Why agnosticism fails

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

I think it should have an aim and agenda tbh. Especially in the area of education and forcing religion on infants.

Are you saying that Dawkins had no aim when he wrote "the god dellusion". Why set up Atheist Ireland and other Atheist organisations. Is i remeber correctly, Dawkins funded an ad campaign in London to advertise on Buses claiming "there is probably no god".

That's "an atheist with an aim". Atheism does not have aims

togster

So what's the correct proof?

Surely there can only be one truth :eek:

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

So what's the correct proof?

Surely there can only be one truth :eek:

The definition in the dictionary is over simplistic

Zulu

Simplicity is the key to truth.

pH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because it's not the correct term. As I said just now, the sentences "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" have different meanings. One describes a strong atheist, the other a weak atheist.

Yes of course they do if you alter them so one is about "belief in" and the other about existence.

There is a difference. One person refuses to accept a claim until evidence is presented to support it and the other outright rejects the claim, asserting that no evidence can be presented because the claim is false.

I don't see how you can read all this into a small rephrasing.

I don't believe vampires exist.
I believe vampires don't exist.

Neither of those claims seems to be more 'open' or evidence based than the other.

You really believe you can read all you wrote above into the difference between those 2 statements? Are you sure you're not just projecting your prejudices and seeing differences that don't exist.

togster

Zulu wrote: »

Simplicity is the key to truth.

So true.

dvpower

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why not? I don't believe atheism has an agenda or aim.

But many atheists do. Particulary many atheists that post here.

Zillah

Zulu wrote: »

I fixed that for you. Agnostics have monopoly on all levels of doubt, that's the definition of the word, as I've prove by reference to the english dictionary.

Now, and you are entitled to do this, you don't accept my proof. You don't accept the dictionary definition of the word, you have your own. There's little point continuing.

The dictionary is a useful tool for getting a brief summary of the meaning of a particular word, but it is by no means the be all and end all.

For example, take a look at the Wikipedia article: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist." The reference is for the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which I suspect may be a greater authority than the (admittedly) venerable dictionary.com.

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

I don't believe vampires exist.
I believe vampires don't exist.

Neither of those claims seems to be more 'open' or evidence based than the other.

You really believe you can read all you wrote above into the difference between those 2 statements? Are you sure you're not just projecting your prejudices and seeing differences that don't exist.

I'm pretty sure. It's the difference between "I don't think you bought a €100,000 car, prove it" and "There's no way you bought a car, don't even bother trying to prove it"

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheism is not a movement, it's a lack of belief in god and nothing more. You are telling me that I should keep my (lack of) beliefs to myself because they make people uncomfortable. You are telling me to hide who I am..

If atheism is just a lack of belief, and nothing more, then why mention it. Im sure you dont believe many many things. Do you discuss them? If someone criticised my lack of belief in the tooth fairy, I'd ignore them.

An atheist simpliciter is a coward (or an isolationist). To believe that God does not exist, yet to not want to rid society of God/religon's influence is a ridiculous stance to take.
Is that your position?

I think everyone should keep their beliefs to themselves, not because they make people comfortable, but because that is where they belong. And then we would have secularism. It is those, on all sides who insist on "pushing" their beliefs, that cause the problems.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However, there is a big leap from that to saying that no atheists anywhere should take the piss out of christians. All it means is there's a time and a place for it.

Of course, there is a time and a place. However, I am not aware of any "group" who seem to spend as much time making fun of their idealogical opposites rather than working to advance their own views. While I would be loathe to directly make the following comparison, most other minorities or oppressed majorities who have fought for their rights (ie. women, gays, blacks etc) have focussed on what they wanted. Slagging the man, the straight guy or the white guy for laughs was secondary, albeit necessary.

Perhaps it is just me, but for atheists, it seems that their primary motive appears to be to poke fun at the other guy. Maybe it is because of their lack of organisation and sophistication as a group. But either way, it is juvenile and unproductive. Yet, the irony is that they genuinely believe that they are intellectually superior. However, those who act in this manner are clearly intellectually inferior.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Simplicity is the key to truth.

Except in the case where the truth is a bit complicated, such as with philosophical positions.

pts

dvpower wrote: »

But many atheists do. Particulary many atheists that post here.

Atheists != Atheism. Atheism does not demand any rituals, moral values or loyalties. In (most) religions these are enshrined.

It is of course possible that atheists band together to try to solve common problems, but they don't have to.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

If atheism is just a lack of belief, and nothing more, then why mention it. Im sure you dont believe many many things. Do you discuss them?

It's actually a very important point about an atheist's position. Indeed, the only reason atheism is relevant at all is because there are so many theists in the world. If there was a very large and powerful chunk of the human population who believed in vampires I think you'd very quickly find that someone's lack of belief in vampires would become quite relevant.

An atheist simpliciter is a coward (or an isolationist). To believe that God does not exist, yet to not want to rid society of God/religon's influence is a ridiculous stance to take.
Is that your position?

