Hulver's site || yay, religion

yay, religion

i am not an atheist	20 votes - 30 %
i am an atheist and i am entirely certain that God(s) do not exist	10 votes - 15 %
i am an atheist and I consider the existence of God(s) to be possible but of extremely low probability.	21 votes - 32 %
none of the above three statements apply to me (do tell!)	10 votes - 15 %
i would rather click this button than participate meaningfully in this poll	4 votes - 6 %

65 Total Votes

on the beliefs of atheists and printing in linux | 84 comments (84 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

I clicked the third option by gazbo (4.00 / 2) #1 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:19:02 AM EST

Along, it seems, with everyone else so far. But I would like to clarify, as the phrasing seems to imply a certain amount of, well, uncertainty.

From a logical standpoint, the premise of an omnipotent being choosing to hide from us is consistent, so logically we cannot prove he doesn't exist (especially given that an omnipotent being would be able to dick with the very laws of logic that we're using in the first place).

But that academic point aside: God just plain don't exist.

"Engarde!" cried the larvae, huskily. - Scrymarch

Question by notafurry (4.00 / 1) #50 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:02:48 PM EST

Is it required that a being be omnipotent to be regarded or considered a God?

[ Parent ]

I would certainly say so, yes by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #56 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:01:48 PM EST

Those wacky, wacky ancient Greeks may have called their assorted bunch of meddling pranksters "Gods", but as far as I'm concerned just being superior doesn't make one a God, just as I don't see myself as a God over insects, despite the amazing things I can do relative to their abilities.

Or that guy from Star Trek. Man, Kirk sure brought him down a peg or two.

"Engarde!" cried the larvae, huskily. - Scrymarch

[ Parent ]

Yes and no by lm (2.00 / 0) #71 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:22:55 AM EST

If you're speaking of God, then the answer is `yes.' If you're speaking of god, then the answer is `no.'

Well, you don't necessarily need to use an uppercase letter to make the distinction between the classical western philosophical understanding of a deity of which omnipotence is a necessary attribute and conceptions of deity that lie outside of that narrow definition. But it just so happens to be an easy and well accepted way to make the distinction.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Bah by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #77 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:07:09 PM EST

Except that just buys into the concept of that god being more important than the others. No thanks.

[ Parent ]

More important? by lm (2.00 / 0) #79 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:53:20 PM EST

I don't see it. It's the difference between a singularity and a multiplicity. It is appropriate a proper noun for a class composed entirely of one being but not for a set of multiple beings. Most people would do the same for their dog were it named Dog.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Except by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #80 Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:49:01 PM EST

The Christian god is not called "God" because that's his proper name. That would be Jehovah most likely, or one of a dozen other names. The Christian god is only called "God" because he is supposed to be above all others.

[ Parent ]

Where did you get that idea? by lm (2.00 / 0) #81 Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:34:18 PM EST

In fact, the Christian god is called "God" because that's his proper name. It's a proper name because God is the Judeo-Christian tradition is a person.

Think of it this way. Zeus, Baal and Astarte are capitalized because they are person but when using the term gods to refer to them, it is not capitalized in the same way that Adam, Eve and Margaret Thatcher are capitalized but when refering to them as humans, it isn't.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Nope, sorry by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #82 Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:00:21 AM EST

Catholic doctrine disagrees with you, at least as it's taught in modern religious education and confirmation classes. God is capitalized - I'm very nearly quoting - for the same reason Moon is capitalized; when you're referring to other (and, it goes without saying, mythical gods) you say "god". When you're referring to the REAL, or the most important one, you capitalize it. But his name isn't God. Yes, he's personified, especially in one of his three "look, we're monotheistic, really!" forms, but his name is specified quite clearly - and it's not God.

Jehovah, I am, Jesus, Yeshua... all names for the Christian god or one of his aspects. Never, ever, is his name referenced as "God". He is "God", as in the only one that exists, he is not called "God". When I call you "Tom", that's your name and I capitalize it. When I call you human, it's because you're one of many and I don't capitalize it. If you were the only one then I might call you Human and capitalize it to signify that it's a proper label because you're the only one it could apply to - but it still wouldn't be your name.

