The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Griffin NoName]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your analysis, Swato.  But there it is.

Actually this is brilliant because if we have a fault here, it is that we all tend to agree on everything, therefore the Debating Chamber is almost non-functional.

[Opsa]

Go Toadfish! Yeah!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Again-- nobody does anything because they do not believe in something.    You do not go to meetings because you do not collect stamps.   You do not go get your hair cut, if you are bald.

Atheism is not a belief in gods-- that's it-- a lack of belief in deities/supernatural/life-after-death/etc.

It has no morals.  It has no creed.  There is nothing to believe in.  You don't have to sign a book.  It has no dogma, no moral position.  No code of ethics.  No politics, none of that-- it's simply a lack of faith in the supernatural.

It is the default state of humans-- as you must always be exposed to the idea of supernatural, before you accept the idea-- no exposure, no belief in it-- atheist.

Now.

Some folk do things because they are anti-theist, or because they hate religion(s) or because they are powerful and object to sharing that power with other institutions (including religious ones).   Those are real motives.

But they are not atheist ones.

Again-- nobody has done things in the name of atheism, mainly because "in the name of nothing" makes no real sense.   

So... no, I disagree with your analysis. 

Sure-- if not believing in supernatural woo becomes the majority position?  People will think of something else to use to victimize others-- perhaps left-handed baldies?  (a reference to the obscure novel Bright Suit McBear by L. Neil Smith)

That seems to be the nature of some human groups:  to find ways to make victims of others.   I would hope that one day we humans can invent/develop a culture that would tend to discourage such things.   

But I doubt I'll live to see that, myself.

[Aggie]

I think it's possible to argue that there are plenty of 'evil' things done in the name of secularism. It's not overt atheism that is the issue, it's more a case of what's replacing religious worship for a given individual (even in many of those who profess to practice). If it's the pursuit of money and/or power at any cost, that's a problem. As god steps aside in a secular culture, it becomes somewhat easier into putting more attention into things which are highly culturally relevant, and Western culture today is largely about money and spending it on things to show you have it.

If we were to take a grand survey of what's going on in the world today and over the last century or so, how many of the injustices and how much of the planet-wide degradation in the world has been caused directly by religion or in the name of God, and how much of it is done simply and secularly in the name of the economy or for some company to make a few more million dollars every year?

Lemme see if I remember this correctly... it was the Catholics who invented DDT, right? Mormons singlehandedly caused global warming? Wasn't it Tibetan Buddhists who built the hydrogen bomb?  


No, seriously...  where did our rainforests go?  Is it really true that we cut them down so that we could saw them into planks and sell them? Or burned them to make room for beef cattle to stuff into ground-cow sandwiches? And what the hell happened to all the fish in the ocean? If we have all this technology and are able to maintain a high standard of living because of it, and the whole earth is more or less globalized and able to communicate freely, why are some people living and dying in conditions that are the same as they were a few hundred years ago (except in this age, the local thugs and warlords have guns and bombs, and sex might have a pretty good chance of killing you)?

If these aren't evil acts against humanity and life in general, I don't know what are. It's more horrifying to me that it's being done by people who profess to know better, not in the name of religion but just... well, just because That's The Way It Is. It's especially horrifying to me that I'm one of those people, and so is everyone I know. Some of us try to make small gestures like recycling or driving a car with a smaller engine, which is helpful and needs to be encouraged, but few of us stand up to protest what's happening, and very few are willing to stand by their convictions and practice all of what they preach. I don't have the courage to do the former, but I hope I have the courage to attempt as much as I can of the latter, at some point.

Yes, some bad crap is still being done in the name of religion; the September 11 attacks killed 2,996 people in one terrible day. The automobile in America kills roughly 33,000 - 43,000 people every year, directly (I suppose you could add smog deaths and the like to that figure if you like). Pretty much any time someone identifies an activity as dangerous, I helpfully point out that driving in an automobile is probably statistically far more risky.   How many people are killed in terrorist attacks worldwide compared to industrial accidents and occupational diseases?

How many of us are dying from chronic exposure to chemicals that make things smell nice and that make manufactured food look and taste like the real thing? From poisons applied directly to our food in order to keep other living things from eating some of it?  We laugh at the Romans for sweetening their wine with lead, but let's be clear:

We directly poison our food. Often using classes of compounds historically intended to kill humans. On purpose.

