What Type Of/Which Agnostic/Atheist Do You Dislike The Most.

nesf

I dislike atheists who masquerade as agnostics just to avoid the stigma in some circles. Don't even start me on people who try to claim agnosticism is another form of atheism.

Cactus Col wrote: »

However, in discussions it seems those two types (which are usually the same people) that seem to dominate. I find it annoying, which is why I'd rarely post here.

Ditto.

Soul Winner

I like intelligent atheists, agnostics and theists. I don't like stupid people who can never know that they are in fact stupid and that includes stupid atheists, agnostics and theists.

What attracts you to Jesus?

indigoangel

Hero Of College wrote: »

For me, Jesus of Nazareth had a tremendous understanding of human nature and a tremendous will and desire. Having endured horrific tortures and mental punishment, he refused to castigate his tormentors, instead forgiving them and offering solace to others around him {the thief on the cross}. He never broke, never recanted and always tried to help people. How many people could approach a mob and with a few simple words dissuade them from stoning a prostitute?? For me, whether he died and went to heaven or died and rotted in the ground is irrelevant. He was a man born of woman who tried his best and never gave up. We would all do well to display the same sort of impetus, temerity and compassion. How many of us could get nailed to a cross and not utter at least a few "Go f**k yourselves, Romans" before we expired?? Christ made believers of his tormentors. That was his lasting legacy.

hmmmmm for someone who claims to admire jesus so much you don't really seem to demonstrate many of his qualites....if he lived these days i doubt very much that you would find him stirring up arguments like you have been across these forums, asking who we hate more.

adamd164

Soul Winner wrote: »

I like intelligent atheists, agnostics and theists. I don't like stupid people who can never know that they are in fact stupid and that includes stupid atheists, agnostics and theists.

I feel the same. Atheism is a necessary condition for clarity of mind, but it doesn't somehow render a person intellectually supreme. That said, I do feel that one can tell a great deal about someone based on their religious views, or lack thereof. So, whilst not the sole indicator of character by a long way, it is a decent one.

Dudess

Well I believe it's likely there's a higher power - it doesn't make sense to me for there not to be one. That said, I wouldn't argue that there definitely is one - it's what I reckon though. But I certainly don't think this higher power is benevolent, merciful, compassionate etc - so in short, I think the god of christianity is a load of arse. I believe in fate, destiny etc - stuff that's out of our hands. E.g. I think our lives are planned for us.
I also don't believe in a higher power just because I want one to be there "looking after us" (this "want", I firmly believe, is one of the main reasons why religion exists). Considering all the horror that goes on, I hardly think we're being "looked after".

I don't practise any religion and I find organised religion rather repulsive really, even more so the way people follow it blindly. I find it mindblowing that christians are expected to give thanks to god if something good happens but it's frowned upon to blame god if something bad happens. The way I see it: sh1t happens outside of our control and it may or may not be controlled by a higher power. Sometimes it's good, sometimes (most of the time probably) it's bad and no praying or giving thanks or whatever is gonna make a difference.

I do believe Jesus existed though, and was a good and obviously highly charismatic man. The values he preached - be compassionate, tolerant, forgiving etc, that to me is what christianity should be about, nothing more. And yet, this man whom devout christians claim to love and follow, has been defied repeatedly for 2,000 years.

Theology, the sociology of religion etc absolutely fascinate me. I would buy into the idea of mental/neurological disorders being the reasons for apparitions, visions etc.

So I don't really know what I am. I don't feel it necessary to stick a label on myself either though.

Tigger

ones that got married in churches

oh and limited christians

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Atheism is a necessary condition for clarity of mind, but it doesn't somehow render a person intellectually supreme.

What exactly do you mean by clarity of mind?

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by clarity of mind?

I mean that it is the only logical conclusion to which the enquiring mind can come. When one accepts that the notion of a supreme being has been demonstrably fabricated my humans in times of ignorance, one takes a significant step towards understanding and appreciation of the Universe in which we find ourselves.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I mean that it is the only logical conclusion to which the enquiring mind can come.