[ Parent ]

: your moon argument supports my view by lm (2.00 / 0) #83 Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:03:10 AM EST

While moons in general are not capitalized but the Moon (a specific moon) is. Our moon is named moon.
I can't speak for what you were taught as Catholic doctrine but you'll not find anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that teaches `God' is not a proper name for God. Admittedly, after a brief search, I couldn't find such a passage that makes that claim. But if you're familiar at all with various Catholic works such as Dionysius' Divine Names you would know that God (ho theos) is very much a proper name for God.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

atheism by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #2 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:20:01 AM EST

Even if there were god(s), I think it would be wrong to follow them. However I'm as sure as I can be about anything that there is no such thing.

People don't understand sufficient epistemology by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:27:59 AM EST

To know what they actually mean when they have knowledge that something exists, or even that they think there's a high probability that something exists.

See Is There a God on K5.

this may be true by 256 (4.00 / 2) #4 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:33:00 AM EST

and is of course near the centre of the debate at hand.

i, intellectually at least, tend towards the branch of epistemological cynicism so extreme that it's reluctant to admit cogito ergo sum as valid. i suspect that more people have at least a passing understanding of epistemology than you you give them credit for, but maybe not.
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}
[ Parent ]

epistemology by Merekat (4.00 / 2) #5 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:36:00 AM EST

There comes a point in a discussion where splitting that kind of hair becomes non-productive outside of the debate itself.

I'm more interested in the behaviour of people who say they are or are not atheists. I doubt there is much difference in the self-identified atheist between the certainty and probability schools as regards the daily instantiation of their position.

[ Parent ]

tricky by 256 (4.00 / 2) #6 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:43:40 AM EST

when debating with people versed in modern philosophy, at some point someone will make an argument from epistemology. in the interest of good conversation the usual response is to say "yes, yes, but given the standard empirical assumptions..." and let it rest at that.

sometimes though, it turns out that epistemological matters are actually central to the topic and thus don't qualify as hair splitting. i suspect that atheism is such a topic.
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}
[ Parent ]

Also by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:58:20 AM EST

I think the probability thing doesn't really work.

Now if you, say, visited 1,000 universes and found 200 of them had a God, you could quite reasonably say that there is a 20% chance of God existing (with a certain error).

But if you haven't done that, what are you basing the probability on?

[ Parent ]

: well... by 256 (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:27:12 AM EST

it depends obviously on the sorts of beliefs you have about the world. i don't think very many people would claim to be able to assign a numerical probability to God (unless it was 1 or 0), but a lot of people seem to basically hold Occam's Razor as an axiom of likelihood.
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}
[ Parent ]
: Epistemic proability. by celeriac (2.00 / 0) #84 Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 05:32:22 PM EST

It exists, see Cox's theorem.

[ Parent ]

okay by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #16 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:58:31 AM EST

So why are fine distinctions important in this case?

[ Parent ]

Well, consider a few questions by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:15:02 AM EST

Does the Taj Mahal exist?
Does planet Gliese 581 d exist?
Does love exist?
Do human rights exist?

God is neither a purely material concept, nor a purely immaterial concept.

So, if you're not equipped to discuss the existence of material and immaterial concepts, you're not really equipped to answer the question "does God exist".

[ Parent ]

: Hm by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #68 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:39:14 AM EST

They're important to the process of the discussion, that much is clear. However, push it too far and there are no answers, which is not a workable scenario for existence. More interesting questions to be are what society does with these concepts.
BTW, the Taj Mahal is an immaterial concept. There is also a pile of organised bricks in the same space;)

[ Parent ]

"Something exists" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:40:33 AM EST

The trouble is that this is requiring a certainty that is above an beyond what people mean when they say they are "certain". I mean, I am "certain" that you exist by the common colloquial meaning of the word and yet I understand that in an epistemological intellectually masturbatory sense that you might not.