Until recently, we fed ground-up animals to herbivores to make them fatten up faster. I'm pretty sure we still feed chicken feather meal to factory-farmed animals.

Myself, I wrestle with questions about The Great Whatever to help deal with being part of the utterly unskilled job humankind is doing of running our collective crap. Things have been getting crazy; we don't really see that it's crazy, because it's been crazy for a really long time (I doubt there was any time in history, if ever, that things weren't really crazy for humans. Maybe the Stone Age... spear point 'versions' only got released every 10,000 years or so*.  However, I can see how some people just want to grab onto something that seems age-honoured and clear-cut, and take it as absolute. I think part of the relatively recent literalist approach to the Bible is an attempt to keep things as simple and concrete as possible, even if they blatantly contradict all objective evidence. Doesn't work for me, because I like to think, but I can see the attraction. We're all headed for fundamentalism or pharmaceuticals sooner or later, if we don't make a concerted effort to keep our sh&t together. Perhaps that why I'm a little nonplussed by the whole rah-rah aren't we special monkeys? back-patting that comes quite easily from the perspective of the first world.  

Did I mention I'm an optimist?  


*
[youtube=425,350]EZ15vUjgqvw[/youtube]

[Swatopluk]

It can be disputed (and has been for millenia), if non-belief is indeed the default position. There seems to have never been a culture without a belief in some supernatural entity (some African tribes come close though with a firm belief in magic but no gods).
The kind of belief of course differs widely but a total absence seems to only occur when instilled deliberately.
That does not prove any relgious beliefs (as has been wrongly argued in the past) but strongly hints that we are naturally wired to have the pro-verbial god-shaped hole to be filled. To speak in (outdated) computer analogies: It's not just 0 and 1 but 0,1,not-yet-set. The original state is the latter and will usually be filled with either 0 (definitive non-belief) or 1 (religious belief). Absent total amnesia it is an irreversible process. The variable may switch between 1 and 0 but cannot return to the not-set.
As for a difference in anti-theism and atheism, I do no think it works that way. People get persecuted for believing 'wrong'. That can be the 'wrong' god or (in the case of 'proselytizing atheism') any belief in the first place. It is about eradicating the 'false' ideas together with the people that hold them in the name of the 'right' idea. And that 'right' idea can be the conscious belief in the non-existence of the supernatural. No person in the not-set-yet state could (by definition) do that. That's another reason why weak agnostics tend not to organize autodafes.

I smell some connections to the white bear phenomenon/paradox. You cannot be a 'proper' denier without getting the idea that there is something to be denied.
There is another thing at play here: self-definition vs. thirs-party definition. From the former point of view (which I prefer in this case) atheism cannot be the natural state by definition. I can only self-define as atheist when I know what that means but others could do so to me. A child born to a Jewish mother is by third-party definition a Jew independent of the child knowing what a Jew is. It could never self-define as a Jew without being told what that means (the same way it cannot know its name without being told*). Ironically it can also be the other way around. There are self-defined Jews that are not accepted by parts of the Jewish establishment as such because they lack the 'blood connection'**.
I think Bob is the Platonian thinker here while I follow Aristotle (Disclosure: I think both were self-centered bastards. Platon was just the more dangerous one***).

*choosing one again requires the idea that persons have individual names.
**sad example: parents of a child that has turned nazi tell it that it was actually adopted and that his real mother was Jewish. The child commits suicide because now it is by third-party definition Jewish and can therefore not keep up its self-definition as nazi but (due to being a self-define nazi) cannot accept belonging to the other group either. And since it is not a Jew by belief or blood it cannot be part of actual Jewry.
***Unlike Aristotle, a pragmatist at heart, Platon was willing to make his ideas reality without regards for the costs. He also would not let reality get in the way (The facts contradict the theory? The worse for the facts!). Fortunately, he did not get the chance.

[Griffin NoName]

Love that video. First saw it on TV.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Again, you re-define "atheist" to mean something other than what self-professed atheists say it means to them.

And by doing so-- you eliminate most (if not all) of the modern atheists from your scope of atheism.

And I disagree-- the default state is no faith (atheism).   Just because the majority of cultures have theistic facets to their sum-of-ideas, is not evidence that every culture does.  Indeed, in the modern world, there are growing cultures that are putting aside theism in favor of rationalism.  

Antitheism is a position that some take, to be sure-- and that could be seen as a subset of 'atheism' itself, apart from the antitheists who have strong belief (faith) of no deities/supernatural elements (this is not an atheistic position, but a faith-based antitheistic position).   So an antitheist could be an atheist as well, or not.

