---so yes there is a difference between none and atheist.---
Only if you have a rather strange definition of "atheist." Being an atheist says NOTHING about what other belief systems one might have (utilitarian, capitalist, whatever). The ONLY characteristic that atheist rules out is theism.
---But one have to rely on them once in a while : especially when describing oneself to somebody who is impatient and only understand two possibilities "Are you or are you Not?"---
The definitions of "theist" and "atheist" are constructed to exhaust the possibilities in a binary way. Either you have a god belief, or you don't. Being undecided is still a _lack_ of the active, affirmative step necessary to be a theist.
You may not like this binary definition, and hey: it's just a semantical construction. But they do ask an honest and specific question, and "agnostic" doesn't even answer the same question that was asked.
---unable to decide on the existence of Judeo-Christeo-type God due to lack of evidence ---
Well, yes. But so... do you then have a belief in god then, or not?
(just to ilustrate the point):)
---(e) think Buffy is hot, but the show is blah --- I am totally hooked on the arc and character plots, but the individual shows that carry these plots often suck. The result is that I'm an avid watcher of Tv that I don't much like.
---My view is that the term "god" lacks coherence; it is not well enough defined that one can meaningfully say much about it. In a pluralistic society, the question "Does god exist?" makes no sense without some clarification as to which God the question is about and what its characteristics are alleged to be.---
George H. Smith once imagined this little dialouge: Person A says "An unie exists"
Person B says "Prove it" Person A says "it has rained for three days- that is my proof"
Smith notes that most of the blame for this silly conversation should go to Person B: their request for proof was premature. There is no point at all in engaging in a conversation of the empirical existence of an "unie" until it is first defined what the hell and "unie" is.
Such it often is with claims about god. Until it is established what the heck kind of thing we are talking about, any attempt to prove its existence will be nonsensical (indeed, way too many theist/atheist discussions proceed in just this ridiculous manner, and frustrate everyone without anyone quite realizing exactly why). How would we even know if we'd suceeded in demonstrating it's existence when we don't even know the characteristics of the thing we are looking for?!
Now, many theists do give some definition of what their god is, and from there a real discussion can possible ensue. However, there's still often the problem of unintelligible claims and non-cognitive characteristics. According to Smith, peel back enough layers of most god beliefs, and you'll get an admission that the god in question is inherently unknowable to man's reason: and hence non-cognitive.
But note that the original definition of the word includes the idea of "unlawful." This makes things pretty ambiguous, especially because it never specifies WHOSE LAWS. Law itself is a pretty theoretically ambiguous concept.
Of course, even by those standards, the U.S. fits SOME interpretations of terrorism, as we routinely break international law with our actions, most notably the Geneva convention edicts against using the military strategy of attacking civilian targets to pressure civilians into overthrowing their leaders (as we did in Iraq and Kosovo, and, long before the Geneva accords, on a much grander scale in Japan).
But the problem is that unless we make some dispensation for legitimate military action, the "bad" connotation of terrorism will naturally have to be lessened. Certainly, the "terrorism" (by your strict definition) of the U.S. is sometimes justifiable. To say that it is not, simply because the word "terrorism" applies to it, and because "terrorism" has bad connotations (most of which originally came from the idea that it was violent crazy outsider groups), is to play games with semantics.
It can also never be stressed enough that dictionaries report popular usage: words do legitimately change in meaning over time (though it is always healthy to resist these changes in the name of clarity and specificity.
In the case of "atheism," the original meaning should be defended as valid not simply because "that's the derivation of the word!" but because it is the way that the majority of atheists have defined the term, and have defended as the defition over the centuries: over and above the slander of SOME theists (plenty of theists agree with our definition, however).
To note that it is most common to believe does not make belief the "default" position. What makes something an "active" or "passive" position is not the relation to the will of the majority, but rather the type of claim it is.
Atheism (using the so called "weak" definition) is not making any truth claim. Most forms of theism are (but not all forms!). The fact that there is a lot of social pressure to believe isn't directly relevant to belief: people can easily say they believe and not, or vice-versa. But even to the extent that social pressure makes people conform, it does this by convincing them to _believe_, which is taking an affirmative, active step. That they might be coerced to make this choice (perhaps to make their lives easier) doesn't change the fact that it took an _active_, not passive, step to get there.
