Atheists Agonistes

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
atheist/agnostics
[...]

Both "sides" in such flamewars think the other started it.

I really wish people wouldn't lump atheists in with agnostics. They aren't the same.

Atheism is a close minded belief system. It is faith.

Agnosticism simply admits that we cannot know the answer to such questions.

The only way they are the same is that they both disagree with theists. But agnostics and atheists are different as much as agnostics and theists are.

Atheism masquerades as a rational belief, but it is faith just as any other theistic belief system.

Agnostics are the only ones who are using a reasonable approach when dealing with such issues. Everyone else is believing in something without proof. That's faith.

[Arrian]

Hey, I'm an agnostic, Sava. And I understand the differences... but basically we share skepticism of the divine, and thus here on 'poly and elsewhere, atheists and agnostics often end up on one side vs. the theists.

That is all.

-Arrian

[Sava]

It wasn't a criticism directed at you. I just used that post to illustrate my point.

[Elok]

Oh snap. I think maybe that "atheism is a faith" sort of remark should be considered the religion-thread equivalent of Godwin. It's all downhill from here; if past threads are any indication, raging denunciations from atheists and smug remarks from theists will be coming in 3...2...1...

Oh, and WRT us believers and the fundies, Proteus, I suggest we attack from two different angles; atheists/agnostics strike at the scientific errors of a literalist reading of Genesis or what-have-you, while religious moderates such as myself question the theological justification of whatever halfwit draconian system they're implementing. That way we're each fighting on the territory we tend to know best, instead of me trying to argue from studies I never cared enough about to research and you digging at the complex underpinnings of a worldview you do not follow. For example:

Atheist: "All the studies supposedly 'proving' the inadequacy of condoms are compromised by a conflict of interest/poor methodology/blah blah blah..."
Religious Moderate: "The majority of Americans are not theonomists; given that at the very least there are conflicting opinions about contraceptive effectiveness blah blah blah..."
Either one or both: "I find your use of scientific evidence you plainly don't care about to support a belief you endorse for other and unrelated reasons troubling blah blah blah..."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Secular > 'Judeo-Christian'

Mind you, 'Judeo-Christian' is just another fruity neologism from the people that brought us 'Islamofascism'. Bring on the clash!

19th century Reform Jews brought us the phrase "Islamofascism"?

edit: apparently the word is later than I thought, at least in English. OED records only a couple of obscure uses before 1945.

"It was during the Hitler years that American philo-Semites invented the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' to combat innocent, or not so innocent, language that spoke of a totalitarian assault on 'Christian civilization.'"
Peter Novick, Holocaust in American Life

However I can say that the CONCEPT was certainly common in late 19th and early 20th cent Jewish thought, in particular in Franz Rosenzweig, and I think Herman Cohen.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Elok
Fanaticism is actually more often a symptom of weak faith, in my experience. My opinion of the almighty is not so low as to feel threatened by some bozo quoting Thomas Paine or pointing at fossils and talking about pink unicorns.

EDIT: Is it Paine or Payne? I can't recall.

Paine...he's supposed to be one of your damn founding fathers

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava

Atheism is a close minded belief system. It is faith.

It depends on which kind of Atheism one is talking about. You have the "I know a higher power does not exist" atheists" and the "there is no empirical evidence of the existance of a higher power" atheists. The first is faith, the second is not.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Paine...he's supposed to be one of your damn founding fathers

I know how to spell "Washington," "Jefferson," "Adams," "Franklin," "Madison," "Hamilton," and even "Hancock." As opposed to some guy best known for writing a harsh pamphlet. So to you too.

[Provost Harrison]

I know how to spell those too. The difference is, I'm a limey, as you would put it

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin


It depends on which kind of Atheism one is talking about. You have the "I know a higher power does not exist" atheists" and the "there is no empirical evidence of the existance of a higher power" atheists. The first is faith, the second is not.

The second is called agnosticism. That's not atheism.

[BeBMan]

Sava doesn't get it.

[Provost Harrison]

You missed the 'it's so improbable that there is no reason to treat religion as a rational theory'...hence the analogies of the pink unicorn...religious types seem to get offended by that one - maybe hits a bit too close to the bone...

[loinburger]

Trying to draw a distinction between atheism and agnosticism is kind of silly.

atheist: I do not believe that God exists, and so I will act accordingly.

agnostic: I acknowledge the possibility that God might exist, but I will not acknowledge this possibility anywhere except on an online bulletin board.

"But agnostics are only 99.9% certain that god doesn't exist, whereas atheists are 100% certain, thus making the agnostic rational and the atheist irrational!" Balls. That's like saying "I'm only 99.9% certain that the laws of gravity will not be reversed tomorrow, whereas you are 100% certain, thus making me rational and you irrational!" If all of your actions predicate your belief that god doesn't exist (or if all of your actions predicate your belief that the laws of gravity will not be reversed tomorrow), then it doesn't accomplish anything to pretend that you're seriously in doubt. On the other hand, if you pray on a regular basis or if you nail your furniture to the floor so that it won't float around the room, then I'll acknowledge the so-called distinction between agnosticism and atheism. (Personally, if somebody's faith/doubt were such that they prayed on a regular basis despite not "knowing" that God exists, then I'd label them a theist-with-doubts, i.e., an agnostic theist. But whatevah.)

Originally posted by Sava
The second is called agnosticism. That's not atheism.

Agnosticism is a belief about epistemology, atheism is a belief about theology. In other words, the agnostic says that it is impossible to know that God exists, but this doesn't rule out the possibility of having faith that God exists (i.e., an agnostic theist). This is in contrast to the people who try to prove God's existence with goofy ontological arguments (gnostic theists), the people who think it's impossible to prove God's existence and who do not have faith in God (agnostic atheists), and the people who try to prove that God does not exist (gnostic atheists).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
As for the haranguing... it's a bit chicken & the egg. Christians take plenty of potshots at atheist/agnostics too. Both "sides" in such flamewars think the other started it.

How does that explain the threads that pop up here from time to time?

[Provost Harrison]

They can be started by either party...