A brief conversation

[demiurgent]

A brief conversation with a coworker, fortunately where no students could hear:

Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.

Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.

He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.

Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.

Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.

And that's utter bullshit.

Science is agnostic.

Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."

Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.

Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?

Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.

But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.

And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Comments

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Sadly, most people define agnostic as "waiting for me to present my wonderful argument in favor of my faith, which they will eagerly embrace once they see its perfection".

They also tend to think non-believers (whether atheist or agnostic or whatever) consider the matter to be trivial and will cheerfully make false statements of faith since there's no consequences, right? Caused me some trouble at my sister's wedding, when she didn't take me seriously six months in advance when I said I'd do a reading so long as it wasn't overtly religious...and then assigned me a passage that praised God six or seven times in ten lines. Like, just because I don't think there's a God to punish me for lying doesn't mean I think it's proper to misrepresent myself to all these people who I almost never see, and who therefore wouldn't have any reason to think I was just going through the motions.

[masonk.livejournal.com]

I usually find something else to be smug about.

How is Weds, anyway?

[flemco.livejournal.com]

It's like you tailor made this just to get me arguing.

I feel so bad! I didn't get you anything.

Now, here's where you're completely, incontrovertibly fuckin' wrong:

"Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation."

This is completely incorrect.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of those deities.

Science is not agnostic on this subject. Science states that we search for things that are provable in order to better our understandings of the universe.

Any idea can be considered, but until we have proof positive, it's only an idea at best. If you decide to test your idea as a theory and cannot prove it positive, it's not accepted as true. That's it, that's the whole shebang, fini, the end.

Many people have had ideas about deities since we first lived in caves. None of these ideas have been proven positive, ever. At best, people fall back on a "theory" that requires Negative Proof ("Oh, yeah? Prove there ISN'T a god!") - this is not science any more than me demanding that you disprove that tiny invisible gnomes venture into my ear canals every night and shit earwax into them is science.

Atheism isn't as convoluted as so many people make it out to be. Until I see proof positive that a deity exists, I don't believe in a deity. That's not a religion. That's stating "I'll believe it when you can prove it." You can argue that Atheism is a Belief System, but it's no more a religion than celibacy is a kind of sex.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

The problem is also that no matter what the dictionary may say, Eric's definition of atheism is what most people use (those who don't use "baby-eating Satanist," anyway). Sure, there's a logical difference between "No belief in X" and "Belief in no X", but it's a distinction utterly lost on 99% or more of the population.

I just list myself as a heretic most of the time these days.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I would argue in return that if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Albeit one of firm opinion on some subjects.

Atheism, on the other hand, is an active belief -- and yes, you can render 'a belief against' as 'a disbelief in' just as easily. Atheism is stating, clearly and unequivocally, that there is no God of any kind. That's what it is.

The cardinal difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is the difference between "God doesn't exist" and "Hey, I never met him, and I'm not taking your word for it." One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement of lack of belief.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Then I would submit that Eric and most people are misusing the wrod, just as most Christians misuse their label as well.

The only way this can be corrected is by being an annoying cock and correcting anyone you find misusing the term.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Man, the Dawkins Attack Dogs will be here...

Any...

Second...

Now...

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

*hug* Mr. Burns, that is wonderful. I quit being an Atheist some time around my 17h year of life in a blinding flash of realization that indeed, I was claiming the same degree of a priori knowledge about the universe as my theistic compatriots.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

They beat you by a post.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

I <3 Dawkins when he isn't being batshit insane. So pretty much when he isn't talking about gods or Stephen Gould.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Oh, and!

Science is not agnostic on this subject. Science states that we search for things that are provable in order to better our understandings of the universe.

Science is agnostic on all subjects. The existence of a motive or creative force is just one of them. There has been no evidence to support such a motive force behind creation or the intercession of a divine force in everyday life. All that means is what it says -- it has found no evidence to support that existence. That doesn't mean it therefore posits these things don't exist. Science posits nothing without evidence. It leaves such things to philosophy, which is their natural home.

This is what pisses me off about the folks who use science as the antonym to theology. They confuse the issue and drag the wrong toolset into the debate, and it does nothing but piss people off and make it hard for legitimate science teachers to find employment in Kansas.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the sensitive, considerate icon in use was the give-away there wasn't it?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Whereupon I submit that if 'most people' are misusing the word, then the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

That is, in fact, how language works.

