What being an atheist means in practical terms

In practical terms, I don't believe deities exist. I don't label myself, but others seem to have a need to label me. People can call me what they want, it doesn't change what I think and it certainly does not assign a religion to me.

Just informational to the thread:
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
It may have already been linked. I didn't read every post.

 

Kokomojo Jo’s head is going to explode!

 

Neoatheists.org?
Are you kidding me?
I refute that nonsense with both brains tied behind my head.

Hey did you know that:
Agnostic-atheist is a Buzzword
A word drawn from or imitative of technical jargon, and often rendered meaningless and fashionable through abuse by non-technical persons in a seeming show of familiarity with the subject.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/buzzword

Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ional-religion.564784/page-50#post-1072803366

 

What atheism means to me is not having to live in constant 24/7 fear of a cosmic Kim Jong-un in the sky monitoring every thought, word, and deed -- ready to sentence me to eternal torture for even a thought crime.

 

we have the NSA for that

 

It means you are offended by the word Christmas and try to erase all other belief systems from public view.

 

Atheism is a believe system that can't be proven or dis-proven.....It's a religion.

 

It is a religion only by torturing the English language. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairly. Is that a religion?

 

Neither is believing in the tooth fairy.

 

Not in the least! If you want a dose of torture you need to take a look at people like antony flew and the nonsense he put out, not to mention he is supported by places oxford, an embarrassment to philosophy.

The supreme court actually did a pretty good job (surprisingly) drilling down to the essence of religion fairly well.

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons.

Religion legal definition of religion - Legal Dictionary



Durkheim nailed it! The supreme court agreed!

 

An Agnostic Atheist is simply someone who admits they do not "Know" if God exists but does know that none of the versions made by men are it.

 

Agnostic atheist is a buzzword, with no sensible meaning.

ie: People that refuse to look at a map first to know where theyre going, they are just going to decide to go left and hopefully get there. Agnostic-atheist LOL

 

We are all in the same boat. If one were to try to define the overriding spirit, call, purpose or obligation in life, it would be to love truth and goodness, and your fellow man as if he were you, because we are all in this together.

Life necessitates that we labor to provide food, shelter and clothing for ourselves. Rest, recreation, and exploration of the world around us follows and precedes our labors. That is about the whole of it. Atheism then is this natural state of man, minus religion.

Then comes religious dogma, priesthood authority and religious ordinance. It is all of this which Atheists reject and have no use for. So Atheism isn't a religion. It is simply the natural state of man wherein they find themselves beholden to live. It is to be. This is the foundation of Atheism, IMO. It is the foundation, starting point, and springboard for all else, including religion. Because without first living, there'd be no religion.

So along comes the educated who label things for the purpose of conversation and study. And they label those who've not joined the spiritual quest for God, with the label of Atheists. But they are not really Atheists. They are only called Atheists. In reality, they are merely people living the lives in which they find themselves.

Over time, in response to all the queries from others, these people called Atheists, unwittingly define and keyhole themselves. In truth they are merely, with respect to others queries, mercifully attempting to sate others curiosity. And for their mercy in response to these queries, they are accused, threatened, ridiculed and so forth. So in defense they begin to ridicule that which they find objectionable or absurd about this or that aspect of this or that religion. In so doing, they become a part of the furious intellectual war, with snorting horses, armor, pointed spears, and church's of their own for sanctuary. It is all rather silly. As a Christian, I have no war with them. I can't fault the life of flesh and blood that one is given, without faulting the God who gave it. So who am I to condemn a naturalist? We are all Brothers in life. Peace, friends.


Might I say from my heart to no one, that God is real. That he is the only person who has ever known me, and that in so doing, I know him to be divine. And rather than condemn me, he closed his eyes to my offense and blessed me instead, like a rich man who passed a filthy, blind, beggar along the way, and filled my cup with a kings ransom. He restored my sight and had me bathed, blessed and robed. So rather than condemn my fellows, I speak well of my benefactor, with ease, as my heart is ever to him.

 

The same as any other life.

On this planet, religious people commit murder and a variety of Capital crimes and lesser crimes and misdemeanors and are substance abusers, gamblers, wife-beaters, cheaters and the whole lot.