In the end, this descent into philosophical nitpicking is pointless as when actually followed through, it leaves you unable to know anything. If so, why bother even discussing anything?

I think it's better to make certain assumptions and move on, with everyone understanding that we're assuming we're not all manipulate brains in a vat, or worse yet, a random transient confluence of particles with no future nor past.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Common colloquial meanings by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:14:28 PM EST

Well, if common colloquial meanings were sufficient to discuss the existence of God, then people using them should be able to discuss the subject clearly; eventually tracing their disagreements to different premises.

However, it seems to me that that doesn't really happen, and such debates tend to dissolve into confused arguments over definitions.

If you compare the God flamewars to the gun control flamewars, for instance; those arguments tend to be about things like whether gun controls are effective at reducing crime, whether the 2nd amendment is still necessary and so on. There are more arguments about premises, fewer arguments about definitions. And while the flamewars are equally heated, people don't seem to tie themselves into logical knots in the same way.

Therefore, I don't believe "common colloquial meanings" are sufficient in this case: it's better to clarify what the terms mean in advance.

[ Parent ]

: "God" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #36 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:16:59 PM EST

Well, I agree on that, actually, hence my personal answer elsewhere.
Though personally I think the far larger problem is that no one ever defines exactly what they mean by the word "God".
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I strongly suspect by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 4) #7 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:43:57 AM EST

Most people who claim to be atheists are most likely agnostic.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

indeed by R343L (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:56:17 AM EST

Agnostic would be my "official position" (i.e. what I will say if someone corners me and won't let it go).

But the reality is I cannot imagine achieving (even partial) certainty in either direction (though for much of my teenage life I believed in a relatively traditional monotheistic God). And since I can't see any chance of "deciding", I don't find the question relevant to myself personally. That "knowledge" (either way) doesn't seem to help me solve any problem in my life either, so there is no point in worrying about it or even devoting much thought to it. (If God exists, what then? How do I know what It wants? Should I even do what It wants? Worse, if God exists, how do I even know anything about It to say It could even "want" something? If God doesn't exist, how does that change my behavior?)

Thus, the question (and answer) has no relevance to me and I don't bother to worry about it.

except this intellectual wanking we seem to be doing on husi. and occasional periods of mind-altered consciousness where I am sure some giant "thing" exists in the universe that we are all part of, but that's probably just neurons firing in an unusual fashion.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

: Right by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:05:11 AM EST

I'm about 10% agnostic and 90% non-agnostic. I mostly choose to believe in some greater form of intelligence simply because I look at how incredible the universe is and I can't wrap my brain around the idea that it all fits together by pure willy nilly happenstance.
So that's it. That's as far as I go. My idea of God won't be found in any bible (bibles to me seem a contrived way by a few men to control the masses) and the answer to what God wants is pretty simple - do the next right thing, whatever that may be. Of course that's not always real easy to figure out, but that's all part of the adventure.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

much of the appeal of agnosticism by MillMan (4.00 / 3) #28 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:54:14 PM EST

is that it gives the impression of a nuanced viewpoint, which puts you above the extremists on either side. So I'd wager the opposite is actually true. See gazbo's comment.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

That's making the assumption by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #30 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:58:39 PM EST

That people are concerned about arguing their position when they choose to believe or not believe. That was certainly not the case with me.

I believe agnosticism gives the impression of being honest and open minded and sans agenda.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

no by MillMan (4.00 / 2) #31 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:59:45 PM EST

it assumes that people care what others think about them.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

So by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #33 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:13:04 PM EST

You really believe that people base their beliefs on God based upon what other people will think of them?

You're not giving the human race much credit.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

nah by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #41 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32:46 PM EST

Most of the "liberal" world lumps religious fundamentalists and atheists into the same category of extremism, which curtails the appeal of the label. Thus I think among those of us that are not religious and don't obsess over the topic, it's a non-trivial factor.