I, however, am an atheist in the same sense that a baby is an atheist: neither of us have yet been convinced that there is a god, and so don't believe. In the babies case, this is largely because it doesn't have the capacity to believe much of ANYTHING yet, much less the existence of gods. Taking me as starting as that baby, however, as I grew up, I began to be able to understand claims well enough to consider whether they were convincing or not. But I still never came accross a convincing reason to think a god existed, and that belief was warranted. So, in effect, despite me gaining the _ability_ to understand and believe claims as I grew up, nothing much changed with my actual atheism: I remained an atheist in exactly the same manner I always was.
And I'm very sorry about your sobriety. Damn liquor laws...
Also note that the so-called "weak" definition of atheism _includes_ those that hold the "strong" position. Lack of belief in gods is the broader and more fundamental category.
---Just to be clear, agnostics do NOT believe in gods of any kind. They don't have any beliefs about them whatsoever, because there is no evidence to cause them to even hypothesize such a thing. ---
You're mistaken. Agnostics can be theists, if they want. Most commonly via faith beliefs. Agnosticism reffers to lack of knowledge: not belief. Not all people hold to the moral dictum that truth claims have to be justified to be honest.
---An agnostic or a weak atheist can certainly take the step to say that no way, no how, can the Xtian god or the Muslim god, or any other humanly conceived god exists, because things that physically exist must be logically possible. No human conceived gods fit that criteria. ---
That's a good point. Even strong atheists are only really strong atheists about SOME of the zillions of possible god claims. Almost no one has ever heard ALL of the 2000 or so various god claims made in human history, much less all those possible in human philosophy! For the most part, non-belief is the norm for a given god belief, even among particular theist!
I really like this explanation: out of the 2000 or so gods people have claimed exist, most believe in only 1 of them, and don't believe in 1999 of the others (mostly because they've never even heard of them). Atheists only believe in ONE less god than most theists! Is that really such a big deal?
You violated your own consistency of usage to get the result you wanted!
If gnostic is to knowledge (of god) as agnostic is to no knowledge (of god), then theist is to belief (in god) as atheist is to no belief (in god). "No belief" is NOT the same thing as "belief IN no god." If a theist is someone that "has a belief," then the strict negation of that someone that "does NOT have a belief": NOT someone who "has a belief in the incorrectness of the theist belief."
The word "atheist" uses it's "a" in the same way as "amoral" and "asymetrical": i.e. meaning "without."
Furthermore, a theist can deny the very existence of their own god: Paul Tillich did exactly this. Many theists deny the existence of other gods. Many people do not beleive in gods that they have never even heard of: like Pales. So there is nothing about denying the existence of god that is unique to atheism alone.
---it's because Atheism is in itself a belief system.---
I am an atheist. Yet, I _inherently_ need not share any beliefs in common with any other atheist. The only thing that places us in the same category is that we lack what others have: belief in gods. What are you claiming is my "atheist" belief system?
---You specifically belive that there is no god.---
No, I don't. I don't believe THAT there is a god. There's a big difference.
---A lot of people call themselves atheists, when they aren't strictly atheists, for example they'll belive in some 'force' or universal intelligence from which we are all created or something like that. all of which exempts them from true atheism. ---
That depends. "True" atheism simply requires that one NOT be a "true" theist: whatever that is. If you consider belief in an universal intelligence to be theism, then believers in it cannot be atheists. But if you think that a belief in "fate" is not necessarily a form of theism, then such a person is legitimately an atheist. Atheist does NOT equal "strict materialist." Many atheists believe in ghosts, ESP, and all manner of other non-natural things. They just don't happen to believe in gods.
---I know of some people who don't place emphasis on any religion. But instead define the universe as their god, etc---
Actually, for some, this IS a theist religion: it's called Tolland-esque Pantheism. Basically, the universe is their god. This doesn't mean that they are claiming that the universe is conscious or has a will, or anything like that. They are often strictly empiricists: they'll believe something is true only the basis of evidence. For them, however, existence, as a whole, is their god. If a being named Jehovah existed, then this being would simply be PART of their god. One virtue of this belief system is that they cannot be wrong in their beliefs, since they are subjective and semantically defined. The universe is their god, by definition, no matter WHAT happens to be characteristics of the universe. Even more interestingly (and this frustrates other theists to no end), this type of theist can legitimately AND intelligibly claim that their god truly is both omniscient (it contains all knowledge) and omnipotent (it contains all power)! Of course, their god also contains all of the bad things as well, but that's life.