It means they're way smarter than a whole lotta people.

An Agnostic acknowledges that a god-thing might exist but that one can never understand the nature of god.

To dumb that down so that people can understand, the Agnostic god is not a personal god. The Agnostic god doesn't know that you exist and doesn't care if you're alive or dead or time-traveling or the Ghost of Christmas Past.

The Agnostic god will never do anything for you. Not ever.

You're no different than flotsam and jetsam. You have no value and you are no more valuable and no less valuable than a clump of crap, or puddle of urine, or an atom or a planet or anything else in this Universe.

You simply are and nothing more. There's nothing uniquely nor inherently special about you.

You're just one of QUADRILLIONs of cogs in the wheel that were, that are, and are yet to come.

Oddly, x-tians do.

On the contrary, every human has an ultimate purpose, which is to be all that they can be in the short time they have on this planet, without causing harm to others.

 

God hasn't done anything for you except create all that is, including your life and everything in it, along with a conscience to know right from wrong and a heart to love. Then he set aside his omnipotence, became human and suffered all the ills known to mankind unto death, that your sins might be washed away should you so accept his offering. And then took his body back up again to bring about your resurrection and immortality. Everything God does and has done is for you and everyone else. It is his work and glory. Yet you brim with pessimism as if he were you.

 

I cut your OP at that point, because it appeared that it went off, from there, on a tangent that did not directly speak to what I took to be-- possibly mistakenly-- your thread's primary, intended focus. I got this impression from your first two sentences, which I enlarged & emboldened, above. If your main thesis has not to do with the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic, I would suggest that it would be helpful to your future threads, to better consider how to lay out your explanations of them, by trying to imagine the way the words might be received by a reader who is, of course, not already aware of your overall conception.

Now that I have clarified for you, the understanding behind my reply, I would say that, in the example you stipulate (highlighted in red), that person is an Agnostic. The mere base assumption that "God" may exist, to my mind, excludes one from being an Atheist, by definition. This does not change, even if that Agnostic chooses to follow their path, as if there is no God. In fact, I see no inconsistency whatsoever, in that situation. One might better ask themself how-- since an Agnostic generally believes that any God that may exist, would be beyond that person's understanding-- he could live any other way. IOW, what is the difference, in your mind, between a person living their life under the assumption of no God, versus living according to the philosophy in which there might be a God, but that the person could never understand anything about that God? Don't you see that this belief would not afford a person any insight, as to how to behave differently than an Atheist, in order to please some unknowable God, just in case?

It would seem that you are making the-- in my mind-- farcical assumption, that an Agnostic's "prospective" God, would bear some resemblance to one of the Gods, stipulated in some or other religion. If this is your assumption-- even if you come to it, through personal experience-- I would submit (with no disrespect intended) that you never truly were an Agnostic, despite what you would have mistakenly considered yourself. Rather, I would judge that you were, in truth, just a wavering theist, or perhaps a Deist.

What sets apart Atheists from Agnostics, and the thing that gives Atheists at least an argument for religious status, is that they do have an adhered-to, central certainty, with regard to what is at the center of their existence: nothing Divine or spiritual. It could therefore be maintained, that they all have a uniform doctrine, as do, in a general sense, those who subscribe to any given God-based religion.

The same, uniting principle, could not be said to exist, IMO, among Agnostics, because of all the leeway left, in their defining precept. That is, as your earlier example suggests, there can be a wider diversity in the way an Agnostic envisions the universal order, than in a theist's, including an atheist's. The other main difference is, no matter how an Agnostic (despite himself) pictures the possibilities behind this existence, a true Agnostic never believes in the chance, that he is correct.

 

To be atheist restricts you to the natural realm, like you said nothing spiritual, nothing divine.

The agnostic and atheist are completely different in the respect atheists accept their position based purely on faith, while agnostics (that is a real agnostic, not the fakes out here), bases their position purely on scientific method which is prove up the claim and I will follow the proof wherever it leads.

The atheist on the other hand demands proof from theists that God exists before they are willing to accept that God exists, but do not require 'proof' to accept that God does not exist, a double standard.

Atheism is faith based and agnostic is science based and really does not care who is right as long as they can prove up the point.

