My problem with it is that that it gives a false sense of validity to religion. I understand why it happens. It happens because we are pattern completion animals and religion has now been around long enough that people use the "argument from antiquity" and think it's necessary to label all aspects of worship, including a lack of. However, I think that it's doing us more harm than good. For instance, in medicine, we have what is supported by science and what isn't. People that don't support evidence based medicine like to use the term "alternative medicine." The day that atheist, agnostic, etc. aren't needed will be a great day. Maybe atheism will be the default position and the religious will call themselves "alternative logic." I don't believe in Astrology. I wonder if there is a special word I must call myself since I don't believe. It's nuts man.
I think all sense of validity of religion is false.. but the labels are useful in getting the point across. Like with alternative medicine.. wouldn't you prefer they use that label so you know to stay away? If they didn't use it, you might give the your time just to find out down the road they're a hack. Personally, I don't like to label myself.. if I could only pick one, it would be a human being. Thing is, the labels are useful. I'm an atheist, an agnostic, an agnostic atheist, a realist, a theorist, and a ton of other labels I could use. It just depends on the current situation and what part of me I am trying to explain deciding what label I use.
Religion is not valid. The problem with applying labels to those that aren't religious is that it gives the false impression that it's valid. I don't think that non religious labels are that useful. People argue about what it really means to be an atheist or an agnostic every day. If atheists and agnostics argue over the labels, do they really mean anything. Look at what you said. You said you are an atheist, agnostic, and an agnostic atheist. That's a little redundant. Also, if you can be both one or neither at different times, what does it really mean? Either your beliefs are ebbing and flowing, the labels don't mean much, or the definitions are ambiguous. My main problem with it though is that we don't come up with terms to call people who don't play golf. We don't come up with terms to call people who don't believe in Bigfoot. It just seems like wasted verbiage that gives a false sense of validity to the claim. The same argument I am presenting I have heard repeated by Christians. After all, if Christianity doesn't exist, why are their names for people that aren't Christian? That's absolutely false logic, but for people that don't utilize logic to begin with, it fools them into thinking that their argument is valid.
We're saying the same thing here.. How so? If anything, it is defining the ideal that one rejects religion.. which would be far from saying that it is valid. It means they all fit.. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God. I am an agnostic because I don't claim to know God is or isn't real. I am an agnostic atheist because I don't believe in God nor do I claim to know God is or isn't real.. and you're right, those labels don't mean much at all. They are used to describe something.. not dictate what that something is. Thing is, if the vast majority of people were golfers and it was a constant in their daily lives.. shaped society even.. there would more than likely be a term for people who didn't golf. Same with bigfoot or anything else. Sadly, the majority is typically the face of what they're the majority of.. and the minority either want to stand out or get singled out by the majority. I see the terms atheist as doing the complete opposite of validating religious claims though.. the only thing that'd validate a religious claim is if they actually validated it. Kind of like that thread about the big bang being proven wrong meaning the God was proven real.. when the only way to prove God is real is by proving God is real.
Once again, I'm not saying it's valid. You even said that we agree. However, creating labels to denote you are not involved with something can give the FALSE impression that it's valid. When someone asks about your belief in god, you can say that you don't believe. You can even explain why you don't believe. If you say that you are an atheist, there are lots of people in the world that don't understand what you mean. Those people might be Christians, other atheists, etc. The terms are a point of confusion. I've tried it both ways. I can tell people that I don't believe that there is evidence that gods exists. I can also tell people that we are aware of the brain biases and the ways that religions are created. They might not like it, but they'll get it and it often opens a door to conversation. If I tell people I'm an atheist, I often have to explain atheism, which I could have explained outright in the first place. Labels can be convenient if everybody knows what you are talking about. If I say I'm a gardener, people get the jest of it. The atheist and agnostic labels don't mean much because they aren't understood by most of the people in the world. If you tell 10 people you are an atheist, you'll get 10 different answers on average, ranging from, "so you worship the devil?" to "you don't believe in anything?" We apply meanings to words, and the atheist and agnostic terms don't mean much.
I never said you said it's valid.. but I still don't see it creating validity, true or false. If you approach someone who believes in God, the belief in God is already valid. If you approach someone who doesn't believe in God, the belief in God is already invalid. Nothing would change with using a label.. but I am wondering if acknowledge would be a better term for your point?