Right, which is quite different from "affirmation that no gods exist."
In the end, what we have to deal with are CLAIMS for the existence of gods, not gods themselves.
---When atheists who did not have faith in God appeared in numbers they argued these people deny the existance of God. That claim, like so many other religious claim presupposes the existance of God.---
This was especially important historically in Christianity, because the Bible says that "deep down" everyone knows god exists, so those that claim not to are just liars, or "in denial." The Bible calls unbelievers all sorts of nasty names. In fact, going strictly by dictionaries, "atheist" is still listed as a synonym for "wicked" and "amoral" in many usages.
---The answer to the next question (for me) is usually "I don't know." ---
But no one asked you if you "knew." They asked if you believed. Belief entails a positive commitment. Have you made this affirmative commitment TO believe that god exists? Have you taken that step No? Then you would lack belief, in addition to lacking knowledge.
Personally, I cannot believe in anything unless I have a good reason to (and then, I don't really call it "belief," but rather knowledge, which, being conditional and inferential, seems much more honest anyway).
I missed this on the first pass, but at least the first sentance of the post you responded to is definately NOT a belief or a statement of faith. Saying: "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is not a claim about there being 1000 foot tall purple gorillas or not, it is simply telling you about the person: that they are not a believer in that claim.
I mean, how can a statement "I don't believe in that: I don't have that belief" be itself a statement of belief? Is "not having an apple" just another type of apple?
Right. Atheists can also be religious. Many Buddhists, for isntance, are atheistic (they don't have god beliefs), yet Buddhism is a religion, plain and simple. Atheism itself is no more a positive belief system or a religion than bald is a hair color.
---And to agnostics, it does matter whether God exists or not.... Agnostics have decided that it is not worth pursuing the idea of God after evaluating current evidence for it.---
I think you are adding too much unecessary prejorative meaning to the word. Agnostics may have all sorts of different opinions and reasons for being agnostics, not necessarily limited to or even restricted by what you've written here.
And you're quite right: not all agnostics are "strict" agnostics: claiming that knowledge of god is impossible. This position is the one I find most nonsensical of all, since it claims to know a characteristic (unknowability) of a being which it claims one cannot know the characteristics of!
So, most modern agnostics simply hold the "sorry, I really just dunno" position. Personally, though I pretty much hold this position to (in addition to not believing), I find it sort of silly to give it a specific name. I mean, we're ALL to greater and lesser extents unsure of MANY things. Stating it is almost redundant. So I usually stick to just plain "atheism."
---And in my opinion (which everybody is allowed to disagree with of course), that's the most intellectually honest since it considers the evidence. ---
So can atheism. Atheism reffers to one's lack of belief, while agnosticism refers to one's lack of knowledge. It's important to realize that belief and knowledge are two separate issues, especially because many people are theist agnostics: they believe in god not on any evidence, but on faith. Faith without "proof" is very highly valued for many believers. When you say "I am an agnostic" you don't actually answer the question of "do you believe in god or not." One can still ask you: "yes, I understand that you have no knowledge of god, but do you believe anyway?"
By many definitions of atheist (those used by most atheists themsevles, as opposed to what most theists define us as), this alone would qualify you as an atheist. And atheist simply lacks belief in gods. They don't have to actively run around even thinking about the question. As long as someone is NOT a believer, i.e. they have not taken the step of affirmatively believing in god, then they are without belief, and hence an atheist by the broad definition.
One need NOT take a definite position, however. One might simply say: "I see no reason to think that's true, and so I have no reason to believe it." One can even then go on to point out gaping holes in the claims being made for the gorilla. In the end, the case for the gorillas must lie on the positive evidence FOR their existence, not on disproof of any possiblity of their existence.