I would argue that agnosticism is that conclusion and that the leap to either atheism or theism is a matter of belief and not of logic. Then, I'm the kind of person who takes the problem of induction seriously.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

I would argue that agnosticism is that conclusion and that the leap to either atheism or theism is a matter of belief and not of logic. Then, I'm the kind of person who takes the problem of induction seriously.

You raise an extremely interesting point; because I think there is much ambiguity surrounding the term "atheist". The dictionary will define it as the belief that god does not exist, however, I suspect that most self-proclaimed atheists would in fact say that they regard god's existence as extremely improbable. I think the reason for this is as follows.

There seems to be a tendency to associate agnosticism with "probability = 0.5" - i.e. the agnostic deems both god's existence and non-existence to be of exactly equal probability. Now clearly we cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural entity (in fact, BY DEFINITION we cannot); however, that is not at all to say that we should deem it to be a 50/50 matter. I hate to be the parrot of tiresome cliché, but flying teapots and all that.

So, to answer your point; if we are to go by the dictionary definitions, I am an agnostic. So too are most here (all?). In colloquial terms, I'm an ardent atheist.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

There seems to be a tendency to associate agnosticism with "probability = 0.5" - i.e. the agnostic deems both god's existence and non-existence to be of exactly equal probability.

No, agnosticism is (broadly speaking) an etymological position concerning statements of truth not of belief. Being an agnostic does not necessarily imply 0.5 probability. Generally, if someone identifies themselves primarily as an agnostic they are stating that they believe that it is impossible to know for sure either way and that they don't believe in either proposition (the existence or non-existence of a God).

I'd be one of these agnostics, but I'd hold the same position about Russell's teapot etc. It's a position that's more concerned with objective truth and whether you can deny that which is unknowable than a specifically religious position. For instance, I believe in evolotion because there is ample empirical evidence to support the belief (but I don't view it as a definite fact necessarily) but on the topic of immaterial "ghosts" I'm agnostic. Does that make sense?

Agnostic theism on the other hand is someone who claims that you cannot know for sure but who chooses to believe (and recognises this belief as being unsupported) in a God/gods/teapots. The difference between an agnostic theist and a theist is the latter believes that God exists and that this is more than mere belief, the former doesn't. It's a similar distinction with agnostic atheists and atheists. If you believe that there is definitely not a God, I don't think you can hold that you are an agnostic strictly speaking.

adamd164

Oh don't get me wrong, I know that agnosticism shouldn't be taken as a statement perceived equal probability. I say only that, in fact, it generally is taken this way. In my own experience, anyway. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about the issue of god's existence, or about any matter.

If you like, I assume that god does not exist, and live my life as such, but I do not, and cannot, know this. Why then should I consider myself different from a religious person? This comes back to my original point; that it is the conclusion to which one will inevitably come on contemplating the available information.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong, I know that agnosticism shouldn't be taken as a statement perceived equal probability. I say only that, in fact, it generally is taken this way. In my own experience, anyway. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about the issue of god's existence, or about any matter.

If you like, I assume that god does not exist, and live my life as such, but I do not, and cannot, know this. Why then should I consider myself different from a religious person? This comes back to my original point; that it is the conclusion to which one will inevitably come on contemplating the available information.

Agnostic theism is as logical a conclusion as agnostic atheism though. They're logically equivalent really. This all works depending on whether or not you believe that all objective truth is empirical etc.

adamd164

Can we call them logically equivalent though? Why should we consider there to be even the possibility of matters not related to the physical universe as we know it? The agnostic atheist does not invoke anything superfluous and which cannot be demonstrated. His position is ergo more logically sound than that of one who does precisely these things.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Can we call them logically equivalent though? Why should we consider there to be even the possibility of matters not related to the physical universe as we know it? The agnostic atheist does not invoke anything superfluous and which cannot be demonstrated. His position is ergo more logically sound than that of one who does precisely these things.