Or just don't care enough to bother doing anything about it. I think it's awful that there are people being raped in Johannesburg right at this moment but I don't care nearly enough to go over and try to prevent it.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

If atheism is just a lack of belief, and nothing more, then why mention it. Im sure you dont believe many many things. Do you discuss them? If someone criticised my lack of belief in the tooth fairy, I'd ignore them.

What if 95% of the world believed in the tooth fairy, if their belief in the tooth fairy effected your life and other people's and if people who thought the tooth fairy had blonde hair flew planes into buildings of those who thought she has brown hair?

drkpower wrote: »

An atheist simpliciter is a coward (or an isolationist). To believe that God does not exist, yet to not want to rid society of God/religon's influence is a ridiculous stance to take.
Is that your position?

Nope. All I'm saying is an atheist doesn't have to want that

drkpower wrote: »

I think everyone should keep their beliefs to themselves, not because they make people comfortable, but because that is where they belong. And then we would have secularism. It is those, on all sides who insist on "pushing" their beliefs, that cause the problems.

Fine, except when dealing with people who actively don't want secularism and base this position on the firmly held belief that their God exists

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, there is a time and a place. However, I am not aware of any "group" who seem to spend as much time making fun of their idealogical opposites rather than working to advance their own views.

That's because you keep confusing atheists with secularists. Not all atheists hold your views

drkpower wrote: »

While I would be loathe to directly make the following comparison, most other minorities or oppressed majorities who have fought for their rights (ie. women, gays, blacks etc) have focussed on what they wanted. Slagging the man, the straight guy or the white guy for laughs was secondary, albeit necessary.

So you acknowledge it's necessary but say we shouldn't do it and that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves. Right so

drkpower wrote: »

Perhaps it is just me, but for atheists, it seems that their primary motive appears to be to poke fun at the other guy. Maybe it is because of their lack of organisation and sophistication as a group. But either way, it is juvenile and unproductive. Yet, the irony is that they genuinely believe that they are intellectually superior. However, those who act in this manner are clearly intellectually inferior.

Again, not all atheists want what you want or if they do want it, many don't care enough to do anything about it. you are calling them intellectually inferior because they're not advancing a goal that they don't even have

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

Perhaps it is just me, but for atheists, it seems that their primary motive appears to be to poke fun at the other guy.

Actually, it does seem to be just you, and perhaps one or two other posters. In many of the posts you've made over the last while, you've said that atheists do nothing but insult religious people.

Now, I'll grant that one or two certainly do.

But I'll bet a tenner to the charity of your choice that you've written more posts in the last two weeks in which you complain about atheists being rude (which is rude enough itself, without backing it up), than there are posts in which atheists make a directly rude comment about a religious person or group.

Sam Vimes

Let's put it this way, drkpower. A lot of atheists don't care about politics. they don't care if schools are allowed discriminate or if money is given to religions. They don't care if children are taught religion.

They're quite happy to go through their lives like a normal person and occasionally take the piss out of people of different opinions, just like someone can slag off a Fianna Fail supporter without having an overwhelming desire to start a movement to topple the government.

Not all atheists give a crap about the secularisation of the country and they're not intellectually inferior for not pursuing a goal that they either don't want or don't care about

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

Actually, it does seem to be just you, and perhaps one or two other posters. In many of the posts you've made over the last while, you've said that atheists do nothing but insult religious people.

Now, I'll grant that one or two certainly do.

But I'll bet a tenner to the charity of your choice that you've written more posts in the last two weeks in which you complain about atheists being rude (which is rude enough itself, without backing it up), than there are posts in which atheists make a directly rude comment about a religious person or group.

Ill take the bet and I'll win it comfortably!. The charity is Atheist Ireland; they need all the help they can get.....:D

In fairness though, I dont think I have said that atheists do nothing but insult religious people and if I did, it was not my intention to paint all with one brush nor was it my intention to be rude. However, I have been at pains (i thought) to say that i support the atheist, or at least the secular agenda, and have been critical of many atheists because they actually damage that agenda; you may feel uncomfortable about that proposition but it is a view held by quite a few. And it is less about atheists being rude, it is about them being a little bit short-sighted (or stupid, in the vernacular ). The fact that I may only have 1 or 2 (or even 3 or 4) supporters on this forum doesnt surprise me, nor discourage me.

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Ill take the bet and I'll win it comfortably!. The charity is Atheist Ireland; they need all the help they can get.....:D

Perhaps if he had said religion, but Robin said religious people, which is different. Good luck with that one...

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not all atheists give a crap about the secularisation of the country and they're not intellectually inferior for not pursuing a goal that they either don't want or don't care about

For a person, who does not believe in God, to fail to object to the continued influence of God/religon in schools or to the presence of laws that gives protection to the religous (above any other groups) makes them either pathologically lazy, cowardly or intellectually inferior.
I am not suggesting that they need to lead the campaign, but an atheist that doesnt have any tangible goal (an agenda, if you will), is, I'm afraid, one of the 3 options above and someone whose opinion is not deserving of a whole lot of respect.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Perhaps if he had said religion, but Robin said religious people, which is different. Good luck with that one...

He actually said "religious person or group".....

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

He actually said "religious person or group".....

I think "religious person or group" = people:P.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think "religious person or group" = people:P.

