnostic and say that the populace means it this way; you refuse to accept the standard meaning of the latter term and are not even coherent in stating how you mean it. In this manner, you don't successfully make the rest of the world wrong.

 

The matter is complex and it would be out of place to discuss the variety of meanings of atheist through history (it has been bent sometimes) but I disagree that I should 'at least demonstrate some academic integrity by adding the descriptor "hard" before the word' because, academically, the word is widely taken to mean "someone who denies the existence of god" (distinct from "doesn't believe") and agnostic as meaning "someone who rejects all beliefs".

 

Atheism is a lack of theism. It literally means, not-theist.

No, it comes from "lack of god" in Greek (the privative α- applied to θεός: atheos). The suffix -ist makes it "one who upholds/claims/professes the lack of god". Your semantic alteration comes from making it the privative applied to theist, which gets it backwards. :D

 

Perhaps you should overcome your desire to impose your semantic choice and at least demonstrate some academic integrity by using both words as appropriate. My whole point was that you should clarify by making the distinction, and be aware of it. Is this really such a difficult alternative to calling me wrong?

 

Further, your choice of the word agnostic is limited. It implies that people feel there is a 50/50 chance there is a god, which is hardly accurate. It's better represented as a spectrum, since there are different levels of agnosicism... all the way from, "pretty sure there is a god, but not certain" to "pretty sure there is NOT a god, but not certain," all of which is book-ended by the extreme "I'm absolutely certain there is a god" to "I'm absolutely certain there is NOT a god."

You have no support for this claim. It is specious and false.

 

First, it is not a matter of probability, that's the wrong concept; use of the term probably can only have a colloquial sense. Also, I've known many folks who are religious even though they recognize the lack of certainty, and would not assert a certainty that "God must exist", they simply believe to some degree. This is exactly like you how describe atheists who believe to some degree that no god exists. It doesn't take a Ph. D. in logic to see that that neither case is a rejection of belief. So, it is also specious and false to state that the theists are "absolutely certain that there is a god". Some are, some aren't, just like atheists.

 

I don't have to prove that there is no god. I can simply point out the blaring lack of evidence available to people who think there is.

This would be fine, if it were your actual stance, attitude and behaviour toward the matter.

 

Why must religious people demand evidence anyway? It is past the point of faith, totally. God is under no obligation to heal amputees in order to prove his existence; that's a non sequitur which also displays total lack of understanding of what religious faith is. If you don't understand it, it's unwise to argue against it. You risk egg on the face.

[lemit]

It seems to me that there should be a separate term for someone who affirmatively denies the existence of any kind of deity from someone who isn't sure.

 

I'd just like to know which words mean which, so I can get my epithets right. After all, you always want to be sure people know why you hate them.

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

The matter is complex and it would be out of place to discuss the variety of meanings of atheist through history (it has been bent sometimes)

You've made a fair point, and I accept your argument that different people mean different things when they use the term atheist, so it's inappropriate of me to demand some semantic battle and call you flat out "wrong." Let me explain what is motivating my position, though.

 

As most of us in this thread have agreed, atheism is NOT a belief system. It is not a system of values or morals or commandments any more than a lack of belief in unicorns or the tooth fairy is.

 

What I have found in my own travels is that commonly (not universally, but commonly) when someone of a "theistic" persuasion calls someone else atheist, they are doing so to imply that this is a person who "believes" there is no god. This is not true with a great number of atheists, and I think it is often just a distraction technique to shift the argument and displace their burden of proof. Instead of requiring the believer in god to share any evidence for their position, the believer deflects and says, "Oh yeah, well you don't have any proof that god does NOT exist, and since you believe that god does not exist, then your position is no more tenable than my position where I do believe in god."

 

The idea is, the believer circumvents the request for evidence by suggesting that the atheist has no evidence for his/her "belief" that there is no god.

 

This is where semantics become important. My atheism is not a belief in no god, and I'm inclined to think that most atheists feel the same (I've got no data on this, and could be wrong. I stipulate that). It's just that I find the lack of evidence in favor of the god hypothesis to be blaring, and I go on about my day as if there is no god. I don't assert, "No! God does NOT exist!" That would be silly. I have no way of knowing that. It's just the most likely scenario. Just like I cannot say, "No, there is no teapot orbiting Neptune." I can just say that there is no evidence for me to think there is one there in orbit.