This is because it is almost impossible to disprove a negative existensial claim like "1000 foot tall purple gorillas exist" for exactly the reasons you pointed out.
That is why the burden of proof exists: so that making a claim less and less subject to verification doesn't make it more and more true!
So, instead, we ask what reasons there are to believe THAT these gorillas exist. If there are none, or if we reject the reasons as flawed or unconvincing, then belief is not warranted. Hence, legitimate non-belief without making silly presumptuous knowledge claims.
I disagree. These definitions are pretty confusing, and rarely agreed upon, but please note: atheism reffers to belief, and agnosticism reffers to knowledge. These are two different things, and hence, agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale (they don't measure the same things).
Hence, one who is an agnostic can also be either a theist agnostic (admits that they have no knowledge of god's existence, but believe anyway, usually on faith) or an atheist agnostic (one who has neither knowledge nor belief in god/s).
Hence:
theism: belief in gods (for whatever reason)
atheism: no belief in gods ("a" = "without", "theism" = "belief in gods")
agnositicism: no knowledge of gods (its original form, when coined by Huxley, was that that such knowledge is impossible)
The oft forgotten (and more modern category) are the non-cognitivists, whose position is, essentially: "the claims for (this) god are so unintelligible that even if I wanted to "believe" I couldn't, because I have no idea what sort of thing I would even be "believing" in."
Now "atheism," since it has been such a prejorative term, is often a point of contention. Some argue that theist apologists have been so successful in their slander of "atheism" that the term should be abandoned, and non-believers should switch to the term "non-theist" instead. While I prefer keeping the term atheism (without belief), other people rightly disagree. Semantics aren't all THAT important in the end.
But it's worth noting that non-belief in, or even denial of, gods does NOT equal claiming that one knows that no gods exist. I (as an example), don't believe in gods (am an atheist AND an agnostic, though that definition of it seems redundant to me). The claims I have heard for the existence of gods are unconvincing. Just because theists make them doesn't mean I have to leap out and disproove them, anymore than I can can leap out and disprove that invisible elves control the weather. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. And without good evidence, I am rightly skeptical: for me belief would be DISHONEST. So, I don't believe, and I am critical of the claims FOR god. That doesn't require me to make counter-claims however. I have no idea what exists or doesn't. I just can't bring myself to believe in things unless I actually have a good reason to think they are true. This doesn't mean I have any idea why theists do believe: for all I know, they might have good reasons. But all the reasons I have heard are unconvincing at best, unintelligible at times, flatly dishonest at worst. So I remain an atheist.
Inferno had a neat GUI menu option where, if your your click opens a menu, it starts automatically centered on the last command run from that menu. So, if you wanted to repeat an action from that menu, you could just click once, instead of having to mouse through all the options. This feature is a pretty obvious one, and would be great for helping solve this very problem. If only Win2000 or XP bothered allowing users to edit the functioning of the menus...
No, it would not be fair. Afghanistan's legal system is archaic and heavily heavily political. Of course the Taliban doesn't see it that way, in the same way Texas refuses to confront how racist their justice system is.
Don't get taken in overmuch by the actual manuals themselves. Few people think Bin Laden actually has plans to take over America. His major beef is this belief that Americans contaminate everything they touch that is Muslim, and so must be ejected from all Muslim affairs. Ranting on about the evil heathens is more propaganda than a serious plan. He, as well as we, know that his only real power is to sponsor acts of terrorism.
Re:USA is an Imperial Oligarchy, not a Democracy
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
---and I could see that the US people in general know very little about their government's involvement in the rest of the world. Without knowledge, Americans can have no control over that foreign policy. If they knew what their government was really up to they might be able to put a stop to it. ---
That doesn't help, actually, because we COULD have cared about what our government's policies are: we simply choose not to. Again: we judged the efforts of looking into it to be too costly compared to the benefits. This doesn't let us off the hook, however: because we are as responsible for choosing to be ignorant as we are of choosing not to change our own policies. We are also capitalists: so at least plausibly, the news we see is what we want to hear about. We chose not to hear, and so the media chose not to look into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, obviously you haven't considered This knockdown foolproof theologic arguement.