Agnostic, that is a real agnostic remains 100% uncommitted to either side until one side or the other is proven, agnostic is not faith based.

That said, you have several God sourced religions and though they all claim the same God, live completely differently from each other, so the assumption that an agnostic lives like an atheist is flawed unless you want to narrow that scope considerably.

Atheism concerns itself only looks at theism in its sites, whereas agnostics concern themselves with both sides, both the theist position and the atheist position refusing to accept, ie commit to either one until its proven by scientific method. Thus far neither side is capable of accomplishing a satisfactorily demonstrable proof.

 

Atheists accept a godless universe, as you say, "on faith," which is the same basis for the beliefs of a theist. That is the way in which these two are comparable. Because of this similarity, these two opposites-- I suppose is how you see them-- also are hard to sway from their preconceptions.

I would, in fact, not agree with your next assertion, below, that an atheist "demands proof," from a theist, that God exists-- at least not any more than a theist would demand proof of an atheist, that God does not exist. Both poles are essentially closed off to the other side's position, but accept their own, implicitly. Therefore, once again from your quote, below, if you are to accuse the atheist of having, in this, a "double standard," you cannot do so, without accusing the theist of the same thing...unless, of course, when it comes to comparing theists & atheists, it is you who employs double standards.

If either one is asking the other for proof of his faith-based contentions, it is not in order to give that other faith, an actual chance to prove itself to the doubter, albeit with a more difficult burden placed upon it, than on their own beliefs; rather, either inquisitor is only trying to disprove the other's faith, in a generally futile attempt at (it could be seen as) proselytizing, through an inverse method-- inducing he whose faith has been shattered, to invert it to its natural replacement, should the rare success occur. If one ceases believing in God, he automatically becomes an atheist. And expunging an atheist's certainty of God's non-existence, generally requires more than mere doubts, but a sudden & total purgation of the negative faith, which would simultaneously be replacing it, with the positive one. This is why these 2 could be seen as more alike to one another, than they are to the agnostic view.

You here reiterate the common tie between atheism & theism: a basis in faith, not proof, since neither can be proven, despite both insisting that their beliefs do have definitive evidence, to back them.

Then you return to your assertion (also in your 1st quote), that Agnostics base their position, "purely on scientific method," which is an untenable position for you to hold to be true, for ALL Agnostics. The same is true of your expanding claims, here, such as that an Agnostic basically has no preference as to which of the other two sides is correct. Clearly, an Agnostic could find the idea of there being a God, more desirable than the alternative, but still not believe that it is possible to know the truth, before death. So, what, any Agnostic who passes from this world, hoping that there turns out to be a God, wasn't a "real Agnostic," as you term it?

That strikes me as the equivalent of a Catholic stipulating something of "any real Christian," that leaves out all Muslims (or Protestants); or a Lutheran, defining some characteristics of all "true Christians," that would exclude Quakers, and so forth. Certainly some or, who knows, maybe even most, of those embracing the Agnostic view, do so because of their pure devotion to science-- though it seems, to me, that most who claim, at least, to base their beliefs on science, tend to be Atheists-- but you have no scientific basis for disqualifying other Agnostics, from being genuine.

Nor do you have any proof for you statement that Agnostics must be "science based," and, "100% uncommitted to either side, until one or the other is proven." The classic definition of an Agnostic (though I would agree that this does not cover all, either) is a person who does not believe it is possible to know the truth about God: not someone, waiting for God to either be proven or disproven. So, as I said, just because one cannot be sure of the truth, does not mean that he cannot have a preference. The difference between himself and a theist, if that would be his preferred truth, is only that the theist accepts it as truth, and the Agnostic would recognize it, as just his hope.


I was going to give you, your absolute claim that, "Agnostic(ism) is not faith based;" however, by your non-scientific, articles (apparently) of faith, about the requirements to be met, to qualify as a "real" Agnostic, you have demonstrated that you, yourself, have a certain amount of faith in given, Agnostic religious beliefs-- even if they are not beliefs specifically about God. This makes me unsure of the truth of that claim, as well-- consider me, for now, agnostic, on that point.

