Greetings comrades!

Good morning,

I have visited this website a number of times and finally joined up!

I was Christian till the age of 19 and then when I tried to take it seriously it all went pear-shaped. Letting go of a belief system is very hard and it took at least 6 months to regain confidence in the world and with my self. My immediate reaction after letting go was of anger to all those who told me half truths, hiding their doubt behind a mask of righteousness. Since then, I have chilled out and realised that we all want the same thing - love, happiness and a sense of purpose. We just try to find it in different places.

I live as an atheist but have to take the stand point of agnostic in an argument as its a pretty water tight stand point.
Being an atheist is sometimes frowned upon in this country where the yoke of religion is intrenched in our diverse cultural history. If any of you have read some of the opinion articles on News24.com, you’ll see that many do not understand atheism and see it as another ‘religion’.

Thats my belief in brief! Glad to be part of this group and hope to learn and share with my fellow free thinkers! Awe!

Hi and welcome :smiley:

Welcome!

The subject of the atheist and agnostic labels is a minefield, I think most who choose to call themselves agnostic are really mainstream atheists. Try rating yourself on the Dawkins scale, the vast majority of atheists rate themselves a 6, wheras the perception is that you have to be an unreasonabe and irrational 7 to call yourself an atheist.

Here are a typical set of poll results from a skeptics forum.

Strong Theist – 100% convinced that God exists.1 (0.5%)
De facto Theist – not 100% but very close.3(1.5%)
Weak Theist – not sure, but still a believer.3 (1.5%)
Pure Agnostic – 50/50 chance that God exists.4 (2%)
Weak Atheist – not sure, but leaning to non-belief.10 (5%)
De facto Atheist – not 100%, but very close.143 (71.1%)
Strong Atheist – 100% convinced of no God.37 (18.4%)

I think most people who call themselves agnostics do not agree with the 50/50 idea, just think there is no convincing evidence for gods, and live the life of an atheist.

Greetings and welcome! May your stay be long and fruitful.

Your thoughtful introduction deserves a fullish response (which may soon find itself adjourned to a different thread), so here goes:

You’re right in that agnosticism is almost unassailable in principle but it’s only useful as a transitional phase from belief to non-belief. The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to set the probability of the proposition in question being true roughly equal to that of it being false. If we apply similar logic to a whole host of other observations, we must also remain strictly agnostic about such things as evolution, the subatomic world, cosmology, the causes of diseases, etc. because there is in each case a tiny residual doubt that our knowledge in these matters is lacking or untrue. Beside it being an actual as well as an in-principle impossibility to prove a universal negative (e.g. proving the non-existence of a/any god), the probability that a/any god exists is hardly equal to the probability that this notion is false. A/any god’s existence is an extreme improbability because the world simply does not reflect such an existence. In the context of any other rational/empirical setting, so high an improbability suffices to reject the proposition as false. Why should the god question deserve special considerations in that regard?

As for other religions seeing atheism as a religion, it’s obviously in their interests to do so in order that they can comfort themselves by saying, “Look, we’re the same, really. They’re just as full of faith as we are, though our views disagree.” The stance conveniently ignores the telling difference that all religious beliefs start as premises, whereas atheism is a conclusion.

'Luthon64

Welcome! In my experience very few of those who write opinion articles on News24 understand anything at all. If you want to shield yourself from bullshit I suggest you refrain from visiting there.

I disagree with a number of your points, including this one. Agnosticism is a point on the line between belief and total denial of theist proposals, it does not serve a purpose in a journey, there is no start and end point. One could be an agnostic all ones life without budging, and that would be a consistent and valid position. Agnosticism in its truest form is to deny that knowledge of the supernatural is possible, so a true agnostic cannot budge.

I disagree again. If the knowledge to settle the question is unattainable, as is the agnostic position, then the probabilities are indeterminate.

Scientific principles include this thinking, that is why theories can be refined or discarded as new evidence comes to light. To be truly scientific in ones thinking one must allow any and all principles to be doubted, but at the same time apply increasing skepticism to criticisms of established theories as their evidential support grows. Actually we may be thinking the same on this point, on the Dawkins scale our trust in established science should remain a 2, tending to 1 as time goes on without valid criticisms and theories become more refined and robust.

Exactly. The believer tends to open their arms and say the proof is all around us, which attests merely to their state of mind. The believer in another religion they think is false can do exactly the same thing.

Yes, they love to accuse us of faith, like they think faith is an awful concept. It does not take faith to say that someone elses beliefs are unconvincing and have no evidential support. Atheism is not a conclusion though, it is the absence of belief in a proposition for which the evidence is lacking, and that is hardly a conclusion. The only conclusion of atheism is to declare that religions are lacking convincing argument and evidence and are thus invalid as the principles to live by for which they are promoted, until such time as they come up with something convincing they should be treated as what they appear to be, false.