---so yes there is a difference between none and atheist.---
Only if you have a rather strange definition of "atheist." Being an atheist says NOTHING about what other belief systems one might have (utilitarian, capitalist, whatever). The ONLY characteristic that atheist rules out is theism.
---But one have to rely on them once in a while : especially when describing oneself to somebody who is impatient and only understand two possibilities "Are you or are you Not?"---
:)
The definitions of "theist" and "atheist" are constructed to exhaust the possibilities in a binary way. Either you have a god belief, or you don't. Being undecided is still a _lack_ of the active, affirmative step necessary to be a theist.
You may not like this binary definition, and hey: it's just a semantical construction. But they do ask an honest and specific question, and "agnostic" doesn't even answer the same question that was asked.
---unable to decide on the existence of Judeo-Christeo-type God due to lack of evidence ---
Well, yes. But so... do you then have a belief in god then, or not?
(just to ilustrate the point)
---(e) think Buffy is hot, but the show is blah ---
I am totally hooked on the arc and character plots, but the individual shows that carry these plots often suck. The result is that I'm an avid watcher of Tv that I don't much like.
Wow, you sure make a convincing arguement against me. And refuse to answer the question I posed. I am simply floored by your superior... something...
Or maybe you really are accusing me of being ignorant of the meaning of "=", whatever the hell THAT means.
---My view is that the term "god" lacks coherence; it is not well enough defined that one can meaningfully say much about it. In a pluralistic society, the question "Does god exist?" makes no sense without some clarification as to which God the question is about and what its characteristics are alleged to be.---
George H. Smith once imagined this little dialouge:
Person A says "An unie exists"
Person B says "Prove it"
Person A says "it has rained for three days- that is my proof"
Smith notes that most of the blame for this silly conversation should go to Person B: their request for proof was premature. There is no point at all in engaging in a conversation of the empirical existence of an "unie" until it is first defined what the hell and "unie" is.
Such it often is with claims about god. Until it is established what the heck kind of thing we are talking about, any attempt to prove its existence will be nonsensical (indeed, way too many theist/atheist discussions proceed in just this ridiculous manner, and frustrate everyone without anyone quite realizing exactly why). How would we even know if we'd suceeded in demonstrating it's existence when we don't even know the characteristics of the thing we are looking for?!
Now, many theists do give some definition of what their god is, and from there a real discussion can possible ensue. However, there's still often the problem of unintelligible claims and non-cognitive characteristics. According to Smith, peel back enough layers of most god beliefs, and you'll get an admission that the god in question is inherently unknowable to man's reason: and hence non-cognitive.
But note that the original definition of the word includes the idea of "unlawful." This makes things pretty ambiguous, especially because it never specifies WHOSE LAWS. Law itself is a pretty theoretically ambiguous concept.
Of course, even by those standards, the U.S. fits SOME interpretations of terrorism, as we routinely break international law with our actions, most notably the Geneva convention edicts against using the military strategy of attacking civilian targets to pressure civilians into overthrowing their leaders (as we did in Iraq and Kosovo, and, long before the Geneva accords, on a much grander scale in Japan).
But the problem is that unless we make some dispensation for legitimate military action, the "bad" connotation of terrorism will naturally have to be lessened. Certainly, the "terrorism" (by your strict definition) of the U.S. is sometimes justifiable. To say that it is not, simply because the word "terrorism" applies to it, and because "terrorism" has bad connotations (most of which originally came from the idea that it was violent crazy outsider groups), is to play games with semantics.
It can also never be stressed enough that dictionaries report popular usage: words do legitimately change in meaning over time (though it is always healthy to resist these changes in the name of clarity and specificity.
In the case of "atheism," the original meaning should be defended as valid not simply because "that's the derivation of the word!" but because it is the way that the majority of atheists have defined the term, and have defended as the defition over the centuries: over and above the slander of SOME theists (plenty of theists agree with our definition, however).
To note that it is most common to believe does not make belief the "default" position. What makes something an "active" or "passive" position is not the relation to the will of the majority, but rather the type of claim it is.
Atheism (using the so called "weak" definition) is not making any truth claim. Most forms of theism are (but not all forms!).