 

However, more to your point, there are some atheists who DO make such assertions, and sometimes an atheist really is someone who asserts certainty on this... that there "IS NO GOD!." I must say, though, that this is pretty rare. I engage in many communities of atheistic people, in many different arenas, and none that I know assert there is no god, just that there is no reason to think there is.

 

I'm not 50/50... I don't think the chances of existence are equal for and against. I'm pretty darned sure that there's not, but will never be certain. Since I am pretty confident I'm correct, I just call myself atheist (instead of agnostic) so as to avoid any confusion. This works well in most cases, since most atheists (at least, the ones I've known) view this issue in a similar way.

 

 

 

First, it is not a matter of probability, that's the wrong concept; use of the term probably can only have a colloquial sense. Also, I've known many folks who are religious even though they recognize the lack of certainty, and would not assert a certainty that "God must exist", they simply believe to some degree.

What I struggle with is the "looseness" of your definition. By your terms, everyone everywhere is "agnostic," as if it's some homogeneous cloud. Would you at least agree with me that there are different types/degrees of agnosticism? That's really the point I was attempting to make, and I struggle to think that we could possibly disagree there.

 

 

Here is the basic idea I'm driving at... Not everyone is in the center, and I wonder if you agree with that assertion (even Richard Dawkins, the most well-known and "militant" of atheists considers himself agnostic in this sense, NOT at the far end of the scale):

 

 

 

 

I'm simply looking for more refinement and detail on the term "agnosticism." Since I'm not certain there is no god, I'm technically agnostic, but it's important to me to note that this does not mean I'm sitting on the fence undecided.

[Boerseun]

I think the problem lies in the following:

 

There's a hypothesis - There is a God.

 

Only after considering the hypothesis as a valid explanation for the things around us, can one be an "agnostic", in that you can't say there is a God, or not.

 

Atheists, however, don't cross the threshold of consideration. To them, the entire hypothesis is ludicrous, and they go on merrily with their lives without giving any credence to the concept.

 

This, by no means, binds "Atheists" together as a group save this one thing they have in common. Atheists can be serial killers, philanthropists, millionaires, beggars, monogamists, raving hedonistic polygamists, scientists, idiots, or god forbid - real estate salespeople. There is no other thing binding them together as a group. And by the same token, there is no way that "Atheism" can be considered a belief system. Atheism is a word for the rejection of the God hypothesis, and moving on to the next.

 

There is no common word for people who don't attach any value at all to claims for perpetual motion. Why is it that the dismissal of claims to perpetual motion isn't seen as a kind of a "belief system", and why is it that they don't have to continually defend and explain their positions regarding the matter?

 

It boils down to exactly the same thing.

[freeztar]

Imho, any dissection of atheism must include the study of agnosticism. It's a good way to "define the grey".

 

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

 

* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")

 

—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

 

* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

 

—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

 

* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)

 

—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

 

* Agnostic atheism

 

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

 

* Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")

 

—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

 

* Ignosticism

 

—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

 

Though I have my qualms with the semantics above, I do feel that most atheists might find themselves agreeing more with the "strong agnostic" viewpoint rather than the "pure atheist" stance.

 

It's all semantics though. :xmas_sheep:

[lawcat]

Any time a person posits good, bad, malicious, benign, evil, etc., as a reason for their belief, then the person is asserting theistic argument. For example, god is good, or god is not good, are both religious statements.

 

If the belief is merely a conclusion on evidence, then it is atheistic. In other words, atheistic beliefs are conlusions which are strictly procedural, and not normative. For example, if your doctor suggests ointment because it s good for your skin, then the doctor holds atheistic belief. Here "good" is not a normative statement, but merely suggests desired results based on evidence. But if your doctor suggests that you eat ointment regularly because it is good for your diet, then the doctor holds a religious belief.

 

Agnostic holds procedural and normative values in equal standards, or different normative values in equal standard; and where the two do not agree, then the agnostic reserves judgment, and holds both beliefs. For example, your gas tank has 1 gallon. Evidence suggests 20 miles, but you also believe that your car can go 30 miles to the destination. If I ask you: can you do it? You will say: I do not know. You withold judgment, but believe both procedural and normative evidence. You are an agnostic.