I think taking the agnostic label involves throwing a bone to a culture that takes god seriously. Look at the reaction to the recent books by Dawkins and Hitchens by those that are not religious - many people did not like their absolutism because they felt it would only inflame religious folks and drive fence sitters away. They weren't "nuanced" to the proper degree. Reactions to a book claiming the easter bunny exists wouldn't be met with the same concerns - non-believers would say "show me the empirical evidence" and leave it at that, because our culture is not soaked in a cult of the easter bunny.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

Well by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #51 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:03:41 PM EST

That's still pretty contrived. Maybe the unemployed intellectual crowd sits around and thinks about things like that.

Meanwhile I'll bet the majority of people base their beliefs on many factors: friends, family, life experiences, stuff like that.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about beliefs by MillMan (4.00 / 2) #52 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:13:21 PM EST

I'm talking about the discrete category you put yourself into, which is problematic in itself as ucblockhead noted.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

: Well by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #54 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:29:54 PM EST

It seems to me agnosticism is only problematic to those who have an agenda which happens to conflict with the idea of not committing to one side or the other, no?
My whole point was that when many people claim they don't believe there is a God what they really mean is that they don't know if there is a God as such they don't/can't believe in God.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

yes by joh3n (4.00 / 3) #62 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:12:29 PM EST

Children are taught religion, typically by their parents. They accept religion to be part of the family, not out of spiritual need (find me a 5 year old who independently finds God, and I'll find you a five your old who is lying).

Many people go to church for the community, and let the community experience decide for them the parameters of their faith.

To me these are both examples of people basing their beliefs on what other people think of them.

----
I just ate about 7 pounds of meat
-theantix
[ Parent ]

Lot's of people do, and for good reason by lm (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:33:34 AM EST

For example, during the Soviet era, espousing belief in God was a good way to end any career that paid a decent wage. Likewise, in certain western academic niches, it's almost impossible for someone who believes in God to get a job.

The flip side of the coin, though, is much more prevalent in the US. There are quite a few social pressures to keep up the appearance of belief if not actually to believe. For example, a kid in my daughter's school just became a Mormon so that he could get a girl's father's permission to date her. I've seen many adults do something similar.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Oh come now by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #73 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:54:50 AM EST

If I was in the Soviet Union during that era I would most certainly proclaim my non-belief too - but that doesn't mean I would really mean it. There's a big difference between claiming something in order to not die (or to date some hot Mormon) and actually believing in something.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? by lm (2.00 / 0) #75 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:18:59 PM EST

Over time, people tend to begin to believe what they say they believe even if they don't believe it to begin with.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: Yes - I've heard of that by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #76 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:54:38 PM EST

I like to refer to it as the Apple installed base.
I don't know l, I do and say a lot of things over the course of the day that I don't mean because it fits in with my job and it doesn't alter my inner realities.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

Meh. by Horatio Hellpop (2.00 / 0) #66 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:48:50 PM EST

I held the agnostic position when I was a young kid, before ever meeting like minds, or even understanding that my belief had a name. Not a theological poseur, by any means.

"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here
[ Parent ]

hint: agnosticism is a subset of atheism by lm (4.00 / 1) #32 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:09:49 PM EST

Consequently, there is nothing wrong with their claims.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

How so? by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #34 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:14:59 PM EST

I've understood atheism to mean the belief that there is no God and agnosticism the belief that you don't know if there's a God or not.

Those are two different camps, no?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

there are more than one forms of atheism by lm (4.00 / 1) #37 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:18:50 PM EST

Proposition x: I do not believe in any gods.
Proposition y: I believe that no gods exist.
Proposition z: I believe at least one god exists.

Soft (or weak) atheism holds to x but not y. Hard (or strong) atheism holds to both x and y. Both forms reject z. Agnosticism is a subset of soft atheism that believes the truth value of both y and z are equally indeterminable.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

See there by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #40 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:30:14 PM EST

That's why I majored in computer science at the Uni. The whole "one word can mean multiple things" doesn't play well with me.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

I take it you don't work with OO by lm (4.00 / 2) #42 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:37:19 PM EST

Or use any language where function definitions have the same name but differ in the type and/or number of parameters.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: No sir by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 2) #46 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:45:18 PM EST