Like I said it depends on a separate position on whether you believe all objective truth can be empirically observed. It might seem initially logical to take the position, however; for an agnostic, this does not necessarily follow. If you are agnostic about Gods and celestial teapots, why not about unobservable forms of matter? Logical inquiry into this does not necessarily lead to atheism.

adamd164

It's true to say that the worldviews of some are irrevocably in opposition.

For the most part, when I find myself getting irritated at religion or religious people, it's because I find that they are not content to hold their views to themselves, and wish to impart them upon everyone else, and more specifically upon everyone else's children in schools. But that's for another day...

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

For the most part, when I find myself getting irritated at religion or religious people, it's because I find that they are not content to hold their views to themselves, and wish to impart them upon everyone else, and more specifically upon everyone else's children in schools. But that's for another day...

Yeah, generally I've no problem with someone's beliefs so long as they keep them to themselves. I've no real issue with Catholic stuff at Primary level because bluntly most of it is simple morality stuff which is pretty common sense. You can always de-program them at a later age if you care enough. Personally I'm happy to let my son be exposed to it and for him to make up his own mind once he's old enough (essentially what was done with me). I'll have no problem with my son being an atheist, agnostic or a theist so long as he's following his own judgement on it and thinks it through.

Akrasia

Hero Of College wrote: »

I am what I call a "limited Christian"....I believe only in Jesus, and his accomplishments as a MAN.

You believe he raised himself from the dead 'as a man'?

what exactly were his achievements? Managing to piss off the jews and romans enough to crusify him?

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

Of course I am not happy being wrong, I don't feel the need to always be right though.

But what does that mean? Define what it means to "be right" please. If "right" isn't the opposite of "wrong" then I don't know what strange new language we're dealing with here.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

Like I said it depends on a separate position on whether you believe all objective truth can be empirically observed. It might seem initially logical to take the position, however; for an agnostic, this does not necessarily follow. If you are agnostic about Gods and celestial teapots, why not about unobservable forms of matter? Logical inquiry into this does not necessarily lead to atheism.

nesf, I've given this a bit of thought, and I think that my original statement stands. The agnostic atheist's position is the more logically sound for the following reason. Human beings all agree (or at least the vast majority do) that the evidence used by science in its methodologies is just that -- real, unquestionable evidence.

If someone is on trial for murder, the court of law will seek hard, tangible evidence for a convection. It's no good for the prosecution to claim that they have "faith" in the guilt of the accused. It would make them the laughing stock, and their case would be immediately thrown out.

The same evidence - ruling out chance and based only on the physical, natural world - which is sought by scientists looking to justify a theory is what is deemed appropriate in legal terms.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

nesf, I've given this a bit of thought, and I think that my original statement stands. The agnostic atheist's position is the more logically sound for the following reason. Human beings all agree (or at least the vast majority do) that the evidence used by science in its methodologies is just that -- real, unquestionable evidence.

If someone is on trial for murder, the court of law will seek hard, tangible evidence for a convection. It's no good for the prosecution to claim that they have "faith" in the guilt of the accused. It would make them the laughing stock, and their case would be immediately thrown out.

The same evidence - ruling out chance and based only on the physical, natural world - which is sought by scientists looking to justify a theory is what is deemed appropriate in legal terms.

Two points for you to think about regarding the above:

a) Think about the difference in science proving and disproving something. Essentially in disproving something science shows that observable effects that are required to prove its existence are not there. If there are no observable effects to observe science can offer no definite opinion either way.

b) Again the above assumes one subscribes to the idea that all things are observable by us and that we can see everything. There are two issues with this:

1) We can't ever be sure that we've discovered everything that science can possibly observe. (i.e. the problem of induction combined with the nasty tendency of some breakthrough or another overturning mainstream scientific "fact" every so often). Which is good news for scientists seeking tenure but bad news who like to feel definite about their knowledge.

