So, if those things didn't exist, and faith was regarded a personal thing, you would be okay with it? Because that would be my ideal world too.

For one, The Brain in a Vat proves that bigotry is not particular to religion.

Since we're talking about definitions, I'll point out that yours is incorrect as well.
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I neither hate nor am intolerant of religious beliefs. Much the opposite, I fully support the right of every individual to believe in anything he chooses to believe in. In fact, I'd ardently defend for your right to do whatever weird rituals your religion prescribes, given that they don't infringe on the rights of others (which unfortunately is often not the case).

I am, however, entitled to my opinion that religion is dopey and stupid.

The word you may be looking for is "disdain" or "contempt".

Oh, it's so nice of you that you would defend my weird delusional rituals-equivalent-of-a-chimpanzee-eating-own-shit that I direct to my invisible-sky-daddie which I worship after rejecting charlie the unicorn god.

Really, I'm touched.

Belief is a binary variable, with true being "I believe" and false being "I disbelieve" or equivalently "I don't believe." It's not a choice between believe, don't believe, and don't care.

It's a choice between "I believe", "I don't believe" and "The question does not apply / cannot be answered due to lack of information". If you want it mathematical terms, the variable is undefined.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to semantically shift the word "atheist" for your own purposes (which I can only imagine are centered around the perhaps unconscious typical reluctance to call one's self an atheist),
[/quote]
You know, I live in a culture where religious people are a minority and where religion has no relevance in everyday life. There is no "typical reluctance" here, since non-religiosity (according to whatever terminology) is the norm.

You seem to be a fundamentalist atheist. While I generally agree more with the atheist worldview than with the theist one, fundamentalism is never a good thing.

In other words, you are taking this waaaaay to seriously.

Anyway, there is nothing good that can come out of this thread, so I'm out of here. I'd be tempted to close it, but since I participated I'll leave that decision to another mod.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311199593' post='4838158']
You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist."

I think you might be misunderstanding the term or maybe interpreting it in a different cultural context.

Theism implies belief in a god, atheism implies disbelief in a god. Most non-religious people here in North-Western Europe (Aardvajk is from the UK) are neither. We're just simply agnostics. We don't know if there is a god or not. Both possibilities are equally probable or improbable. The theism vs atheism axis is not really relevant. The relevant axis is the gnostic vs agnostic, and we are on the latter side - there is no possible way of knowing.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.
[/quote]

I disagree with your definition of atheism. Theism is a claim in a divine being of supernatural power/origin. Atheism simply means "not theism", or a rejection of the claim(s) of theism. It does not mean you know there is no god or gods, or reject the possibility that there may exist a god or gods. Others have (often mistakenly) given the word atheist to mean things that is done not, such as one who worships Satan, or one who denies the existence of a god. Theism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive, as one deals with belief and the other deals with knowledge. So you can be an "agnostic atheist", which is what I consider myself. You could also have an "agnostic theist" which is one who believes in a god, but doesn't claim to know that there is one. And likewise you could have a "gnostic atheist" and a "gnostic theist".

So when you say "I'm not an atheist", I honestly think you're wrong considering everything else you describe about your lack of belief. I'd classify you as an agnostic atheist, the same as myself. Whether you choose to use the word "atheist" or "agnostic" to describe yourself is entirely up to you though. I used to call myself agnostic because I mistakenly thought that an atheist was one who asserted that there was no god, but once I learned what the term actually meant (a rejection of the claim of theism) I found that label to be acceptable and better described my views, so I began using it.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic (or apathetic agnostic as Wikipedia calls it). I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't have enough information to either believe or disbelieve in a god. I will never know (at least not during my lifetime) and as such I really don't care either way.

You don't have to "have enough information" to reject a claim. The default position in this argument is the atheist position. The theist is trying to assert the claim "there is a god". The atheist is not asserting any claim. The burden of proof lies entirely on the person making the claim, not the person rejecting it (apologists often try to place the burden of proof on the unbeliever). However if you begin going around asserting "I know there is no god", then now the burden of proof rightly falls upon you, as you are now making a claim which needs to be backed by evidence and reasoned logic.

As a quick example to illustrate what I said above, lets say I make the following claim: "A city of mermaids called Miir exists deep within the ocean, beyond the depth that humans are able to explore". We'll call people who believe this claim to be "Miirs" and everyone else to be "Amiirs". By default, your position is that of an Amiir, because you can't believe in something that you've never heard about before. After hearing my claim I ask you "Do you believe this to be true?". If you find the claim credible and believe it, you become a Miir. If, however, your answer is anything but yes, then you remain Amiir. It doesn't matter if your answer is "maybe" or "I need evidence to confirm" or "you're spouting some serious BS". All of the people giving those types of responses are Amiir.

Does that make sense? So saying "I don't have enough evidence to believe that there is no god" does not make sense, because no one is (or at least, should be) asking you to prove that something does not exist. How could you even prove that something does not exist (especially something as nebulous as a supernatural deity)?



Okay I probably rambled on about that longer than I should, but I hope that clears up any misconceptions about labeling yourself an atheist, agnostic, theist, or whatever. Finally, this video is one of the best explanations I've ever come across that explains the use of logic, reasoning, and faith when it comes to evaluating claims. I highly recommend that everyone check it out, regardless of your position.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=5wV_REEdvxo

It's a choice between "I believe", "I don't believe" and "The question does not apply / cannot be answered due to lack of information". If you want it mathematical terms, the variable is undefined.

