Religion: Real or fake, the poll

[Elok]

Al, atheism is (as many atheists have pointed out in many religion threads on many websites over many years) not a religion. It is merely a label used by some people to describe their irreligious opinions/feelings. There's no official right or wrong for any given label, exact definitions vary, there are a lot of minute differences in formulation, and by common understandings of these terms Braindead's chosen label is indeed acceptable. In fact, it sounds like he fits the Huxley definition you've cited quite neatly. In classifying agnostics with atheists (however tidy the reasoning may appear to you), you're merely replacing a more precise term with a vague and potentially misleading one. To what purpose?

[Egbert]

Thank you Elok. I now understand what Albie is talking about.

[Kidlicious]

My opinion is that agnosticism, as a system of thought, should be just simply atheism. As a word, agnostic, could describe someone though if they don't have a system of thought.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know a lot of people want to lump in atheism from agnosticism, but I don't think that's valid, especially when people think Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their ilk when talking about atheism. That form of atheism is just as strong as a belief system as religion. Agnosticism is saying something else entirely.

[loinburger]

I've heard the terms "strong atheist," which would describe Dawkins and Hitchens, and "weak atheist," which is equivalent to "agnostic," and believe these terms to be accurate. Problem being that if you tell somebody that you're an atheist then their minds will immediately jump to Dawkins and Hitchens, so if you're a weak atheist you're better off describing yourself as an agnostic than as an atheist - it conveys the meaning better, which is the whole friggin point of language after all. If somebody like Albert "Cracker Cracker Cracker" Speer is displeased with somebody having a nuanced stance on religion or lack thereof then oh well.

[MikeH]

By that definition I'm a weak atheist unless your particular branch of religion is harmful eg. persecutes people for sexual orientation, interferes in health policy etc.

[Lorizael]

Some of those "strong atheists" are now calling themselves "antitheists" because, apparently, the stick went further up.

[MikeH]

It's a different thing

Believing there isn't a God is one thing, anti-theists believe that belief in God is actively harmful. (I don't, it can be benign).

[loinburger]

I've seen that too - used to be the atheists were all strong atheists and the weak atheists were all agnostics, but now the lines are blurring so the uber-strong atheists need to make the distinction.

[Lorizael]

Yes, but stupid atheists use anti-theist beliefs as arguments against God. "God is an ******* therefore he doesn't exist!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've heard the terms "strong atheist," which would describe Dawkins and Hitchens, and "weak atheist," which is equivalent to "agnostic," and believe these terms to be accurate. Problem being that if you tell somebody that you're an atheist then their minds will immediately jump to Dawkins and Hitchens, so if you're a weak atheist you're better off describing yourself as an agnostic than as an atheist - it conveys the meaning better, which is the whole friggin point of language after all. If somebody like Albert "Cracker Cracker Cracker" Speer is displeased with somebody having a nuanced stance on religion or lack thereof then oh well.

And that's the point entirely. These "New Atheists" have changed what people expect when they hear the term atheist. And it isn't just that they are positively sure God doesn't exist, but, as MikeH points out, that belief in God is harmful and that religion and science are fundamentally incompatable.

[MikeH]

We do also hear about the harmful aspects of religion far more frequently than the positives.

But generally we hear much larger proportion of negative news than we used to, which makes people think things are a lot worse.

Doesn't help that some of the most harmful religious people are some of the most noisy.

[rah]

Yes, but stupid atheists use anti-theist beliefs as arguments against God. "God is an ******* therefore he doesn't exist!"

No, not stupid at all. If I look at your definition of God and claim that I think that it's an EVIL god so I can't believe in it, to me god doesn't exist. To you god exists because you believe. To a non believer, god doesn't exist. Lacking proof either way, I think the believers bear the burden of proof of not looking stupid.

[Kidlicious]

Lacking proof either way, I think the believers bear the burden of proof of not looking stupid.

I don't get what you're saying. Why are atheists automatically smart for not believing in God?

[Elok]

No, not stupid at all. If I look at your definition of God and claim that I think that it's an EVIL god so I can't believe in it, to me god doesn't exist. To you god exists because you believe. To a non believer, god doesn't exist.

? This sounds sort of like you're using "belief" in two different senses: belief in the existence of God vs. hoping/trusting in God. I think Osama bin Laden is pretty evil, and I don't believe in his cause, but I do believe he exists, assuming he hasn't died of old age or a cave-dust lung infection or something. Or are you saying that a non-benevolent God isn't God?