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Admittedly one doesn't have to be a Dawkins fan to be a Dawkins style Atheist.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

The Dawkins side or the Amazing Randi side -- same chorus, different refrain.

Part of the problem, really, is that there is such a prevalence of religion in our society that some of those who take the antithesis position feel they have to fight on all fronts. (Which I don't think Flemco's doing, I would add -- if there's one thing I know about him, it's that he has his own opinions on things. And I'm enjoying the argument).

The existence of Agnosticism -- in effect, the existence of the Undecided in the great referendum of Theism v. Atheism is, to a certain type of Atheist, a dilution of forces. "Don't you see?" they practically scream, "if you don't take a stand with us then you're part of the problem!"

This is also where the scientific conflation thing comes in. By allying themselves with SCIENCE! they're making it Belief V. Reason. Only that's at best muddling the waters, because the debate is now and forever will be philosophical, not scientific. At least, until someone comes up with an honest to God (no pun intended) experimental test that can show evidence for or against.

Of course, on the other side you get the whole "THERE WERE DINOSAURS ON THE ARK! THE EARTH IS THREE THOUSAND YEARS OLD!" crowd. It's not like science doesn't have a place in religious discussion. It's that science's place is to say "you're wrong about this, and you're being childish. Grow up."

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Dude, you're making shit up.

THEIST: One who actively believes in deities and sentient higher powers.

ATHEIST: The "A" at the beginning denotes that an Atheist does not believe the tenets of Theism.

AGNOSTIC: One who believes that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods.

You state: ...if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic.

Again, this is incorrect.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in anything remotely theistic. If I see proof otherwise, yes, I will believe it. I do believe that the existence or non of a deity can be utterly proven - until it is, however, I do not believe in one at all.

The scientific method of stating an Atheist bent would be: There is no proof positive of a deity. This does not give so much as a nod to the possible existence of a deity, any more than lack of belief in ANY unproven concept does so. Examples:

- There is no proof positive that, underneath the antarctic ice, there lies a giant treasure trove of extraterrestrial jellybean farms.
- There is no proof that dreams are actually what happens when your consciousness takes a hike and wanders to an alternate dimension where giant overlord newts sit behind an enormous computer control center.
- There is no proof that the Dinosaurs were fond of a saurian form of gangsta rap, especially the phat rhymes busted by a lone Allosaur under the handle of Grandmasta Auuuuroooorrruuuuuugh.

Under your definition, I am on the fence in how I view these concepts. That's retarded. I do not "give a nod" to any of these ideas. I do not view them as "possible, just unproven." I don't view them at ALL. They have not been proven in any way, and are merely silly things my mind has come up with.

This is, incidentally, why several years ago I finally tipped from Agnostic to straight-up Atheist, mind you: Agnosticism is silly. The idea:

- There is an invisible, unproven and intangible deity that invented the universe.

...Is just as silly as these other ideas.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem, really, is that there is such a prevalence of religion in our society that some of those who take the antithesis position feel they have to fight on all fronts.

It's worth baring in mind that the statement above only holds for a value of the USA. In the UK, it's exactly the opposite way around, and hence us poor, tiny minority who are practicing Christians (I'm, in fact, a lapsed atheist, having spend more of my life actively disbelieving in God than believing in him) have to endure all the abuse that the majority atheists throw from a position of power.

It's not very nice, on the whole.

As Tony Blair said recently, if you admit to believing in God in the UK, people think you're a loony.

[copperhamster.livejournal.com]

Inconceivable!

(sorry... had to say it)

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Neh, I've only read a bit of what he writes. Mostly because it's boring to me - not because he puts his ideas out there in a bland way, but because after two or three paragraphs, I find myself nodding tersely and thinking Yes, yes, I already get it, you're just saying the things I already believe. Then I go fuck off and read a Sue Grafton book.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

I've been espousing this concept here in the states for years.

You goddamned loony.

[adders.livejournal.com]

goddamned loony

Further proof that Americans have no sense of irony... :-)

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Science is agnostic on all subjects.

WHAT? Science is FOUNDED on the search to PROVE OR DISPROVE CONCEPTS.

Penicillin, the electric circuit, skin care, the combustion engine, flight... you're saying that these concepts are "not provable?"

[flemco.livejournal.com]

*eyeroll*

Does your response prove that you failed to find the irony in my final statement?

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Those are all engineering, not science.

[flemco.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I have been decimated!