 

Nah I try to avoid that
Keep in mind the pecking order and first claim.
You cant claim God does not exist before someone first claims God does exist.
No one would initiate a 'first claim' by arguing something does not exist.
IOWs you cant have a negative hypothesis before a positive one exists.
That said, the claim (or belief) God exists has to be on the table first.
Once a claim is on the table it set out for acceptance, people presumably review it and with that accept or reject it, either way is accomplished by faith.
Atheists exist because they accept on 'faith' that arguments offered by theists are nonsense.
Its a contradiction to claim that a self-proclaimed atheist has no knowledge of God, since the self proclaimed atheist had to find the proper word to adorn himself with, hence a belief is created by the decision to label themselves atheist. Its not possible to label themselves atheist without a decision based upon some data.

How many atheists here are willing to convert to and accept on faith without proof positive God exists?
Yet they accepted atheist on faith, unless of course the day comes you or anyone else can actually prove that God does or does not exist?

That said theists do not need the existence of atheists for their faith to exist, however the atheist requires the theist to exist before the atheist can label themselves as such.

So the pecking order is theist has a God, atheist will not accept that God without proof and demands proof from the theist their God exists. The point again is proof is a one way street demanded by the atheist. The theist exists, the theist came first, no proof required.

Only if the choices are limited to atheist vs theist, otherwise its a composition fallacy to exclude the possibility they could instead be agnostic.

Not exactly, theists claim to have evidence atheists claim theists have no evidence.

Yes, it must be falsifiable.
No agnostic is by definition by its creator a condition of accepting 'neither' proposition as true.
If you accept either proposition as true you cant claim agnostic, there are no exceptions.

That would involve limiting the discussion to a given philosophy and living it accordingly, without a God accreditation.

What you hope for and what you have actually chosen are exclusive to each other.

Bad word to use when discussing ideologies. though this one is quite well defined.
Its not about including ALL its about the definitions then plunking round pegs in round hole and squares in square hole etc.

Thats marketing though, not the same.

The inventor of the word explicitly stated its purpose.

AFAIK there is no waiting for anything, not sure who cooked that up? A set of propositions are tossed on the table, the agnostic looks a them and accepts neither, so I am not sure where that waiting business came from, certainly not the creator of the meaning of the word?

Based on the valid 'substance' of the word religion (that to which one is bound) rather than popular usage, (deity worship) everyone has a religion. Religion is not limited to deity belief just because it became popular to use it that way.

Sure we can take this out on very thin ice and claim science is a belief, in fact we can take it out on even thinner ice and claim 'technically' everything we could possibly ever believe is grounded in faith, but that would not serve any productive purpose.

 

Kokomojojo,
Many of your answers either did not address my points which you quoted or, if they did, it was done in a very unclear way. So it seems least confusing or confounding, to take them, one at a time.

DEFinning said: ↑
So, what, any Agnostic who passes from this world, hoping that there turns out to be a God, wasn't a "real Agnostic," as you term it?

This answer does not address the disputed point; in fact, you are contradicting yourself. You first said, "agnostic is science based and really does not care who is right..."
I contested that obvious, impossibly verifiable assertion, saying that an agnostic, even if he can't comfort himself with the certainty of believing it, could certainly hope that the theists, will turn out to have been right. In other words, it is not irrelevant to him, what the truth turns out to be, as you tried to claim.

Then you respond to my pointing this out, by saying that what one hopes, is exclusive of what they believe-- which directly contradicts your earlier claim that an agnostic cannot care, who is right. To hope for one result over another, indicates one does care about that result; if it really was irrelevant to the agnostic, then he would have no reason to hope for one over the other, which you cannot say that some Agnostics don't do. IOW, if the two "are exclusive to each other," then you must retract your statement that tries to unite hopes & beliefs: the agnostic "really does not care who is right," IOW, has no hopes, one way or the other. This is not only unprovable, but clearly false.

I require consistency, of one with whom I am going to debate something, for it to be worth my time.

 

I prefer consistency as well from you.
There is nothing I am aware of that precludes an agnostic from hoping one way or the the other, not sure how you combined and fused hope and belief into one term?
Since hope and belief are exclusively different things,
I suppose it would have been clearer if I said I dont have hopes either way, then again maybe not.