I disagree with your "not set" idea-- for "not set" is atheist:  no faith/not-set/no beliefs either way in supernatural elements.  And we are all born without faith in anything-- but we do have strong instincts to trust without question what adults tell us (when we are young).

I could say more, but I think we are going round and round fruitlessly.

[Swatopluk]

We went over this several times in the past. There is no common definition of atheism. I can come up with many dictionaries/thesauri/encyclopedias that see it my way and similar numbers that are closer to your position. Many have more than one definition. And I am counting just the serious works here.
As inside any religion (and ideology) you can easily find members that categorically deny that certain other self-professed members actually belong into the group. Strange though it looks, it is easy to find atheists that will tell other people that consider themselves as such that they are actually not. The opposite is rare with religions (Mormons are an exception there): 'You deny belonging to us. But we say you do and we do not care what you think'. I find that actually more common with atheists than the first position ('you do not belong'). The main target  are naturally agnostics that are often insulted as cowards that don't dare tell their true name (i.e. atheist).

Personally I find certain atheists as unpleasant as their religious counterparts anf I find the differences to be often minimal. Even if non-belief is not a religion, some guys do all they can to imitate one (i.e. mimicking the worst traditions). They have no tolerance for the leave-me-alone faction.

I have yet to find a (printed) dictionary with an anti-theism entry btw.

[Aggie]

I disagree with your "not set" idea-- for "not set" is atheist:  no faith/not-set/no beliefs either way in supernatural elements.  And we are all born without faith in anything-- but we do have strong instincts to trust without question what adults tell us (when we are young).

I actually kind of agree with the "not set" idea, based on how we are as young. Children are told by adults that the things they imagine are not real, but if a kid wasn't told that imagination wasn't real, they'd probably enter adulthood with all sorts of very personal beliefs and fantasies.  The reality/fantasy switch has to be thrown at some point, culturally.  I suppose it can be thrown selectively to some degree, but I think this is what also causes cognitive dissonance for many people. Don't believe in fairy tales, except the ones we tell you.

Santa Claus really does not help the Christian faith.  Who comes on Christmas Eve? Santa Claus and the Baby Jesus. So, when Santa Claus turns out to be a fake, what's a kid supposed to think about Jesus?

[Griffin NoName]

..........Children are told by adults that the things they imagine are not real, but if a kid wasn't told that imagination wasn't real, they'd probably enter adulthood with all sorts of very personal beliefs and fantasies. 

Sorry to challenge this but my son, when young, always reassured me that the terrifying stuff I was watching on TV was not real !! 

Santa Claus really does not help the Christian faith.  Who comes on Christmas Eve? Santa Claus and the Baby Jesus. So, when Santa Claus turns out to be a fake, what's a kid supposed to think about Jesus?

Actually, I do think my 4yr old grandson has a pretty good idea of what is real and what is not. However he does seem to believe in Santa, or.....is he just accomodating his parents' fantasy?

What about the Tooth Fairy - 6 to 7 yrs old when she arrives. I don't think any of them really believe in her, but they like the cash, so happy to go along with parents again.

I think we have to look deeper into why a child can be brainwashed into accepting religious belief.

[Aggie]

..........Children are told by adults that the things they imagine are not real, but if a kid wasn't told that imagination wasn't real, they'd probably enter adulthood with all sorts of very personal beliefs and fantasies.  

Sorry to challenge this but my son, when young, always reassured me that the terrifying stuff I was watching on TV was not real !!  

I didn't know Fox News was around then. Where did he pick up that notion? From an adult, assuredly? I could believe that some children can come to this conclusion independently at some stage of their development, but I suspect that very rarely occurs before an adult teaches them to be more critical in their perceptions.  Children are fantastically adept, and while I think most of them can recognize the difference between fantasy and reality without too much prompting, I can't really say that I'm confident they would put aside all of their fantasies if they weren't prompted to do so.  Religion make a nice 'acceptable' fantasy for some of them, but when you overlay a rationalist worldview (that which is real must be factually true) on top of a strictly religious one (this Book is a guide to reality), it's an ideal setup for breeding both poles along the fundamentalism (this Book is factually true) or rejection of religion (this Book is obviously not factually true, and therefore must have no bearing on reality).