It doesn't create validity. It creates a FALSE sense of validity. It's an illogical argument used in support of religion. I've heard it used by religious people. Also, if I approach someone who doesn't believe in God, the belief in God is already VALID, and not invalid as you stated above. Our argument is a perfect example of why these terms aren't needed. It's a semantic argument. When I can tell someone " We don't have evidence god exists, we know of the brain biases that cause people to create gods, and we can trace the evolution of religion," that carries more weight than "I am an atheist." I also think that it depends on where you live. If I was in Seattle, more people would grasp the concept when I say that I'm an atheist. I live in the bible belt though. When I say I'm an atheist, we never get to talk about religion. We spend the time talking about what it means to be an atheist, which I can completely avoid if I explain my position from the beginning.
That just doesn't compute for me.. lol, cause it wouldn't be valid to them seeing as the obviously don't believe in God. Like I said, acknowledge seems to be a better term. The label of atheist acknowledges that there is belief in God, but far from validates it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The label of atheist acknowledges a belief in god? I'm an atheist, and I don't acknowledge a belief in god. I don't believe at all. I think you are arguing semantics with this. My point is simply this. When I tell people I'm an atheist, I tend to spend my time explaining what it means to be an atheist. When I tell people that I believe in anything supported by evidence and we lack evidence for the existence of gods, they get it really quickly. If a vast majority of people don't know what your label means, then it is more efficient not to use the label.
My sentiments as well. The default state for belief in a god is null. There is no need for labels if the other person/people have no concept of religion. What he was getting at with the whole valid god thing is an old religion vs athiesm argument that depends on the default state for a belief in god to true, an obvious logical fallacy.
What I was getting at? That 'valid' argument comes from a theist, not an atheist. Of course their default is going to that their belief in god is true.. that is common sense. But.. there is a difference between validating and acknowledging. No matter what a theist wants to say about a belief system (lack of) they don't even hold.. atheism in no way shape or form validates the belief in God as true. What it does do is acknowledges that the belief in God exists. It's like if you say you don't believe in Bigfoot.. you're not validating the belief that Bigfoot is real.. but when you say you don't believe in Bigfoot, you're acknowledging that the belief in Bigfoot exists. You have to acknowledge that the belief is there in order to say you don't believe in it. It's kind of mind boggling as to why an atheist would listen to what a theist says about what atheism is. Of course is someone has no knowledge of God or concept of religion, there is no point in telling them you're an atheist.. but people who aren't aware of the belief in God and religion are few and far between.
I think we were talking about different things. Of course saying you are an atheist doesn't validate a belief in god. That's why I kept saying that it's a FALSE validation. I have heard whole churches of people say "If god wasn't real, why would there be a name for unbelievers?" No bullshit. It sucks but it's true. With that in mind, I think that we are smart enough to realize that this is false logic, but if someone is utilizing false logic, it doesn't matter if it's false to them (Dunning Kruger effect). It's still true in their mind. However, I think this whole part of the conversation is a moot point anyway. It's not the root of the issue. My main point is that in my area, the majority of people don't know what it means to be an atheist. It's easier to explain my position than to use the atheist label. I can tell a group of people that I'm an atheist, and it's possible that everyone in the group will come to a different conclusion on my position based on the label. As you stated before, labels help to make classification more efficient. That means that we shouldn't use them when it does the opposite.
When I said the default position is null, I was refering to the default position of humanity. A baby nor young kid has a fundamental belief in god. They have to be taught to believe it. Not specifically to a individuals belief. I do know what you were trying to say and it goes back to the old argument I was mentioning. I use to debate religion all the time, so I've heard almost all of them. The general gist of the argument boils down to "To deny the existence of god, you have to first acknowledge that god exists." which is an obvious logical fallacy. At that point I try to explain that I'm not denying the existence of a god, just their god. As science can't disprove god. That's when I would jump to how it's up to religion to prove the existence of god/gods, and not the other way around. The problem I have with all religions is the presupposition of an entity, or force to begin with. You can't form a conclusion then search for evidence to support your conclusion, logic doesn't work that way. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm getting the feeling that we are on the same page about this. I probably should have made a wiser choice with my words in my first reply.
maybe its cuz i just dabbed some lemon drop, but i find the idea of worshiping "all" religions to be quite freeing from my agnosticism. i find it odd that I hadnt previously considered the concept, but now that I do it makes sense. thank you for expanding my personal spiritual frontier.