2) The initial plausibility of the proposition is an egocentric one. Why should it be that we can observe everything exactly? Scientific progress might make us feel this way but is this justifiable on a more rigorous level?


Don't get me wrong, these are open questions and certainly good arguments can be made for both sides. I just wouldn't (naturally, being an agnostic) be convinced by either side to the point of agreeing. I genuinely think it's not a question that can be answered.

adamd164

You miss my point. Why is it that we all accept this hard, scientific evidence in courts of law when it could be a matter of life and death, and we explicity do NOT accept pleas on the basis of "faith"? It is resoundingly saying that one branch of thought is worthy of convicting a suspect, while the other is not. So we all agree unequivocally (perhaps subconsciously in the case of some) that those who subscribe to solely scientific world views have good grounds on which to do so.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

You miss my point. Why is it that we all accept this hard, scientific evidence in courts of law when it could be a matter of life and death, and we explicity do NOT accept pleas on the basis of "faith"? It is resoundingly saying that one branch of thought is worthy of convicting a suspect, while the other is not. So we all agree unequivocally (perhaps subconsciously in the case of some) that those who subscribe to solely scientific world views have good grounds on which to do so.

My point to you was, is it reasonable to accept science "as the one true faith" with respect to the courts etc? I'm of the opinion that the empirical grounds on which such problems rest are within the scope of scientific enquiry and it's more reasonable to argue in this instance that science is at least accurate enough for the purposes of the legal system (which is not necessarily absolutely accurate in its judgements anyway nor is this (arguably) necessary for a (realistically) good legal system). This argument doesn't necessarily add more than persuasiveness to arguments that put forward science as being a suitable arbiter on all matters. If anything, a problem in our society is the lack of questioning of science, not in a "science is wrong, young earth creationists are right" type of nonsense but in the form of a healthy scepticism that is logically necessary when confronted with inductive support for and against arguments (assuming that you're the type of person who cares about this kind of thing, I can fully appreciate that for the average person, they couldn't care less about the problem of induction so long as their TV turns on when they press the right button).

The biggest issue in using the legal system as a model is that its purpose necessitates an ability to decide cases within a reasonable amount of time. It cannot afford to get overly bogged down too much in debate for worry of a miscarriage of justice based on some obscure philosophical point by having a trial drag on for years due to a debate on some technical point or another. This necessity shouldn't apply in logical inquiry into the same matters since the objectives are necessarily different.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

My point to you was, is it reasonable to accept science "as the one true faith" with respect to the courts etc?

I believe it to be, yes. Clearly, this is an opinion shared by the masses. I don't buy what you're saying about needing to come to speedy judgements. This would imply that the only reason science is chosen to be a better modus operandi for deciding whether someone should live or die (e.g. in a case where the death penalty could be punishment for convicted guilt), as is the case in plenty of nations, is that it will give a quick answer. If that's the attitude, why not just have the judge toss a coin, with one side choosing heads and the other side choosing tails? That would be a heck of a lot faster, and waste much less police time in gathering hard evidence. Clearly, science is seen as being a worthy tool for coming to a conclusion, whilst faith is not -- they don't operate on an equal footing, the latter is just discounted from the word go.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I believe it to be, yes. Clearly, this is an opinion shared by the masses. I don't buy what you're saying about needing to come to speedy judgements. This would imply that the only reason science is chosen to be a better modus operandi for deciding whether someone should live or die (e.g. in a case where the death penalty could be punishment for convicted guilt), as is the case in plenty of nations, is that it will give a quick answer. If that's the attitude, why not just have the judge toss a coin, with one side choosing heads and the other side choosing tails? That would be a heck of a lot faster, and waste much less police time in gathering hard evidence. Clearly, science is seen as being a worthy tool for coming to a conclusion, whilst faith is not -- they don't operate on an equal footing, the latter is just discounted from the word go.