Which impossible knowledge, presumably, includes whether the supernatural (or god or whatever) exists in the first place. If we respect the Law of the Excluded Middle (i.e., either it exists or it does not) and it is truly not possible to know one way or the other, then by direct implication the chances are roughly 50:50. To say that the chances are “indeterminate”, while strictly true, is a semantic dodge that seeks to cover up what would otherwise be an epistemologically incoherent position.

… which absence of belief follows inevitably (or almost so) from an examination of the relevant facts. In usual parlance, that process is known as “drawing a conclusion”. Would you similarly contend that the absence of belief in evil spirits as the cause of mental illness is not a conclusion based on the fact that we are in possession of superior explanatory accounts of mental illness?

'Luthon64

Excellent, welcome. I see you are getting the full skeptical treatment. Make yourself at home.

My immediate reaction after letting go was of anger to all those who told me half truths, hiding their doubt behind a mask of righteousness.

Interesting, to me, I suddenly saw everyone around me as weak, misguided, fearful beings in desperate need of something to cling to, be it there or not.

I still tend to see insecurity in almost every person I come accross, especially those who don’t seem insecure at all.

I live as an atheist but have to take the stand point of agnostic in an argument as its a pretty water tight stand point.

“I have no clue” is a water-tight standpoint? Hmmm. It is an easy standpoint that absolves you from taking a REAL standpoint IMHO, but different strokes I guess… Since my days of agnosticism my taste for it has been waning. But still much preferred to mysticism.

Being an atheist is sometimes frowned upon in this country where the yoke of religion is intrenched in our diverse cultural history.

Being an atheist is frowned upon in most countries. I actually think we have it pretty good, no-one is gonna hang you for being one, and I find among my social circles, in joburg the level of acceptance is quite high.

If any of you have read some of the opinion articles on News24.com, you'll see that many do not understand atheism and see it as another 'religion'.

What a dog show, we occasionally get a link posted here that draws some of us to go, ahem, “debate” some of the idiots on there. It seldom ends well. BUT I like reading it because it provides me with a reality check of the social context we find ourselves in.

Glad to be part of this group and hope to learn and share with my fellow free thinkers! Awe!

True free thinkers embrace Justnownowism

I think the dodge here is to impose a declaration of probabilities on someone who does not make that claim. In which other field of which we know nothing is it customary to make 50/50 declarations?

To draw a conclusion is to declare the inquiry over. We do not understand mental illness very well, nor do we fully understand the motivations behind religious belief, especially in cases where there is no apparent benefit to belief.

You can say that current religious theism is so flawed as to be laughable, as is the idea of evil spirits, but you cannot declare that we understand the mechanism any better than we understand the mind. There is much to be learnt about the hold both religion and mental illness can have over us. Dismissing specific claims is insufficient to draw absolute conclusions except about those specific claims. They are both very broad fields.

Welcome Jasongerm and a happy solstice to you.

I’m not imposing anything, least of all a claim to any probabilities from a strict hands-off agnostic as per your view. What I’m saying is that judged externally from the non-agnostic POV, the agnostic’s position is in all respects — logically, by its consequences, by its value as an argument, by its implications — identical to a claim of a roughly 50:50 split between true and false. For the non-agnostic, the underlying reason(s) and rationalisation(s) for the agnostic’s failure to commit are pretty near irrelevant. The Dawkins scale (which you yourself brought up) shows it explicitly. Your own words suggest it: “Agnosticism is a point on the line between belief and total denial of theist proposals.” It’s not a third extreme that forms a triangle together with the 100% theist and 100% atheist ones. If it is a point on a line between absolute certainties and we can agree that it is a defining property of a point that it has an exact position, but we’re not sure of its location, then our best guess as to where it might fall is necessarily midway between the two extremes. And it is customary to take 50:50 as the most likely probability split in all sorts of binary outcomes when we do not know enough (or the problem is too complex) to make a better determination simply because doing so minimises potential error. In short, to the non-agnostic outsider, the agnostic’s decision on the god question is no better than a coin toss.

Only if you insist on using the word in a very restricted sense. Maybe I should have said “deduction” rather than “conclusion”, but all conclusions in scientific disciplines are anyway provisional. That hardly amounts to “declar[ing] the inquiry over”, which in any case nobody has done here regarding the god question.

Once again, I don’t see anybody drawing “absolute” conclusions here, and I’d appreciate it if you refrained from trying to sneak such imputations into the discussion. Still, in striking counterpoint to your declaration above, there are many fields where direct evidence is lacking and/or of suspicious provenance and/or wholly unreliable, but where indirect and circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to deduce anything that conflicts with what it indicates. Jurisprudence teems with it, but in science there are many phenomena that are not directly observable and so must be examined through assorted proxies and effects that are valid only if the underlying models are valid. Such evidence is clearly circumstantial because it would fail as evidence if the reference framework shifted sufficiently. To the greater point then, there’s no good evidence for the supernatural, and much that strongly indicates that it is, at minimum, a psychological artefact if not a full-blown chimera. The agnostic seriously underestimates the weight of these considerations (or perhaps even conveniently ignores them) by taking a rather parochial view of what is supposedly an overarching existentialist question.