The fact that there is a lot of social pressure to believe isn't directly relevant to belief: people can easily say they believe and not, or vice-versa. But even to the extent that social pressure makes people conform, it does this by convincing them to _believe_, which is taking an affirmative, active step. That they might be coerced to make this choice (perhaps to make their lives easier) doesn't change the fact that it took an _active_, not passive, step to get there.
I, however, am an atheist in the same sense that a baby is an atheist: neither of us have yet been convinced that there is a god, and so don't believe. In the babies case, this is largely because it doesn't have the capacity to believe much of ANYTHING yet, much less the existence of gods. Taking me as starting as that baby, however, as I grew up, I began to be able to understand claims well enough to consider whether they were convincing or not. But I still never came accross a convincing reason to think a god existed, and that belief was warranted. So, in effect, despite me gaining the _ability_ to understand and believe claims as I grew up, nothing much changed with my actual atheism: I remained an atheist in exactly the same manner I always was.
And I'm very sorry about your sobriety. Damn liquor laws...
Also note that the so-called "weak" definition of atheism _includes_ those that hold the "strong" position. Lack of belief in gods is the broader and more fundamental category.
---Just to be clear, agnostics do NOT believe in gods of any kind. They don't have any beliefs about them whatsoever, because there is no evidence to cause them to even hypothesize such a thing. ---
You're mistaken. Agnostics can be theists, if they want. Most commonly via faith beliefs. Agnosticism reffers to lack of knowledge: not belief. Not all people hold to the moral dictum that truth claims have to be justified to be honest.
---An agnostic or a weak atheist can certainly take the step to say that no way, no how, can the Xtian god or the Muslim god, or any other humanly conceived god exists, because things that physically exist must be logically possible. No human conceived gods fit that criteria. ---
That's a good point. Even strong atheists are only really strong atheists about SOME of the zillions of possible god claims. Almost no one has ever heard ALL of the 2000 or so various god claims made in human history, much less all those possible in human philosophy! For the most part, non-belief is the norm for a given god belief, even among particular theist!
I really like this explanation: out of the 2000 or so gods people have claimed exist, most believe in only 1 of them, and don't believe in 1999 of the others (mostly because they've never even heard of them). Atheists only believe in ONE less god than most theists! Is that really such a big deal?
You violated your own consistency of usage to get the result you wanted!
If gnostic is to knowledge (of god) as agnostic is to no knowledge (of god), then theist is to belief (in god) as atheist is to no belief (in god).
"No belief" is NOT the same thing as "belief IN no god." If a theist is someone that "has a belief," then the strict negation of that someone that "does NOT have a belief": NOT someone who "has a belief in the incorrectness of the theist belief."
The word "atheist" uses it's "a" in the same way as "amoral" and "asymetrical": i.e. meaning "without."
Furthermore, a theist can deny the very existence of their own god: Paul Tillich did exactly this. Many theists deny the existence of other gods. Many people do not beleive in gods that they have never even heard of: like Pales.
So there is nothing about denying the existence of god that is unique to atheism alone.
---it's because Atheism is in itself a belief system.---
I am an atheist. Yet, I _inherently_ need not share any beliefs in common with any other atheist. The only thing that places us in the same category is that we lack what others have: belief in gods. What are you claiming is my "atheist" belief system?
---You specifically belive that there is no god.---
No, I don't. I don't believe THAT there is a god. There's a big difference.
---A lot of people call themselves atheists, when they aren't strictly atheists, for example they'll belive in some 'force' or universal intelligence from which we are all created or something like that. all of which exempts them from true atheism. ---
That depends. "True" atheism simply requires that one NOT be a "true" theist: whatever that is. If you consider belief in an universal intelligence to be theism, then believers in it cannot be atheists. But if you think that a belief in "fate" is not necessarily a form of theism, then such a person is legitimately an atheist.
Atheist does NOT equal "strict materialist." Many atheists believe in ghosts, ESP, and all manner of other non-natural things. They just don't happen to believe in gods.
---I know of some people who don't place emphasis on any religion. But instead define the universe as their god, etc---
Actually, for some, this IS a theist religion: it's called Tolland-esque Pantheism. Basically, the universe is their god. This doesn't mean that they are claiming that the universe is conscious or has a will, or anything like that. They are often strictly empiricists: they'll believe something is true only the basis of evidence. For them, however, existence, as a whole, is their god. If a being named Jehovah existed, then this being would simply be PART of their god. One virtue of this belief system is that they cannot be wrong in their beliefs, since they are subjective and semantically defined. The universe is their god, by definition, no matter WHAT happens to be characteristics of the universe.
