A "real" atheist...

[Trakar]

Not at all. If you are referring to what people usually call supernatural (e.g. miracles or clairvoyance), then you are really talking about events/experiences, which are measurable. And if you are talking about something that is truly supernatural, then it doesn't matter since it doesn't have an effect on events/experiences anyway.

Doesn't directly have an effect on events/experiences at the present time.

Distinction Doesn't prevent all interaction.

I personally believe the two are completely distinct (natural/supernatural) at this time. There may be some form of weak or subtle interaction, but nothing I've seen any compelling supporting evidence for,...but my beliefs and considerations are my own.

Regardless, being somewhat logical and rational beings, the mere belief in the supernatural results in an impact on our considerations/perceptions and thus on events and experiences.

We can study two-year-old humans, can't we?

Linda

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

 

[Xulld]

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion states his opinion that a universe with a god would be physically distinguishable from a universe without a god. He sees no indication that we live in that kind of universe, and comes to the firm conclusion that there is no god. Gnostic atheism. Personally, I disagree.

I think that if there is any confusion over the word agnosticism, then you have to look at the word itself. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, in the same way that atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosis is knowledge. For example, we can know that a stone is heavy, or that water flows. Its opposite, agnosis is a lack of knowledge.

Theism/atheism refers to belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can have belief without knowledge.

Well said, belief is not proportional to certainty.

 

[shawmutt]

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

You aren't alone...I'm seeing my sweet kiddo turn into a monster with the approach of his second birthday.

Thanks for the replies folks, as usual, a bounty of food for thought

 

[fls]

Doesn't directly have an effect on events/experiences at the present time.

Does that matter? Natural effects can appear capricious, including an absence of effects "at the present time".

Distinction Doesn't prevent all interaction.

I personally believe the two are completely distinct (natural/supernatural) at this time.

Excellent. Then you can answer my question (I've asked it many times but not yet received an answer). How does one determine whether a particular event/experience is supernatural a priori?

There may be some form of weak or subtle interaction, but nothing I've seen any compelling supporting evidence for,...but my beliefs and considerations are my own.

Regardless, being somewhat logical and rational beings, the mere belief in the supernatural results in an impact on our considerations/perceptions and thus on events and experiences.

I agree. Belief in belief has an impact. It seems to matter not that the entity believed in doesn't exist.

LOL, I personally find that the compound "two-year-old" and "human" seems somewhat oxymoronic most of the time, but again, my beliefs and considerations are my own!

Well, I'm starting to wonder if "sixteen-year-old girl" deserves the same consideration.

Linda

 

[Trakar]

Excellent. Then you can answer my question (I've asked it many times but not yet received an answer). How does one determine whether a particular event/experience is supernatural a priori?

Unless we're talking about the event of ultimate creation, I'd probably vote against supernatural (that distinct and seperate issue).

I agree. Belief in belief has an impact. It seems to matter not that the entity believed in doesn't exist.

I'd prefer "...matters not that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of such an entity..." but thats just me,...and agreed.

Well, I'm starting to wonder if "sixteen-year-old girl" deserves the same consideration.
Linda

Most do, 16-26, the longest decade of my life was my daughter's transition through these ages. Feels like I aged 30 years in that one decade!

 

[godless dave]

My experience with atheists, outside of the internet, is with folks that deny the existence of any deity. It was a dichotomy between atheist and theist. When I got on the internet and started getting into forums, I found atheists with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and the term qualified with words like "weak" and "strong". I was looking around a new site I found, and looked up the words "atheist", and "agnostic".

Here's "atheist": http://www.wordnik.com/words/atheist

vs "agnostic": http://www.wordnik.com/words/agnostic

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic, but for some reason don't want to label themselves agnostic, or want the label of atheist. In fact, in my internet travels I notice most folks would be considered a "weak atheist". I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

To complicate my brain more, I can certainly see how someone can be a "strong atheist" against most religious beliefs. Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic mainly because I recognize our insignificance in the universe.

As with most words, the definition is hard to nail down when you get into specific details.

I deny the existence of all interventionist gods that have been believed in by humans. I am an atheist with respect to those gods. I am an agnostic with respect to non-interventionist creator gods. Since so few people believe in those kinds of gods, I don't see the need to qualify. It suffices to say I am an atheist.

 

[Trakar]

As with most words, the definition is hard to nail down when you get into specific details.

I deny the existence of all interventionist gods that have been believed in by humans. I am an atheist with respect to those gods. I am an agnostic with respect to non-interventionist creator gods. Since so few people believe in those kinds of gods, I don't see the need to qualify. It suffices to say I am an atheist.

Reading a bit between the lines, your position sounds more areligious than atheistic, a position, rather ironically, shared by most of the founders of, or icons at the center of, most modern religions!

 

[Beerina]

If a religious person is trying to corner the agnostic by saying, "See! You don't really know!" she should just say she's an atheist.

That's the only difference the religious care about.



I claim god doesn't exist for the same reason the teapot in orbit doesn't exist. There is, and never was, any reasonable evidence to support the claims, to say nothing about the millenia of coercion, to put it mildly, for those who didn't even go to church regularly much less of another, or no religion.


"We're doing an outcomes analysis of 6 month post-surgical knee replacement. So go ask the guy how he rates pain for various leg extension movements. Oh, by the way, he was threatened with death and beatings regularly whenever he moved his leg. So take that into consideration."

 

[godless dave]

Reading a bit between the lines, your position sounds more areligious than atheistic, a position, rather ironically, shared by most of the founders of, or icons at the center of, most modern religions!

Then I didn't express myself properly. I'm definitely atheistic.

 

[Trakar]

Then I didn't express myself properly. I'm definitely atheistic.

Your expression was clear enough, its the definitions you are employing that I am seeking to clarify.

 

[Robert Oz]

I find myself thinking about these labels quite a bit. It seems impossible and futile to pick one, because 'agnostic', 'atheist' and 'god' mean so many different things to so many different people.

With the definitions given in most discussions on this forum, I would label myself an agnostic atheist, but most people outside skeptical and atheism forums aren't aware of these definitions. Most people outside these forums understand 'atheism' to mean 'positive denial of the existence of gods' and 'agnosticism' to mean 'lack of knowledge of the existence of gods', but as others have mentioned, by calling oneself an agnostic, it seems like you're stuck right in the middle and don't really have an opinion either way, when this is rarely the case.

Thankfully, few people directly ask, 'Are you an atheist?' or 'Are you an agnostic?'. A dialogue is much more efficient at getting to the nut of the question. My personal views are best expressed as follows:

Question: Do you believe in God? (Let's face it, if the question is asked, it is asked in this way).

Answer: Which god?

Question: Any god?

Answer: I don't believe in any god that I am aware of. There is no conceivable reason to take one religion's view over another. So I don't take any. So, the answer would have to be 'no'.

Question: But you believe in 'a' god?

Answer: No.

Question: So then how do you think we got here?

Answer: I don't know. Science has done a good job of tracing our history a very long way back, but we're still not in a position to know if there was an ultimate source or what that source may have been. I don't think it is reasonable to make a leap from this lack of knowledge to any sort of general or specific idea of some all-powerful, supernatural creator.

Question: So, then, you don't know whether there is a god or not?

Answer: No, I don't know and, therefore, I don't believe in one.