That's so weird.. lol, I've never heard that argument before, not even on here. If a theist told me that, I'd look at them like they were even more retarded. I'm usually pretty good at putting myself in other people's shoes.. and I can't even do it with this.. cause like you guys said, it's a fallacy of epic proportions. It's just as silly as it would be if a Christian said that a Muslim's belief in Allah acknowledges their Christian God's existence. I'm a live and let live kind of person.. so when someone has a religious belief, I let them keep it as long as they keep it away from me.. so I have no problem acknowledging they have a belief in their god, sure as shit not going to acknowledge their god's existence though. I'm picking up what you're putting down though.. and I can see why I thought it was weird now.. cause it's a theist argument.
Everyone is an agnostic. Whether they like it or not no one "knows" the truth. A lot of people pretend they do, but then there is a paradox of 1000 people with a 1000 religions all claiming the truth. The only thing that is certain is we become worm food. My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
Sounds like your a Deist, someone who believes in a higher power but doesn't follow any religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism Or maybe an Agnostic Theist as someone else suggested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
Depends on how you define truth. Not one religion has provided sufficient evidence to prove any god/gods exist. If the default position is there is no god then ipso facto there is no god until proven otherwise. I'm an atheist. Not agnostic.
What I meant by everyone is agnostic is that no one knows the truth. I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is a higher power, but the only thing I know for certain is that I don't know anything for certain. I can't look a theist in the face and say there is no god/gods, in the same sense no one can really say they are certain about their religion. There is always the chance you, me, whoever is wrong. So if you believe in something, yet it's false, you are unknowingly an agnostic. My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
This is a common misconception people make towards atheists, thinking we claim to know for fact that there is no god. Most of us do not. Richard Dawkins who would be considered the Atheist pope, had we a dogmatic hierachry in the first place, himself does not claim to know there is no god. He says on a scale from 0-7, where 0 is absolute certainty there is a god and 7 is absolute certainty there isn't, even he is a 6.99. Every atheist I know has no problem with this view. "Then you are agnostic!" No, not quite, unless you assume agnosticism comes with the scale I mentioned above, which most do not. We avoid the label "agnostic" because in general public understanding, it is presented as a 50-50, hard neutral deal. If you are "agnostic" then you can't say there is a god and you can't say there isn't one and an equal likelihood is assumed. Also, a lot of agnostics (not all, certainly not on here) are just lazy thinkers on the subject. "I don't know, so equal, what's for dinner?" This is why we stay away from that term because it tells us (in the case of defined monotheism, which is what the vast majority of mankind follows and acts on) that because we can't disprove their defined god, it means he could very well exist. It furthermore implies that all the things we mock/abhor about holy texts are also true. Heaven and hell await. God is a jealous dude, etc etc... This is how the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in the first place. It is an example of how >anything< can be falsly defended with this reasoning. Because you cannot disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it makes it 50-50 chance that it exists? "Of course not, that is preposterous." Exactly. We apply that same thinking to the creation of the thousands of gods mankind has come up with across the millennia. This is also where the vast majority of theism is self canceling and "Worshipping all religions" is not an option because it is one of the absolute main points of most of them that there is only one god. Their god. Worshipping the others is unacceptable to the point of capital punishment. Religious sects have not been killing each other since the beginning of time for no reason. They are at direct, mortal opposition. We as a species simply seem very prone to creating gods. We did it over and over and over, and most importantly to consider, it did not originate out of something complex and meaningful. The first hominids who could even conceptualize a more complex concept of fear, would consider lightning god, or god's wrath. As a species, we've always feared the unknown, so a fear of death and nothingness has always been present, making any sort of suggestion about an alternative far more appealing. Are people in general more likely to to want to hear the truth or what they want to hear? Are they in general more likely to admit ignorance, than follow a system that lays the blueprint of how everything was created and works at their feet? I'll entertain the idea, notion, or speculation of a god any day. Frankly, I find it interesting to think about it, but anyone claiming certainty about it is off in my book, especially when the poor and uneducated are generally the most religious around the world. According to recorded human history, we are going to outgrow the gods we believe in now and replace them with new ones. Christianity, Islam, Judaism & co will one day become viewed the way Zeus & co are viewed today.