Following the path of development that I have, I'm skeptical that children can derive much depth from religious education. It seems like an adult pursuit to me.  If I had children, I would certainly discuss the various ideas of God out there with them, so that they could make up their own minds where they stand, and get them started on some of the basics (tolerance, patience, humility and compassion), but I can't say I'd want them fully indoctrinated into ANY belief system, including my own personal spirituality.  However, childhood could definitely be a very fruitful time for exploring the uses and limitations of self-directed and acknowledged fantasy, and I think children probably have the capacity grok mythos better than rationally-indoctrinated adults.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

We went over this several times in the past. There is no common definition of atheism. I can come up with many dictionaries/thesauri/encyclopedias that see it my way and similar numbers that are closer to your position. Many have more than one definition. And I am counting just the serious works here.
As inside any religion (and ideology) you can easily find members that categorically deny that certain other self-professed members actually belong into the group. Strange though it looks, it is easy to find atheists that will tell other people that consider themselves as such that they are actually not. The opposite is rare with religions (Mormons are an exception there): 'You deny belonging to us. But we say you do and we do not care what you think'. I find that actually more common with atheists than the first position ('you do not belong'). The main target  are naturally agnostics that are often insulted as cowards that don't dare tell their true name (i.e. atheist).

Personally I find certain atheists as unpleasant as their religious counterparts anf I find the differences to be often minimal. Even if non-belief is not a religion, some guys do all they can to imitate one (i.e. mimicking the worst traditions). They have no tolerance for the leave-me-alone faction.

I have yet to find a (printed) dictionary with an anti-theism entry btw.

The thing is?  Where is the magical authority that says dictionaries are the be-all and end-all rulers of what is and what is correct?

Answer:  no where.

A dictionary is simply a collection of opinions of whomever wrote it, as to what is in the common lexicon with regards to a given set of words.   That's it.   As such, all dictionaries are 1) behind the actual language-usage, if said language is still in use, and 2) based on popular usage, not necessarily accurate usage.

So the dictionary argument fails.  Who cares what the opinion of the dictionary editor's are?   Unless you are taking a class or similar, obviously.

If you want to know that a plumber does?  Do you ask his enemies, the hypothetical anti-plumbers, who regard everything plumbing as evil?   Or do you ask the plumber himself?

I am sure you can get lots of "answers" from either group-- but which one do you think would be more accurate, as to what a plumber actually does?

So, too-- to know and understand what an atheist is-- you ask an atheist.  You don't ask a theist, as they are natural enemies of atheists, and will give you a nice straw-man "definition" of what they want the atheist to be.   

Since theism is more popular than atheism, the majority of dictionary definitions are these false, straw-man versions, rejected by pretty much all self-identified atheists.

And that is why the "the dictionary says" is not a valid argument.

Even the most zealous atheists, who's arguments I have followed, do not claim to have faith that no gods of any kind, any where in the universe can possibly exist.   All would agree that there is a possibility, however slight, that somewhere, somewhen, a god (or gods) may or may not exist or have existed or will exist in the undetermined future.  Or at least, (a) being(s) powerful enough to qualify for at least some of the billions of definitions of the word "god".

But according to most of the dictionary definitions?  The majority of atheists are claiming exactly that-- yet I have not encountered a single one (who fits), in all the various readings by atheists.

Even Dawkins admits there my possibly be god(s)-- but reiterates the odds appear to be vanishingly small (but not zero).

So there you go. 

If you want to know what it means to be an atheist, does it not make more sense to actually ask one, than to fabricate an imaginary one to fit a pre-defined term? 

___________________________

As for agnostic? 

That is rather a different thing-- it's not actually a kind of "half-way position" at all-- again, a false theist straw-man.

I could use the dictionary definition here, in a bit of ironic hubris-- but I won't, except to say this:  agnostic, as used by the original inventor of the term, has to do with "to know" and "can not know", and has little to do with faith at all.

So, again according to the original creator of the term (who's name escapes me-- just a sec... okay, it was Thomas Henry Huxley) the opposite of agnostic is gnostic. 

And an agnostic simply states it is impossible to know (or understand--implied) about god(s), whereas the opposite (gnostic) claims that humans can know (about) god(s) (typically through special pleading, special revelations and/or special unique circumstances).

To sum up:  using Huxley's definition of "agnostic" and the majority of self-identified atheists' definition of "atheism", we have:

Atheist/gnostic:  this person believes that you can know for certain that there are no gods. Rare individuals-- I've not discovered any who fits this category.