Even more interestingly (and this frustrates other theists to no end), this type of theist can legitimately AND intelligibly claim that their god truly is both omniscient (it contains all knowledge) and omnipotent (it contains all power)! Of course, their god also contains all of the bad things as well, but that's life.
---Atheism originally meant denial of theism. ---
Right, which is quite different from "affirmation that no gods exist."
In the end, what we have to deal with are CLAIMS for the existence of gods, not gods themselves.
---When atheists who did not have faith in God appeared in numbers they argued these people deny the existance of God. That claim, like so many other religious claim presupposes the existance of God.---
This was especially important historically in Christianity, because the Bible says that "deep down" everyone knows god exists, so those that claim not to are just liars, or "in denial." The Bible calls unbelievers all sorts of nasty names. In fact, going strictly by dictionaries, "atheist" is still listed as a synonym for "wicked" and "amoral" in many usages.
---The answer to the next question (for me) is usually "I don't know." ---
But no one asked you if you "knew." They asked if you believed. Belief entails a positive commitment. Have you made this affirmative commitment TO believe that god exists? Have you taken that step No? Then you would lack belief, in addition to lacking knowledge.
Personally, I cannot believe in anything unless I have a good reason to (and then, I don't really call it "belief," but rather knowledge, which, being conditional and inferential, seems much more honest anyway).
I missed this on the first pass, but at least the first sentance of the post you responded to is definately NOT a belief or a statement of faith. Saying: "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is not a claim about there being 1000 foot tall purple gorillas or not, it is simply telling you about the person: that they are not a believer in that claim.
I mean, how can a statement "I don't believe in that: I don't have that belief" be itself a statement of belief? Is "not having an apple" just another type of apple?
Right. Atheists can also be religious. Many Buddhists, for isntance, are atheistic (they don't have god beliefs), yet Buddhism is a religion, plain and simple. Atheism itself is no more a positive belief system or a religion than bald is a hair color.
---And to agnostics, it does matter whether God exists or not.... Agnostics have decided that it is not worth pursuing the idea of God after evaluating current evidence for it.---
I think you are adding too much unecessary prejorative meaning to the word. Agnostics may have all sorts of different opinions and reasons for being agnostics, not necessarily limited to or even restricted by what you've written here.
And you're quite right: not all agnostics are "strict" agnostics: claiming that knowledge of god is impossible. This position is the one I find most nonsensical of all, since it claims to know a characteristic (unknowability) of a being which it claims one cannot know the characteristics of!
So, most modern agnostics simply hold the "sorry, I really just dunno" position. Personally, though I pretty much hold this position to (in addition to not believing), I find it sort of silly to give it a specific name. I mean, we're ALL to greater and lesser extents unsure of MANY things. Stating it is almost redundant. So I usually stick to just plain "atheism."
---And in my opinion (which everybody is allowed to disagree with of course), that's the most intellectually honest since it considers the evidence. ---
So can atheism. Atheism reffers to one's lack of belief, while agnosticism refers to one's lack of knowledge. It's important to realize that belief and knowledge are two separate issues, especially because many people are theist agnostics: they believe in god not on any evidence, but on faith. Faith without "proof" is very highly valued for many believers. When you say "I am an agnostic" you don't actually answer the question of "do you believe in god or not." One can still ask you: "yes, I understand that you have no knowledge of god, but do you believe anyway?"
By many definitions of atheist (those used by most atheists themsevles, as opposed to what most theists define us as), this alone would qualify you as an atheist. And atheist simply lacks belief in gods. They don't have to actively run around even thinking about the question. As long as someone is NOT a believer, i.e. they have not taken the step of affirmatively believing in god, then they are without belief, and hence an atheist by the broad definition.
One need NOT take a definite position, however. One might simply say: "I see no reason to think that's true, and so I have no reason to believe it." One can even then go on to point out gaping holes in the claims being made for the gorilla. In the end, the case for the gorillas must lie on the positive evidence FOR their existence, not on disproof of any possiblity of their existence.