I didn't mean it to the extent that you describe only that for the purposes of the legal system methods of investigation that are useful need to work within a certain reasonable time frame and sometimes strict proof gives way to pragmatism. A complex constitutional case might be worthy of decades of debate before an answer might be given but this isn't tenable really (you'll get a series of shorter debates and a number of decisions back and forth instead which isn't necessarily a bad way to do it mind you).

Anyway, my point was more about the issue of generalising from the acceptance of the scientific method in the legal system to it being the ultimate arbiter of all things. It requires a few assumptions to be made about the nature of reality etc that aren't strictly "givens".

adamd164

It may or may not be the arbiter of all things, but humans seem to Universally think it a sound system. There is far less trust placed in faith than in the scientific method. This fact should IMO be in the mind of any middle-of-the road or theistic agnostic. That's what this discussion is about after all, which is the most logical position.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

That's what this discussion is about after all, which is the most logical position.

Logic is just a tool, like maths it only makes the argument hang together properly. What defines our positions is the assumptions we make (assuming one's logic is sound). A logical argument isn't necessarily correct or anything like that. I think "rational position" would be closer to what you mean than "logical position" tbh.

Cactus Col

eoin5 wrote: »

Theres a very valid point to those things. Its holding up a mirror to religions to show how silly they seem.

A valid point sure ... but to paraphrase Henry Drummond from Inherit The Wind ... It's a good point, but it's not the only point.

I get the reason people say these things, but, the constant repetition of the same thing i find very irritating.

Zombrex

nesf wrote: »

a) Think about the difference in science proving and disproving something. Essentially in disproving something science shows that observable effects that are required to prove its existence are not there. If there are no observable effects to observe science can offer no definite opinion either way.

You are viewing science in an inaccurate fashion.

Science never offers a definite opinion either way on anything

In disproving a theory science shows that a theoretical model has produced a prediction that does not match the observation of what has actually been observed to happen. The model is therefore inaccurate and must be updated.

For example, you model a train based on Newtonian mechanics, and your model predicts that the train will arrive in London at 6.17pm. You observe the train arriving at 8.12pm. There is some inaccuracy in your model, and you need to update it.

There are no observable effects that can prove the "existence" of something, nor is that the point of observation in science.

The uncertainty of science is something that people mistakenly apply to God without realising it also applies to everything.

You can't know for certain God exists or doesn't, but you also can't know for certain that gravity will still be working 2 seconds from now, or that the atomic structure of helium isn't wrong.

Which is why when people say that agnostic is the only position to hold they really need to think about what they actually mean. Certainly you cannot know for certain that God does not exist, but you cannot know for certainly that gravity isn't about to reverse itself. People don't build supports on buildings to hold the building to Earth though, nor do people walk around with ropes tied to the ground.

You cannot know for certain that gravity will not reverse in a few seconds, but we have constructed models of how gravity works so that we believe that it won't. Technically we must be "agnostic" on this issue, but we can still say "for certain" (laymans usage) that we do not believe gravity is going to reverse itself in 5 seconds, or 5 minutes, or 5 years.

To say that one is an agnostic when it comes to the certainty of God is to simply state the obvious. Everyone should be an agnostic when it comes to everything. But then the meaning is some what lost.

The issue then becomes what do you judge likely or unlikely, how "certain" are you of something. That is where theism and atheism come in to play. I can say that I do not believe that God exists in the same way that I can say that I do not believe that gravity will reverse in 5 seconds.

eoin5

Cactus Col wrote: »

A valid point sure ... but to paraphrase Henry Drummond from Inherit The Wind ... It's a good point, but it's not the only point.

I get the reason people say these things, but, the constant repetition of the same thing i find very irritating.

Well unfortunately for you as long as there are people who think that their religion doesnt seem silly to others the invisible pink unicorn (bbhhh) will be kept in business