Like I said, this is a bastardization of the meaning of the words.

You know, I live in a culture where religious people are a minority and where religion has no relevance in everyday life. There is no "typical reluctance" here, since non-religiosity (according to whatever terminology) is the norm.

You seem to be a fundamentalist atheist. While I generally agree more with the atheist worldview than with the theist one, fundamentalism is never a good thing.

In other words, you are taking this waaaaay to seriously.

I said "typical reluctance to being called an atheist", not "typical reluctance to being non-religious." You're altering my arguments simply to disagree with me. Admittedly, I don't know where you live, so I don't know whether the reluctance to being called an atheist is typical where you live, but you are at least one person who is reluctant.

Fundamentalism is never a good thing? Is that really your position? So being fundamentally opposed to slavery, as I am, is not a good thing? Or being fundamentally opposed to sexism, or racism, as I am, is not a good thing? Being fundamentally opposed to war is not a good thing? I'm fundamentally opposed to lots of things which I believe have a corrupting influence on society or humanity at large.

You think I'm taking this way too seriously, and I think that the apathy you again rally for is a sad trait.

You think I'm taking this way too seriously, and I think that the apathy you again rally for is a sad trait.

You do need to chill out and not take things so seriously.

It's not atheism I'm against(I used to be one), and I certainly don't believe you are going 'to hell', but your condenceding tone is a bit irritating. You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not. You certainly know too little and been on this planet for too short to say that religion is corrupting human societies. Yes, religions do have stupid things in them, and yes they do dispicable crimes, but so is every man-made system, and religion is man-made. Some atheists just seem to have a superiority complex, and claim everything that has to do with faith in God is a-priori stupid. It's not like that, and verbally ridiculing another man's beliefs doesn't get you anywhere. For practical matters, if you're up against, say, the Pope and his crime of telling people not to use condoms, I will be the first in line to join you, but not with that attitude. In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.

You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.

In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.

You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.
However, I can agree that a person who believes in Flying Spaghetti Monster is the same as believing in Christian God, he just chose differently.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.

There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.

You say as if believing and not believing in god were equally valid positions, when they aren't.
[/quote]

They are.

I'll leave the garbage about FSM unanswered.

It's not atheism I'm against(I used to be one), and I certainly don't believe you are going 'to hell', but your condenceding tone is a bit irritating. You don't know everything, and you certainly don't know if there is actually a Creator or not. You certainly know too little and been on this planet for too short to say that religion is corrupting human societies. Yes, religions do have stupid things in them, and yes they do dispicable crimes, but so is every man-made system, and religion is man-made. Some atheists just seem to have a superiority complex, and claim everything that has to do with faith in God is a-priori stupid. It's not like that, and verbally ridiculing another man's beliefs doesn't get you anywhere. For practical matters, if you're up against, say, the Pope and his crime of telling people not to use condoms, I will be the first in line to join you, but not with that attitude. In short: You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different. Don't forget that.

I'm a person with an opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you're welcome to not ask me about it and not participate in a discussion with me.

You say it's not the case that faith in God is a priori stupid, and I disagree. It's not simply religion I think is stupid, I just dislike ignorance. I think that people who think the Earth is flat in this modern age are stupid. Apparently you'd have me say I respectfully disagree? You'd join me in thinking the Pope's ban of contraceptives is stupid but not in saying so? Do you tip-toe around everyone's feelings at all times?

What you call verbally ridiculing I call giving my opinion. It's not personal. The fact that billions of people think something doesn't disqualify it from being thought of as stupid. Surely there are lots of Christians who think my atheism is stupid, and I don't begrudge them that. I wouldn't cry to them to be nicer to me -- if I felt like arguing a point with them (and if I felt like they were capable of taking part in a rational argument), I might, otherwise I'd let them think whatever they wanted. If I saw a Christian in the street I wouldn't go up to him and start criticizing his beliefs, but if I'm asked my opinion you can be damn sure I'll tell it the way I see it. If he overhears me telling someone else that his beliefs are stupid, I'll invite him to kindly mind his own business. If he calls me stupid, I'll chuckle at the irony.

Why are you so insecure that you can't tolerate my opinion that your beliefs are stupid? I can tolerate your opinion that mine are.

You're not smarter or stupider than the average religious person, you just chose different[/quote]
I disagree, and so does study after study. It's a nice, inclusive opinion -- that everyone is just as smart as everyone else and every worldview is equally valid. It sadly happens to be naive. I see the ignorance in your worldview just as you see the ignorance in the Pope's.

[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311232109' post='4838332']
The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. So unless there's sufficient evidence that there is a creator being, there is not reason to believe there is one.

There is. The physical world exists and has order. Therefore someone made it. YMMV.

[/quote]

I don't even know where to start with how wrong that is. The fact that something exists is no way proof that anyone "made" it, at least not in the intelligent design sense. I'm willing to buy the deist concept of "god" as the laws of physics, but nothing we've seen has provided any proof of a "personal god", whereas we have a smorgasbord of evidence for self-organising systems.