One thing you should be aware of, and that is dont make the fatal mistake that swensson and the bird consistently make, that is that the ideologies being discussed is about all the crazy **** people do or do not do, and is intended to include all of them into a logic statement, its not, since there are a lot of people violating all the rules of grammar and understanding of linguists etc because they simply do not know any better or dont give a ****. I am not going to debate all the nonsense that people do with their crazy associated claims, (ie ALL x does not do Q nonsense) its not relevant to the ideology. Logic cannot be applied to all the nutty **** people do, except to acknowledge its logically nutty! The debate has to be limited to the ideological ideals otherwise this is pointless.

 

The problem was not your own lack of hopes. It was in your making it a criterion of any, "real," agnostic, that they could "NOT CARE WHO IS RIGHT..."as I have already quoted of you, but will quote, once more, since you seem confused about what you said, or what is the meaning of the words you wrote:

How do you possibly, logically, claim that a person must not really care about what the truth actually is (to be a "real" agnostic), but that it is not disqualifying for him to have hopes?
How can having a hope, regarding the truth, not be indicative of caring, of having a preference, of not being neutral, on the question? Your two statements, are thus contradictory. Again, those statements are:

1. "agnostic...really does not care who is right..."
and
2."... nothing I am aware of that precludes an agnostic from HOPING one way or the the other."

I am not going to engage in a discussion with someone who is going to not only maintain that to "hope" that one of two choices is true, does not indicate that the person "care(s), one way or the other;" but who then wonders how it is that I "combined and fused hope and belief into one term?
Since hope and belief are exclusively different things..."
Is it not ME, who has maintained that an agnostic could hope, if not believe he could ever be certain in that knowledge?

If this is what it is going to mean, to discuss this with you, that I am going to have to be constantly reproducing our statements from just a couple of posts beforehand, because you so readily switch your own argument, and try to paint me as the one who was expressing the view that, in fact, you had-- I'm sorry, but I cannot get up for that kind of hassle, necessitated only by what I would see as your inability to admit mistake, need to always portray yourself as right, despite the facts, and so make disingenuous arguments.
It was you who portrayed a linkage between hope (or, more specifically, non-hope) & belief, not me. If you can either-- with the quotes staring you straight in the face-- not recognize, or admit, that this is the case, I see no point in continuing along this contentious road.

 

@Greenleft

I wish to amend something, simultaneously giving me an opportunity to show @Kokomojojo that there is no shame, in correcting oneself. Unfortunately for my lesson, I doubt it will strike a chord, because it will necessitate challenging another one of Koko's dearly held beliefs.

Though it is a different type of principle, than either an unqualified belief, or disbelief, in God, one could say that Agnostics do have a uniting principle, with regard to the concept of God; literally-speaking, any real Agnostic (to coin Kokomojojo's language), is sure of this: there is no way for man to understand God. But, it seems that it may go beyond that, in accepting the notion that even knowing whether or not God truly exists, is something beyond man's ability to verify.

From the Wikipedia entry, under Agnosticism, we see both of these possible views:

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3]

Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."[2]
[END SNIP]


This suggests the problem with your claims, kokomojojo, which are stated as absolutes, despite your attempt to lecture me, on the use of the word, "all," when I was only using it, in describing your own stated (and quoted) opinions. For example, in the cases of Agnostics who accept, on faith, the perspective, above in red-- that no matter what science discovers, it will NEVER be adequate for human reason to be able to conclude whether or not God exists-- it is a patent fallacy to claim that:

In fact, anyone (other than, possibly KMJO) must admit that, once one has accepted that no proof will be sufficient, they have written off the "scientific method," from that point, onward.


It should also be noted that, while some Atheists claim that God's non-existence is a scientific fact;

& some Theists hold, God is a provable thing;

there are both Atheists and Theists (of the stature of Thomas Aquinas), who hold that this question will always be, strictly, a matter of faith, with science being unable to ever weigh-in, one way or the other.

In that position, there is no difference between a portion each, of Agnostics, Theists, and Atheists.

 

scientific method.

you inappropriately brough in ALL, if you want to talk about the loony **** people do then that fine then we worry about all or none, but you do not seem to comprehend that when we talk about an ideology we are talking about an ideal sense, not the stupid **** people do, unless of course someone posts a definition that is totally out to lunch.