Atheist/agnostic:  has no faith in gods, and does not believe it is possible to know for certain, across all possibilities, that there are or are not actual deities. The majority of self-identified atheists go here.

Theist/gnostic:  this person believes there is(are) god(s)  and also believes it is possible to know about this(these) being(s), usually through special circumstances.  Most theists fit this category.

Theist/agnostic:  this person believes there is(are) god(s) but does not believe you can know for certain one way or another, but chooses to believe anyway.  Some theists fit this one.

___________________

I have seen bitter arguments and vile invective from atheist-zealots, to be sure-- and they typically use a straw-man definition of "agnostic" when they are criticizing them.  Ironically failing to realize they are also criticizing their own position! 

But that is what people do most often:  criticize others, and fail to apply the same critique to their own preconceived ideas.

___________________

My bottom-line position is this:

People can call themselves whatever they wish-- and I try my best to not presume what they mean, by the various terms they self-identify with.

If a person really does wish to consider their position is somehow 1/2 way between full-on theism and full-on atheism?  I say-- sure!    Go for it, if that satisfies your inner fish.   

And if they wish to call themselves Zoidbergs while doing it?  Again:  go for it!

But I do reject attempts to label me with straw-man definitions of words.   If a person does not understand what I mean?  Ask!  I'm happy to share.

So, according to the above matrix, I'm an agnostic/atheist, in that I freely admit there may well be god(s) somewhere, somewhen, but I doubt it.  And I doubt there is a way to find out, too... at least, not while alive (so far) ....

... meh.

I feel the need to say, here, that the above is using Huxley's definition of "agnostic", together with it's implied opposite, coupled with what appears to be the majority-definition by self-identified atheists for the word "atheist" and it's implied opposite "theist".


Your mileage may vary (as may your definitions of these 4 terms-- feel free).   

'Tis the nature of English, to be fluid in it's many meandering meanings of memes....

[Griffin NoName]

Even Dawkins admits there my possibly be god(s)-- but reiterates the odds appear to be vanishingly small (but not zero).
.........
............
Atheist/gnostic:  this person believes that you can know for certain that there are no gods. Rare individuals-- I've not discovered any who fits this category.

I think Dawkins is just applying a proper scientific approach.

According to your reckoning, I am Atheist/gnostic:  this person believes that you can know for certain that there are no gods. Rare individuals-- I've not discovered any who fits this category.

Since I don't think I am a rare being, I disagree with your definitions. My definition is that anyone who says "can't know for certain" is agnostic not atheist.

I believe there are no Gods. I think they are a poor man's attempt at a) putting up with pain and wretchedness and b)  the opposite - explaining wonderment and joy. I don't see why that is needed so I have no reason to iinvent a concept that to me is meaningless.

[Griffin NoName]

Even Dawkins admits there my possibly be god(s)-- but reiterates the odds appear to be vanishingly small (but not zero).
.........
............
Atheist/gnostic:  this person believes that you can know for certain that there are no gods. Rare individuals-- I've not discovered any who fits this category.

I think Dawkins is just applying a proper scientific approach.

According to your reckoning, I am Atheist/gnostic:  this person believes that you can know for certain that there are no gods. Rare individuals-- I've not discovered any who fits this category.

Since I don't think I am a rare being, I disagree with your definitions. My definition is that anyone who says "can't know for certain" is agnostic not atheist.

I believe there are no Gods. I think they are a poor man's attempt at a) putting up with pain and wretchedness and b)  the opposite - explaining wonderment and joy and c) investing power in an object (eg. rain dances etc).. I don't see why that is needed so I have no reason to iinvent a concept that to me is meaningless.

[Griffin NoName]

..........Children are told by adults that the things they imagine are not real, but if a kid wasn't told that imagination wasn't real, they'd probably enter adulthood with all sorts of very personal beliefs and fantasies.  

Sorry to challenge this but my son, when young, always reassured me that the terrifying stuff I was watching on TV was not real !!  

Where did he pick up that notion? From an adult, assuredly? I could believe that some children can come to this conclusion independently at some stage of their development, but I suspect that very rarely occurs before an adult teaches them to be more critical in their perceptions.  

Have to agree to differ here. I am basing my beliefs on observation of my own children and grandchildren.

My grandson calls his maternal grandmother his real grandma (remember discrepancy, they see her all the time and me once a year), as in when I came on Skype, "can we Skype my real grandma......." - yes it hurt.