This is because it is almost impossible to disprove a negative existensial claim like "1000 foot tall purple gorillas exist" for exactly the reasons you pointed out.
That is why the burden of proof exists: so that making a claim less and less subject to verification doesn't make it more and more true!
So, instead, we ask what reasons there are to believe THAT these gorillas exist. If there are none, or if we reject the reasons as flawed or unconvincing, then belief is not warranted. Hence, legitimate non-belief without making silly presumptuous knowledge claims.
I disagree. These definitions are pretty confusing, and rarely agreed upon, but please note: atheism reffers to belief, and agnosticism reffers to knowledge. These are two different things, and hence, agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale (they don't measure the same things).
Hence, one who is an agnostic can also be either a theist agnostic (admits that they have no knowledge of god's existence, but believe anyway, usually on faith) or an atheist agnostic (one who has neither knowledge nor belief in god/s).
Hence:
theism: belief in gods (for whatever reason)
atheism: no belief in gods ("a" = "without", "theism" = "belief in gods")
agnositicism: no knowledge of gods (its original form, when coined by Huxley, was that that such knowledge is impossible)
The oft forgotten (and more modern category) are the non-cognitivists, whose position is, essentially: "the claims for (this) god are so unintelligible that even if I wanted to "believe" I couldn't, because I have no idea what sort of thing I would even be "believing" in."
Now "atheism," since it has been such a prejorative term, is often a point of contention. Some argue that theist apologists have been so successful in their slander of "atheism" that the term should be abandoned, and non-believers should switch to the term "non-theist" instead. While I prefer keeping the term atheism (without belief), other people rightly disagree. Semantics aren't all THAT important in the end.
But it's worth noting that non-belief in, or even denial of, gods does NOT equal claiming that one knows that no gods exist.
I (as an example), don't believe in gods (am an atheist AND an agnostic, though that definition of it seems redundant to me). The claims I have heard for the existence of gods are unconvincing. Just because theists make them doesn't mean I have to leap out and disproove them, anymore than I can can leap out and disprove that invisible elves control the weather. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. And without good evidence, I am rightly skeptical: for me belief would be DISHONEST.
So, I don't believe, and I am critical of the claims FOR god. That doesn't require me to make counter-claims however. I have no idea what exists or doesn't. I just can't bring myself to believe in things unless I actually have a good reason to think they are true.
This doesn't mean I have any idea why theists do believe: for all I know, they might have good reasons. But all the reasons I have heard are unconvincing at best, unintelligible at times, flatly dishonest at worst. So I remain an atheist.
Inferno had a neat GUI menu option where, if your your click opens a menu, it starts automatically centered on the last command run from that menu. So, if you wanted to repeat an action from that menu, you could just click once, instead of having to mouse through all the options. This feature is a pretty obvious one, and would be great for helping solve this very problem. If only Win2000 or XP bothered allowing users to edit the functioning of the menus...
Oh, we made to say that that was our plan... after the fact.
No, it would not be fair. Afghanistan's legal system is archaic and heavily heavily political. Of course the Taliban doesn't see it that way, in the same way Texas refuses to confront how racist their justice system is.
Don't get taken in overmuch by the actual manuals themselves. Few people think Bin Laden actually has plans to take over America. His major beef is this belief that Americans contaminate everything they touch that is Muslim, and so must be ejected from all Muslim affairs. Ranting on about the evil heathens is more propaganda than a serious plan. He, as well as we, know that his only real power is to sponsor acts of terrorism.
---and I could see that the US people in general know very little about their government's involvement in the rest of the world. Without knowledge, Americans can have no control over that foreign policy. If they knew what their government was really up to they might be able to put a stop to it. ---
That doesn't help, actually, because we COULD have cared about what our government's policies are: we simply choose not to. Again: we judged the efforts of looking into it to be too costly compared to the benefits. This doesn't let us off the hook, however: because we are as responsible for choosing to be ignorant as we are of choosing not to change our own policies.
We are also capitalists: so at least plausibly, the news we see is what we want to hear about. We chose not to hear, and so the media chose not to look into it.