I only work with FOR loops.
Oh glorious FOR loop - how you do so embody the truth!
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.
[ Parent ]

There is more than one form of agnosticism by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #67 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:18:32 PM EST

There is the type that holds that they want to appear wishy-washy for the sake of fitting in with either religious people or atheists (we'll call these people MillManistic Agnostics), there's the type that use the phrase because they just haven't decided or don't know, personally, if there's one or more gods though they believe it's deterministic given enough time, determination and moxy (we'll call them Bob Abooeyistic Agnostics), and there's the type who hold the belief that whether any gods exist isn't possible to determine any more than it's possible to determine if an arbitrary loop will halt (Malatestian Agnosticism, if you will.)

I use the phrase to refer to myself in the last sense, but in my experience a majority of people I've encountered who use the phrase "agnostic" use it in one of the first two senses, neither of which are a subset of "atheism." When I call myself an agnostic people usually assume I mean I'm a Millmanistic Agnostic and I spend a while trying to explain the difference before giving up and "admitting" to being an atheist. Somehow, this confession usually comes up in a conversation taking the following form:

"But of course it's possible to determine it! What if God himself came down and spoke to you?"
"My first thought would probably be 'shit, I don't remember taking any hallucinogens recently..'"

Somehow, after making statements like that people jump to the conclusion that I'm a hard atheist, not an agnostic. People are weird that way.

[ Parent ]

: Correct me if I misunderstand you by lm (2.00 / 0) #70 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:13:29 AM EST

But would not all three groups of the agnostics you mention agree with the statement `I do not hold to belief in the proposition ``God exists'''?
If so, then they all qualify as soft (or weak) atheists. If not, you'll have to educate me on how they reconcile the belief that God exists with being agnostic.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

If you don't believe in any gods by spacejack (4.00 / 2) #8 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:51:21 AM EST

why bother believing in no gods?

This is a tempting line of reasoning, by ni (4.00 / 2) #44 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:41:08 PM EST

and it definitely appeals. I'm not sure I buy it, though.

Someone could ask me, for example, if I believed in ghosts. My response would not be that I didn't have an opinion on it (as I do, albeit not one I often have occasion to invoke), or that I'd never thought about it before (as I have, although probably not in over a decade), but simply and concretely that I did not believe in ghosts.

That "I do not believe in ghosts" is different, except in syntax, from "I believe there are no ghosts" seems like a big claim to me.

It doesn't seem to me that ghosts are particularly different from gods here. Us being aware of their hypothesized existence results in us holding existential attitudes toward them. That is, I'm not at all sure it's useful to say that I believe in no, say, flying green monkeys wearing tap-dancing shoes. I wouldn't, were I to consider the matter, but having never considered the matter before I really might (just before the question is asked) have no beliefs at all on the subject.

But gods? We're surrounded by claims about them. Without an isolation from the world that would seem to border on insanity, it seems difficult to imagine not having some sort of opinion, or at the very least attitude toward them. (And this possibility of attitude without opinion I think is very promising, and could form part of my answer to the question were I not too lazy to submit one.)

"What woman wouldn't love a guy in WW2 aviator glasses eating their ass?" -- dest
[ Parent ]

: Yeah by spacejack (2.00 / 0) #57 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:08:29 PM EST

My answer probably doesn't stand on its own. However, I feel that identifying oneself as a "strong atheist" can bring up a lot of contradictions when that same person also believes in love, art, good or evil, compassion for distant people, hoping for the survival of the human race beyond one's lifespan, etc.
I believe in those things, but cannot give any good justification for those without abandoning a hard atheist belief system.
Not believing in ghosts or not can stand on its own. (Of course, no atheist should believe in ghosts.)
It's possible we would need to resolve the question over pints, however.

[ Parent ]

My position: by komet (4.00 / 4) #9 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:53:13 AM EST

I'm not going to waste a single second thinking about God, because when I die I will find out, and that's soon enough.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.

yeah, linux printing is pretty sweet now by R343L (4.00 / 1) #12 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:00:36 AM EST

Though all I can say about it is actually ubuntu linux printing.