'Luthon64

Points taken, your position does not appear to be as prescriptive as your initial post led me to believe.

I still don’t like the use of the 50/50 issue though, especially as it pertains to agnostics. I believe the vast majority of agnostics would be uneasy with the idea that they are perceived as granting gods a 50% likelihood of existing.

I may be wrong, but my perception is that most agnostics are basically atheists who have not considered the question and the available evidence enough to dismiss what appears (at first glance anyway) to be vast circumstantial evidence that there is something to this spirituality thing.

They live on the assumption that no religion is likely to hold the truth, since none appear to be any more credible than others, and therefore it would be silly to side with one. They also do not wish to be percieved as atheists since there is so much misunderstanding of the term, with many trying to label atheists as unreasonable and irrational people who make absolute claims without evidence, which is pretty much what a theist is.

And then there is ignosticism:

In debates with religious people, it can be a very useful and productive stance to take, as it forces your opponent to think through what he is saying.

I am a fairly agnostic pantheist. I am reluctant to call myself an atheist because of the perception of atheists as stridently anti-religious fanatics. But of course, in actual practice there is perhaps little difference between the two.

Assuming that God somehow stands outside of time and space, it is actually difficult to make any arguments for or against his existence. I don’t know what is or is not likely outside of the universe. But I do think it is rather unlikely that such a being will care a great deal what you do with your dick, or whether you covet your neighbour’s wife’s ass.

When I was a Christian I was certain I was correct. In escaping religion, I learnt that we can never truely be certain. There are endless possibilities. However, we must give each of these posiibiliites the amount of consideration they deserve. In my mind, an active god taking an interest in our lives is worth a tiny fraction of consideration. Therefore, I cannot call myself an atheist while still claiming to have an open mind. I am therefore strictly an agnostic. In day to day life, there is very little difference between an atheist and an agnostic such as myself.

In brief, I consider the possibility of a Giant Benevolent Cheese Burger as possibile as a contemorary god.

In the end, being labeled agnostic or atheist is but a label. An being an atheist is still defining your belief by the absence of god, which is still a referal to god. Hence, the development of the term “bright”.

It is not defining your belief, it is stating your lack of acceptance of any ‘theisms’. It is saying you are NOT a theist.

The term is only used in the context of your religious stance, Just like someone could be a single, white, English speaking, South African christian male accountant. The term christian is only relevant here as part of a description of various aspects of the person, and does not imply that you are attaching any special relevance to the god concept, just as your nationality does not imply that you are patriotic or even care which country you live in.

The concept of ignosticism appears to be the fallout of fallacious reasoning. It presupposes that the existence of a monotheistic, unique god is in question, arguing that the nature of that specific god needs to be comprehensively known before his/her/its existence can be debated, yet ignores the prospect of debating the existence of gods in general. The question “Does God exist?” is repeatedly evaluated, but the question “Do any gods exist?” is never considered. One does not require a very comprehensive description of a specific House or Unicorn or Tooth Fairy in order to debate whether houses, unicorns or tooth fairies exist. By defining a god as a “superhuman being, worshipped as having power over nature & human fortunes” (Oxford), one has quite an adequate description to debate the existence of such beings and would cover religious people’s general perceptions thereof.

I would not recommend debating from the ignostic point of view with religious people, because they often claim a superior knowledge of their god in order to attack other views.

Ignosticism is ill conceived and the term is an oxymoron.

You haven’t understood ignosticism. It is simply a position to take when asked to debate the existence of god, it is NOT a position on the existence of god. It presupposes nothing, it is not actually a belief but rather a method to debate other beliefs. To quote the article:

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
  1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
  2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless.

I find it useful for a few reasons, 1. it forces the person to examine their own beliefs, 2. saves you from pointless debates over meaningless propositions and 3.because most people haven’t heard of it you don’t get labelled and stereotyped into their idea of an agnostic, atheist etc (not that I have a problem with either term).

I enjoy milking theists for a comprehensive definition of their God. You’ll find that the more attributes they assign to their fiction, the more places they offer you to attach the grappling hooks of reason.

Rigil

You haven’t understood my point. At no stage did I claim ignosticism to be a postion on the existence or not of any god. By insisting that:

a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed
ignosticism ignores the possibility of rejecting the existence of gods/deities in general due to a lack of supporting evidence. Such rejection would not be subject to a comprehensive definition of a specific god.

The question: “Does God exist?” presupposes a dichotomy between (A) An unique god exists; and (B) An unique god does not exist. This would be a false dichotomy because it precludes polytheism. Atheism does not entail the rejection of an unique god, but the rejection of any god.

Okay I see what you are saying now. So let me modify the statement to:

a coherent definition of what is to be debated must be presented before the question of the existence of what is to be debated can be meaningfully discussed.

Ignosticism only precludes claims which cannot be coherently defined. I think you are getting bogged down in a faulty definition of ignosticism, which is a beautifully ironic. :smiley: