Not a Tree
Fishyfishfishyohh, I think you may be misinterpreting my question. Give a gander at this here chart.
◊ In this context, Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christian Gnosticism but 100% truth claims to knowledge. A Gnostic Atheist doesn't claim that God doesn't intervene in worldly affairs like a Deist (Deism is probably closer to Agnostic Theism), they explicitly do not believe a god of any kind exists and claim absolute knowledge to that concept. As an Agnostic Atheist as mentioned elsewhere, a 100% truth claim is foolish in Theism or Atheism because it excludes the possibility for new learning, and is poor thinking for a logical, scientific mind.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
I'd call myself a strong agnostic atheist. We cannot know about gods since they're not interactive with the universe.
And because they apparently don't interact with the universe, their possible existence is utterly irrelevant to us. They could as well not exist.
As to with whom to rather hang out with: That topic seldom comes up in real life. I don't even know the beliefs of all my friends or family. Religious beliefs are like favorite sex positions; a very personal thing you don't discuss with everyone and that has no impact in most friendships anyway.
Not a Tree
Unless, say, you have a friend who you don't know is a Jehovah's Witness, you guys get in a car wreck, and they're lucid enough to refuse it (a leap, I know), or one of the many other sects that foregoes modern medical science for faith healing. That's probably something up for discussion. Personally I don't think anything should be out of the question for discussion as long as people can remain respectful to one another. People can disagree without being disagreeable.
"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
You usually wouldn't know in Europe, unless their family tells the emergency services. We don't have many in those Sects anyway and they're often regarded as strange oddballs, as are the Sects, which are often strange American importsnote .
edited 26th Jun '14 8:13:39 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
where the existence of god is needed to explain any natural phenomenon. The assertion is not so much 100%, as much as it is 0% - "nonexistent until proven otherwise". In this sense, the difference between Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism would be like between "not guilty" and the Scottish "not proven" verdicts. The certainty of the assertion itself is practical, not ideal - as in, "given all the reliably tested information, we can safely live our lives under the assumption there is no god".
Strangely enough, this still doesn't preclude going to church and observing religious holidays and rituals. I've done some considerable research on the confirmed benefits of plenty of ostensibly religious trappings. Thus, while I can practically conclude now that there is no god, I'm just as certain that the forerunners of modern religion had just as many rational reasons to conclude there is. I mean, holy water helps heal the sick. You can't explain that.
edited 26th Jun '14 9:09:42 AM by indiana404
Zzzzzzzzzz
So:
- Gnostic Atheist: I am certain there is no god.
- Agnostic Atheist: I don't know for sure there is no god, but I see sufficient reasons to believe there isn't, and no reason to believe there is.
- Gnostic Theist: I am certain there is a god.
- Agnostic Theist: I don't know for certain there is a god, but I have sufficient reasons to believe there is and no reason to believe there isn't.
Is that it, basically?
edited 26th Jun '14 9:26:56 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Staring At My Own Grave
Also might depend on your definition of the term. I'm certain that far fewer people believe in "an old man in the sky" than half of the Internet would like to crow. (Then again, I am a crazy person who can easily worship *concepts,* so I might not be the best person to ask).
Anyway, one of the bloggers I like to read sometimes addresses the very issue of "no one fully believes and no one fully disbelieves" - at least, it's his claim in the book he's selling. I haven't bought any of his books yet because I'm just not into buying and reading non-fiction, I'd rather get that stuff for free on blogs!
Frank Schaffer - son of a very famous preacher, kind of abandoned the family theology to find himself. Writes a lot. Has cool things to say on blogs.
Bringing him up because I think he recently said the perfect thing the topic of this thread at hand:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2014/06/repentance-backed-up-with-action-can-change-reality/
To quote from the post:
Who cares about labels when someone is slapping you in the face? Who cares about labels when someone is saving you from drowning? - I like that.
In which I attempt to be a writer.
Indiana Solo
That's what it comes down to. Better a moral atheist than devout and an asshole.
I'm baaaaaaack
I reckon the propensity for such labels came from the sola fide doctrine, in that it discounted people's behavior and instead focused on what they "really" believed, as if faith can be measured with a yardstick. In that sense, anyone can be claimed an atheist or a believer, as there's no visible standard by which to ascertain religious adherence. Hence arguments like "you're not really an atheist, because you secretly believe, deep down", or "Catholics aren't real Christians, because they actually worship saints and icons, and that's pagan idolatry".
A nice butterfly
So what am I called if I don't care if there is a god or not?
People will never agree 100% with you. Even your best friend and you will find disagreement in something. As nimial as favorite food or not. It does not mean you can't have fun with this person with whatever other common interests there are.
The issue that bugs me with the initial question of "Atheist or theist" is that it kinda touches on a subtext of morality, and forces people to either attribute "Good" or "Evil" or "Smart" or "Stupid" to the labels of "Atheist" and "Theist". So it basically forces people to label others en masse instead of considering them as.
You know.
People.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
A nice butterfly
Sounds weird.
I'll take it.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Not a Tree
Moving the Goalposts and No True Scotsman gets brought out rather frequently in theological... discussions. Related to the latter in Chapter 1 discussed.
To the second part of the question, that's why I have a problem with Dawkins' scale since the usage of Strong and Weak border on ad-hom and can muddy the waters more than clarify them (might have said that already; don't remember; my body and brain aren't really in tandem atm). However, unfortunate though it may be, categorization and compartmentalization are ways humans make sense of the world around them and the people in it. They are quite helpful in making sense of things—Tropes being an excellent example of this. The problem comes when we don't allow for any bleeding room.
For example, I had a Wicca friend last night ask me if I believed in any supernatural stuff or if I was close-minded or uncomfortable with those sorts of things. after some back and forth I tried to explain to her that it's not as cut and dry as simply either or. I'm skeptical about all things supernatural but I'm not willing to rule them out completely. However, if for the cleansing ritual belief is required, I would be absolutely useless in their endeavors. Even after that she just wanted a compartmentalized yes or no answer and I suggested that I babysit the kids who just celebrated their birthday earlier that day. In the end that worked out for the best. They got to do what they felt they needed to do, and I helped the kids put together their LEG Os and acted like more of a father figure than their actual father, so overall it was a win-win.
Really excellent word I can attribute to probably most of my friends it would seem—and probably most people who call themselves agnostic.
edited 26th Jun '14 2:10:54 PM by chi_mangetsu
"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy
Staring At My Own Grave
What I don't like is the "moral" ascription, as said. "Good/Bad" "Smart/Stupid." We have these cultural memes about that kind of thing that I think "gotta go" because they fail to account for the sheer complexity of people.
I seem to remember Gladstone on Cracked touching on this once - "Things people say that make them feel smart that don't." something like that. They were, as I recall was "Pretending to like Jazz," "Pretending to understand Kafka," "Being a grammar/"actually" Nazi at every turn" and, of course, the first one as "Pretending that being an atheist automatically makes you smart." David Wong touched on the "good" part of it, too, in one of his articles with something along the lines of "Saying that you're better than an entire group of people because Westboro Baptist Church / Stalin / whoever they're vaguely connected to exists means you can sit around and eat Cheetos all day without a kindness to anybody and still be "better."
Basically labels = low standards. You don't have to reach for the high bar if you just compare yourself to others and say "Because I'm in x-group of humans, I'm automatically smarter/better!" That leads to people trying to argue why their deep philosophical positions make them superior while typing like a drunken monkey who just discovered a phone and not feeling the need to articulate themselves to better-written/spoken "peasants." Also leads to the idea that you're better than someone who saves orphans or cured a disease because you gave two dollars to a hobo once five years ago because your "smart" or your "good" counts more because you're "touched by God / not addled by notions of gods."
Even when things seem a little more clear-cut, they might not be. I've known Young Earth Creationists that I would say are very smart. They wind up having a scientifically-unsound position, but most of the ones I've known *seem to know that* and the position is more about a kind of loyalty (to what they think parts of Scripture which they base their entire life-philosophy on in whole) or maybe what their parents have ingrained into them. Most people seem to want to just write them off as "dumb" - when, maybe, just maybe, fellow theists who *accept* evolutionary science do get through to them sometimes, not by arguing science by by arguing for deeper levels to the scriptures. Most people see "YEC" and think "might as well be braindead" without *even considering* their upbringing, where they were raised, or even listening to some of their own reasoning for it. (You can't pick apart someone's reasoning without *listening* to it, first). I think the amount of people, even into "things the world universally think are dumb" - who, themselves, are actually pretty bright and "otherwise smart" would surprise people.
Conversely, I once got into an argument on Huffintion Post years ago with a scientist who claimed to have worked for Clinton over an opinion / non-scientific matter and his full-bore antithiest "anyone who believes in any kind of God in anyway is an idiot who doesn't deserve to live on my planet!" came out and all his replies to me and other commentators who weren't basically worshiping him was like an angry, drunken monkey. He claimed he had no time to spell and grammar check before hitting post, but the fact that he kept replying and that his replies to the people who agreed with him were impeccable tells me he just had a rage-stroke over the fact that people who disagree with him exist. - I don't care what real world cred you have, this "peasant" doesn't respect you if you type like like you're drunk.
In which I attempt to be a writer.
I agree. Lol I know that's short but I really don't have much to add to that. Another thing I say is that if all theists were really stupid assholes then we wouldn't have really gotten as far as we have as a human race. Like for example most American civil rights leaders were devout Christians. I myself am more of an "apatheist", i.e. I don't see religion/lack of religion as being the biggest issue in the world. If we convert everyone to Christianity, bad things will still happen. If everyone is forced to be atheists, bad things will still happen.
This, pretty much.
I don't care if you believe you can treat people like crap because of your interpretation of a god/ess/whatever says so via these manuscripts you keep hitting me over the head with. Nor do I care if you believe you can treat people like crap because you have this data that proves that X kind of people are to be treated like crap because Y reason... and those statistics hurt when you slap me over the head with them like that.
Whatever: you're treating other people like crap. Quit it.
As long as others treat people like people and are honest about treating people well, I don't care what anybody cares to believe or even if they're particularly nice to hang with (but, they probably will be). 
Not a Tree
Of course religiosity cannot determine the goodness of an individual, there is something to be said about the faulty nature of the "God of the Gaps" argument that has historically served as the perimeter of ignorance for even the most intelligent people that have ever lived.
edited 26th Jun '14 3:47:03 PM by chi_mangetsu
"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy
The problem with this stance is that you can only listen to so many variations on the same refrain so many times before you realise that Young Earth Creationist = "might as well be brain-dead" is in fact a perfectly valid conclusion. Even if they are relatively intelligent in other areas of their life, when the topic turns up their brain turns off.
You say that these people are otherwise smart and would surprise us, but that doesn't excuse them holding such ideas, it makes the fact that they hold such views worse. They have willfully and voluntarily discarded (even if only on a temporary and conditional basis) one of the greatest assets that a human being can possess. From the point of view of those who follow a secular, evidence based world view and morality, this is an extremely heinous act which is what causes such scorn and ridicule.
Staring At My Own Grave
I think "God of the Gaps" came up recently over in the Christian Troper Coven. As in "People need to stop using this as an argument because it makes us look stupid."
Believe it or not, not everyone needs to "scientifically prove" that their god / gods is/ are a "real" thing. Some people believe in things as a matter of aesthetics or a philosophical framework.
I was actually going to explore that in a webcomic I started and completely quit after receiving some harsh criticism (over the art style) after sharing it with the Webcomics forum here. I'm trying to figure out how to tell the story in a way that doesn't burn people's eyes. According to the mythology of their setting, people with certain kinds of jobs are barred from Heaven along with the active sinners. One of the characters was *still* going to be devout to the local belief-system despite knowing that under it, he was barred from Heaven just because it provided him a mental framework that he needed - i.e. He wasn't going to care about proving anything to anybody, nor he did he care about his final destination, he just was going to follow it because it helped him to be "good" in a deep, personal way. I was going to explore all kinds of things with my characters, really... Then I got critic-slammed and second-guessed myself.
Got ninja'ed.
YE Cs. I actually haven't known any personally for a while, but you know, the ones that I did know once upon a time could read, do math, held jobs, even held some fairly intelligent philosophical opinions sometimes - they weren't functionally retarded. They were just people who think they needed to "trust God / trust the Bible" and that Science would eventually figure out the truth and line up.
Unfortunately, as Fred Clark of the blog Slacktivist (among others) has pointed out, some of these guys do believe in conspiracy theories - that "the scientific/academic community is out to destroy faith!" Which is not something academia is always quick to remedy, and, well, conspiracy theories. Lots of people get caught up in them. There are otherwise intelligent atheists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that the U.S. Government is hiding the existence of aliens and other such things. There are people of all faiths/non-faith who freak out over vaccines and other things because someone in the media preyed upon their Adult Fear about keeping their children safe.
What I'm saying is that "the part shouldn't ruin the whole." At some point in your life, if you live for any length of time, you are going to meet an intelligent, articulate, good person whose brainpower and worth you do not question whom you find out... believes something you think is silly, maybe even something that makes you headdesk.
- Sigh* - I'm suddenly remembering some online folks I've known via fandom with whom I've had political arguments with because they were Neo-Con / Libertarian. Hell, their political views actually *do* directly harm me - as in, those in power with their views. Yet, I still considered them intelligent people... I just wished they could see the impact on people like me rather than make single-point exception for me because I was their friend.
edited 26th Jun '14 5:01:18 PM by Shadsie
In which I attempt to be a writer.
Maybe a bit of an obvious suggestion, but why not just go with prose? It's not as flashy a medium as comics, but plenty versatile to tell pretty much any story that doesn't rely too heavily on explosions to keep things interesting. Assuming you got the vocabulary, of course.
Staring At My Own Grave
I was going to go that route. Illustrated-story. My problem with making comics is that I'm really not used to comics as a medium. I draw and I write but I always run into disaster when I try to combine the two for some reason. I've never liked any comic I tried for long.
In which I attempt to be a writer.
Zzzzzzzzzz
'''Mod Hat ON
Ok, this thread has gotten way, way, waaaaaaaaaaay offtopic. I'm locking it up because apparently the topic has been exhausted.
It's not about religion in general; you want to talk about that, go to the General Religion, Mythology and Theology thread.
You want to talk about your Work-in-progress? Take it to Writer's Block.
You want to talk about the various flavors of Atheism? Try the Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group.
Mod Hat OFF
edited 26th Jun '14 6:10:11 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I think some atheists dislike the term "agnostic" because it implies an uncertainty in their position far greater that which actually exists.
Yes, we're not certain about the existence or lack thereof of God, but only to the extent that we are uncertain of the non-existence of unicorns or leprechauns or jackalopes.
edited 26th Jun '14 5:43:38 AM by Elfive