The only annoyance I have is that every application has its own fucking print dialog and controlling things like duplex and 2-up/4-up/etc is a pain in the arse for this reason: some dialogs "know" how to tell the driver to do this, others don't. So, at work, I have one printer that has the driver itself configured for 2-up/duplex printing by default so that I can print that way from the braindead apps.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot

heh by Gedvondur (4.00 / 2) #14 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:20:47 AM EST

"It is virtually impossible to effectively aim a jellyfish, a creature created by God almost solely for the purpose of not flying."- CRwM

In principle I'm an agnostic... by Vertical Frankenstein (4.00 / 1) #17 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:08:26 AM EST

...but in practice I'm an atheist.

The main problem I have with the word agnostic is people assume it means you put the probability of god's existence and non-existence exactly at 50%. In principle I'm agnostic about the existence of god, fairies and leprechauns, but I wouldn't put the probably of their existence at 50%. More like 99% against.

That's why, in practice, I call myself an atheist. (Douglas Adams referred to himself as a "radical atheist" so as not to be confused with an agnostic.) I haven't seen a shred of evidence for gods or other mythical creatures. But I will change my stance the second anyone produces a shred of evidence. I'm just not holding my breath.

On the topic of religion, I think the major world religions are very repulsive. I wouldn't worship the god of the Old Testament even if he did exist. I don't have any respect for megalomaniacal, infanticidal bullies. I also wouldn't look forward to spending eternity in a cosmic North Korea all the while worshiping Deal Leader. Plus, hell sounds like a nice warm place to vacation--it's a dry heat, after all.

: Oh yeah... by Vertical Frankenstein (4.00 / 1) #21 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:34:05 AM EST

And let's not even get started on humanist/freethinker/skeptic/bright. Uhg...

[ Parent ]

WIPO by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #19 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:29:18 AM EST

I don't call myself anything, because the word "God" is ill-defined and no one ever agrees on what the word "atheist" or "agnostic" means.

Other people would probably call me an atheist as the level of my certainty that the Judeochristian concept of God has no reflection in reality is about equal to my certainty that Thor does not exist.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

that seems somewhat arbitrary. by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #29 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:58:18 PM EST

i mean, i agree with you about the relative likelihood of existence of Thor and the Judeochristian God .... but to deny the Judeochristian God is not to deny God, and shouldn't imply atheism.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

: "athiesm" by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #39 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:20:40 PM EST

I have no idea what you mean by that word. I don't use it to describe myself.
If I say "I am certain¹ that the Judeochristian does not exist" people call me an atheist. That is the extent to which I'll respond to that question because anything else devolves into mind-numbing arguments about the meanings of words like "atheist" and "agnostic", which I find tedious and frankly beside the point.
I'll say what I believe. You can feel free to decide whether it fits your definition of words like "atheist".
¹ To the extent that I can be certain of anything.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Definitive statement on atheism by gpig (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:32:59 AM EST

Here:

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is the belief in nae gods."
---
(, ,') -- eep
"This option is deprecated, as it is conceptually flawed." -- man psql

Your diary text itself by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #24 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:39:21 PM EST

Is surely sufficient to prove the existence of God. Linux printing now works! What else could be more miraculous?

: I had Linux printing working in 1999 by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #25 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:45:31 PM EST

it was sweet to see my $50 inkjet act as a PostScript printer.

[ Parent ]

Re: #3 by MartiniPhilosopher (4.00 / 1) #26 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:48:39 PM EST

This is where the debate over deities and myself gets a little strange.

The thing is, I've stop caring. For a while there I was happy thinking I was an Ignostic but the truth is that I don't even care enough to take up those arguments.

I just don't care. It is not something that is important to me, or to my daily life. I have enough other things to worry about than to get pulled into debates about who-is or who-is-not right about this stuff. I am just as frustrated by those who attempt to use their religion as an excuse for their actions or inactions as I am with those who use their non-religion for the same. I have become tired of hearing about it is necessary to take one side or another.

It has got to the point where a lot of the debate has just become silly to me. So I've decided to not participate any more.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

I consider myself an atheist, but by Herring (4.00 / 2) #27 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:51:47 PM EST

like Dawkins, should evidence show otherwise, I would change my mind. The current evidence would suggest a 0% probability of there being a god or gods in the traditional, interventionist sense.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey

Heh by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #69 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:43:58 AM EST

Should evidence prove otherwise, I would be really fucking pissed off and lead the campaign for humanity to reject this shifty character/pantheon of shifty characters/whispy things/whatever.

[ Parent ]

: I'd certainly want some answers. [n/t] by Herring (2.00 / 0) #78 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM EST

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

atheism is a loaded word by lm (4.00 / 1) #35 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:15:19 PM EST

Personally, I think it's fun to watch non-theists argue about what atheism means and whether or not a particular individual's form of non-theism qualifies as atheism or not.

Personally, I think the academic philosophers have created a very sensible approach by dividing atheism into hard (or strong) atheism and soft (or weak atheism). The latter assents to the proposition `I do not hold the belief that God exists.' The former agrees with that proposition but also assents to the proposition `I hold the belief that God does not exist.' Agnosticism (in its classical form, anyway) is a subset of soft atheism that has specific epistemological reasons for its lack of belief.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

define "belief" (nt) by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #43 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:39:59 PM EST

----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

belief by lm (4.00 / 1) #45 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:42:17 PM EST

Implicit or explicit assent to the truth of a proposition.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

What level of assent? by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #47 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:47:16 PM EST

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe that Hilary Clinton will win the presidency.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

stop clouding the issue with tautologies by komet (3.66 / 3) #48 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:56:57 PM EST

the concept of "tomorrow" is predicated on the sun rising.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
[ Parent ]

That's where faith comes in by lm (4.00 / 1) #49 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:00:15 PM EST

You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. You indicate this by your willingness to take actions based on your belief that the sun will, indeed, rise. You may also believe that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency, but unless you're also willing to take actions predicated on that belief, you don't have much faith in it.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

That doesn't really answer the question. by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #55 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:38:47 PM EST

How do I apply those various levels to this?

Besides, you're implying an all-or-nothing dividing line. I believe the universe will exist tomorrow. I believe the sun will come up. I believe San Francisco won't be destroyed in an earthquake before tomorrow. I believe that the train I attempt to ride tomorrow won't be broken down. I believe that I won't be sick tomorrow. I believe that I won't forget my lunch tomorrow.

I will take actions based on all of those beliefs, but they aren't equivalent.

So if an atheist says "I don't believe in God", does he mean in the "universe will exist tomorrow" sense or the "I won't forget my lunch tomorrow" sense?
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I'm not implying anything `all or nothing' by lm (2.00 / 0) #59 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:26:53 PM EST

Your reading something in between the lines that isn't there. The actions you take due to your beliefs vary widely in kind and degree. My contention that this variation corresponds to how much faith you have in your respective beliefs.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

But it is critical by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #60 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:42:14 PM EST

Whether "believe" means something near certain like "the universe will exist tomorrow" or a mere likelihood like "I won't forget my lunch tomorrow" is critical to the meaning of `I do not hold the belief that God exists.'

To put the label "weak atheist" on someone who thinks the likelihood of God existing is on par with the tooth fairy and also on someone who figures its better than even that there's no God seems to me to render the term "weak atheist" nearly meaningless.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I don't understand that criticism by lm (2.00 / 0) #61 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:58:18 PM EST

The term `Christian' spans a similar breadth of convictions from those willing to die rather than renounce their belief to those who just go through the motions. I think it unreasonable to insist that the descriptor of a particular set of beliefs also include detailed information about the degree to which the believer holds to a belief.