Oh please..... there are enough things to debate without debating silliness.
A religous "group" can refer to 5 lads in the corner praying; it can also refers to a religous demonination or a "religon", to use the common term.

robindch

drkpower wrote: »

He actually said "religious person or group".....

For the sake of clarity, a group is one or more people. A "group" is not an idea, religion, ideology, political system, meme or any other non-physical or cultural construct.

<sigh> :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

For a person, who does not believe in God, to fail to object to the continued influence of God/religon in schools or to the presence of laws that gives protection to the religous (above any other groups) makes them either pathologically lazy, cowardly or intellectually inferior.
I am not suggesting that they need to lead the campaign, but an atheist that doesnt have any tangible goal (an agenda, if you will), is, I'm afraid, one of the 3 options above and someone whose opinion is not deserving of a whole lot of respect.

There's also option 4: apathetic. If we lived under the taliban I'm sure people would be a lot more motivated but Ireland hardly has the people under the boot of the religious oppressor. Religion doesn't affect my life that much if at all tbh. I don't like that I might have to get a baptismal cert to secure a place in a school but I'm not going to overthrow the government over it. the blasphemy law kind of annoys me and I went to the AI meeting about it but I know it's never going to be enforced so again, I'm not going to overthrow the government. As with most things in life people just go with the flow as long as it doesn't inconvenience them too much. It's always the minority who are politically active

Carpo

Zulu wrote: »

Simplicity is the key to truth.

Tell that to the Quantum Physicists of the world.

(Seriously, what does that statement even mean?)

Zulu

Carpo wrote: »

Tell that to the Quantum Physicists of the world.

(Seriously, what does that statement even mean?)

its fairly straight forward tbh.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There's also option 4: apathetic. If we lived under the taliban I'm sure people would be a lot more motivated but Ireland hardly has the people under the boot of the religious oppressor. Religion doesn't affect my life that much if at all tbh. I don't like that I might have to get a baptismal cert to secure a place in a school but I'm not going to overthrow the government over it. the blasphemy law kind of annoys me and I went to the AI meeting about it but I know it's never going to be enforced so again, I'm not going to overthrow the government. As with most things in life people just go with the flow as long as it doesn't inconvenience them too much. It's always the minority who are politically active

Sure, apathy is another. But someone being apathetic about an issue such as this when they do not believe in God is very unusual. Again, I am not suggesting they need to getpolitically active, I am stating that an atheist without any wider motive or agenda is pathologically lazy (or apathetic), cowardly or intellectually inferior.

To be essentially neutral as to the influence of God/religon on society when you do not believe in God is bizzare, to say the least.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, apathy is another. But someone being apathetic about an issue such as this when they do not believe in God is very unusual.

You're on this forum talking about how atheists are comonly perceived as just taking the piss so maybe it's not as unusual as you think.

drkpower wrote: »

Again, I am not suggesting they need to getpolitically active, I am stating that an atheist without any wider motive or agenda is pathologically lazy (or apathetic), cowardly or intellectually inferior.

Does that only apply to atheists or is anyone who just wants to live their life, is living their life as they want and has no political agenda intellectually inferior?

What exactly do you want changed, specifically? There's the school admission policy but what else

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does that only apply to atheists or is anyone who just wants to live their life, is living their life as they want and has no political agenda intellectually inferior?

What exactly do you want changed, specifically? There's the school admission policy but what else

I cant think of an analagous situation at the moment. God and his influence on State policy is a pretty unique situation, and to an atheist, surely a preposterous one which at least would attract some kind of view. You dont need a "political agenda" to have view. Having no view on whether God/religon should have any influence over the State/people is pretty dumb, by any measure.

Personally, Church involvement in Schools and Hospitals would be biggies as they have an actual effect.
All the constitutonal stuff, judicial oaths, blasphemy laws etc... are secondary - i support their abolition but they have no real effect, in my view.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

I cant think of an analagous situation at the moment. God and his influence on State policy is a pretty unique situation, and to an atheist, surely a preposterous one which at least would attract some kind of view. You dont need a "political agenda" to have view. Having no view on whether God/religon should have any influence over the State/people is pretty dumb, by any measure.

I'm sure they do have a view, just not a strong enough one to change how they live their lives by holding their tongue when religious people say ridiculous things or by trying to force a change

drkpower wrote: »

Personally, Church involvement in Schools and Hospitals would be biggies as they have an actual effect.
All the constitutonal stuff, judicial oaths, blasphemy laws etc... are secondary - i support their abolition but they have no real effect, in my view.

I support the removal of article 7 (3) (c) of the Equality Act 2004, this one:

where the establishment is a school providing primary or
post-primary education to students and the objective of
the school is to provide education in an environment
which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons
of a particular religious denomination in preference to
others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is
not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it
is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the
ethos of the school

but I have a life to lead and it doesn't effect me because I don't have a child. If you want to fight to have that removed from the books and to have the hospitals given back to the state then off you go. It doesn't mean that everyone in Ireland who doesn't believe in God has to watch their mouth. If people are going to dismiss you because of something I said, they were most likely going to dismiss you anyway