This is why we have adjectives such as `devout', `militant', `committed', `nominal', `partly', `lapsed', etc.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

my criticism by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #63 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:22:33 PM EST

Mainly that "weak atheist" defined that way is too broad to use in meaningful discussions.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

: If it is, then so are most other descriptors by lm (2.00 / 0) #64 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:25:59 PM EST

But I'll gladly concede that the descriptors invented by academic professors of philosophy may not be useful in everyday conversation.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

agnostic athiest or athiestic agnostic? by jaxom green (4.00 / 1) #38 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:20:25 PM EST

I've thought about it just enough to decide that the existence of God, gods, supernatural beings, higher powers or whatever someone may call it just doesn't matter. My morals and values are pretty much summed up by two words "be nice". Sure that's not a precise definition but it's a fairly basic concept that's worked well for me. As such I haven't even looked into the definition of atheist or agnostic enough to know what fits.

Someone earlier said that they by ni (4.00 / 1) #53 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:14:28 PM EST

would at least be considered by most others to be an atheist. This seems like a useful criterion to me, and I'm certain it applies to myself.

Among the population in question (the participating members of husi -- although this would also be true of any larger population participating in the language game), the interpretation of the word "atheism" will hopefully share some (perhaps very small) common ground, but will at average to some common themes; some family resemblances. I take your question as being aimed at bringing these to light. In this it will probably be successful. Unless husi is insane or prone to gibberish, it surely has to.

So am I an atheist? Considering the result we'll get from the above process -- this common ground or set of themes -- in the western world, I almost certainly am. In the rather more disbelieving husi? Probably, although it could be otherwise.

But do I think of myself as an atheist?

Ah, here things get trickier, for this question seems to shift the ground of the discussion. For we can no longer be asking a sort of "does the predicate apply" question, since a meaningful answer to this would simply be my answer to the earlier question. To determine whether the predicate applies, we must look at how it's used in the language game, and by that standard, as mentioned above, yeah, I'm probably an atheist. But we can't somehow make this question a personal one, for there are no private languages. It will always be asking a question fundamentally external to myself.

But if we're instead asking a question about self-perception, this question can be (and must be) personal. That is, instead of asking "does the predicate apply?" we can ask "do I apply this predicate when describing myself?"

I do not think I do. It's true that religion does not play a significant role in my life (although I often find it very beautiful when it does in the lives of others). But it's not as though this is because I have gone through some scientific or logical process and decided that it shouldn't. I think (and here I am unsure: it is difficult to peer into yourself) it is rather that I do not apply logic or scientific inquiry to the subject, and am unconvinced it's always a profitable thing to do. My religious beliefs are a sort of lack, not solely of belief, but also of the conviction that reason is a useful method of approaching the question. This seems pretty unatheist to me, and so the word is not near the fore in my volcabulary of self-description.

"What woman wouldn't love a guy in WW2 aviator glasses eating their ass?" -- dest

: beauty in religion in others by R343L (2.00 / 0) #58 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:24:22 PM EST

Karen Armstrong's A History of God is very good (IMO) for describing and evoking the beauty that many find in the idea and practice. She also talks a lot about the problem of applying logic or "scientific" practices to the idea of God or religion (primarily when juxtaposing eastern christianity to western protestantism or the mystic traditions of judaism or islam).

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

strong atheist by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #65 Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:08 PM EST

I'm not particularly interested in language games, so empirical definitions are good enough for me. God must be a supernatural being possessing at least one of the following traits: omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence. There is no logical, rational, or empirical reason to believe in such an existence. That doesn't mean that I believe that humanity understands everything that there is to understand about the universe. But even if there does exist some type of consciousness outside of our current understanding, that doesn't mean that is must be mystical or supernatural.

This is all of course my own opinion, I see no reason to persecute anybody for supernatural beliefs. I myself can be quite superstitious regarding sports events and team gear. Not to mention knocking on wood.

Voted for 2 by LoppEar (2.00 / 0) #74 Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:53:11 AM EST

Let me paraphrase 2 as "I am an atheist, as I have entirely no reason to believe that God exists" - zero probability is tough on me, and zero probability of future evidence even sketchier, but in a "close enough to zero to not make a lick of difference to my life, I'll bet the farm" sense, I choose 2.

on the beliefs of atheists and printing in linux | 84 comments (84 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: