Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
It's silly to blame a deity for natural events, but that is the gimmick. Priests and shamans have forever offered to intercede in return for a handout. We're conditioned to that thinking.
We also have to look at the functioning of the human mind: it seeks out patterns and matches them up. The mind races through myriad combinations and finds the ones that resonate somehow. That causes coincidences to stand out disproportionately. Some accept that as proof of a deity. Again, we're conditioned to that by millennia of priests pulling off miracles in return for collections, by their simplistic use of ghosts and souls to explain how a couple pounds of meat in our heads can hold visions and produce ideas.
We were talking about modern Germany, not today's Germany. Take a look back to WWII. You were the one who used the example of the 30 Year War. That took place during the seventeenth century. I use something that took place during the twentieth century? If you want to see the results of an atheist Government today look at North Korea.
During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All by religious CHRISTIAN regimes!
Where is the body count of atheist regimes in TODAY'S Germany (the Germans have learned their lesson!), today's France, today's England (oh yes, I forgot, there is indeed some religious Islamist body count around), all of today's Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others.
The number of murders prove nothing pro or against the validity ("truth") of an ideology of any regime: Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.
Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the POLITICAL usefulness or danger of an ideology (and that includes religion) as seen by its perpetrators, NOT ITS TRUTH.
Gerry, what it proves is that atheistic regimes have been a lot more brutal in eliminating those that oppose them, so far in history, the bloodiest of all who have been in control of power.
The body count for modern Germany has been the extermination of six million Jewish people in a span of six years. If Hitler had succeeded it would have been far greater.
These mass murders were done on members of their own society. The German concentration camps are evidence to this brutality.
During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All religious regimes!
Where is the body count of atheist regimes in modern Germany, France, England (oh yes, some religious Islamist body count), all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others
The number of murders prove nothing pro or against any regime. The delusion of religion is neither proved nor disproved by murder numbers. Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.
Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the social usefulness or its contrary, not the truth of any religion.
"you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief."
"Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?"
The point is that when an atheist regime comes to power the body count skyrockets, showing just how barbaric and immoral the belief that there is no god can be. The twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date in the history of civilization with between 80-100,000,000 people being murdered by atheist regimes.
how so? Patriarchal caricatures? Your belief in the eternal non-reason seems to have clouded even your sensory perception, maybe even your skill of word choice, let alone your power of deduction ("Maybe that's why she rejected religion").
Funny how those who say "there are no atheists in foxholes" are the same people who say that during the Korean War, we were being shot at from foxholes teeming with "godless communists."
I have a couple of questions for atheists and agnostics (not sure this is the best place, but what the heck).
What social options do we atheists have to take place of church for gatherings/socializing/rearing children? I live in the DC area, and have been looking but have not found anything suitable.
How do you intend to explain religion, etc to your children? How do you explain to them that you are a (once silent) minority in this respect?
What types of (non insulting)responses can one have to "god works in mysterious ways", and "gods will", "thank god xyz is ok after a crash", etc etc?
What do you say when someone sneezes?
How do you responde when someone says "god bless you" after you sneeze? What about bless you?
For ex-believers - Have you told your parents how you feel? (given that they taught you your prior religion to you) How did that go?
How can we promote ourselves as a political force? We are clearly the minority in the US - I hope that one day changes.
Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
~~ didn't think you did. I had seen others comment on that; (figuring this isn't private, thought I'd throw that in :) )
The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.
~~ true enough. I just take "not very likely" to a new level of "not going to happen" :)
You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."
"I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong. "
"I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no."
~~ isn't this near or at the arguement that one cannot prove a negative? (and please, (everyone) don't bother quoting from the bible/koran/etc as an example because one cannot trace todays bible/koran/etc back to the original writers. And, no god did not write the bible)
I don't believe one needs faith in order to fully believe there is no god. Personally, I came to that conclusion by examining what "faith" I had in the religion I was taught as a child, and realizing I was basically talking to myself when praying, that the bible (I was raised prodestant), could not be authenticated (who wrote it and when), that the bible was translated from one language to another over the years and therefore could not be 100% trusted for accuracy, and the basic fact that I was taught a religion that was invented hundreds of years ago, when humans' understanding of the world was all based on myth, religion, etc, and science was but an infant at best, as well as the fact that human's brains were smaller, etc.. I think what people need is basic logic to understand.
For instance, if you were never taught a religion as a child, and as an educated adult were introduced to any of the world's major religions, would you not have instant doubt, given that there is not any shred of proof in any way shape or form that anyones god or gods exist? I think if you look at the god question with a view that has not been tainted by child rearing brainwashing of religious beliefs, one would come to the conclusion that faith is needed to believe in a god. I think the opposite is true as well - those people that have lived only in a religious environment, and were not allowed (etc) to investigate, they would be incapable of using logic/reason to undo their learned religion. Just a thought.
"Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence."
~~ maybe, maybe not. I personally feel that there is a ton of evidence - Darwin's theory of evolution is the most 'proven' theory on earth - more proved than physics, more proved than plumbing, electricity, etc etc. It has been proved for the past, present, and future by virtue of being able to watch in real-time how organisms evolve. Everything that evolution has "proven" goes against all that is religious.
Add to that the feeling one gets when they realize that "I just don't get it" readily translates into "there is nothing to get", and suddenly, all becomes clear to those people.
Part of arguements that I have heard for the existence of god is 'how can so many people be wrong?'. There are tons of examples on how the masses' knowledge is false, but believed anyways.
Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.
You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."
I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong.
I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence.
Thank you Susan Jacoby for being the voice of reason, logic and rationality in this tidal wave of religiosity that is based on superstition, mysticism and blind faith. Your example of the grieving mother more comforted by a naturalist explanation of the loss of her 12 year old son to cancer rather than bewildered by the "God works in strange ways" idiom is an excellent one. Our self determination and self accountability qualities as skeptics prepare us far better to meet life's challenges with greater intelligence, responsibility and morality than any religion could possibly do.
Keep up your fine work as a very important light in the murky world of religionist propaganda.
Stan Friedland
"Freestinker:
Michael in VA,
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open? "
Personally, yes, I would exclude agnostics. The definitions I put up were from www.dictionary.com. (I didn't make them up!).
Like all issues of faith, or lack thereof, its a personal decision - I decided that with my experience in life, having been to church, etc, there is no god. Simple for me.
For me, there is no open part of the question; no doubt in my mind. I don't believe the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes". I don't buy it. While having not served in the forces, but having some near death experiences myself, I didn't suddenly give up my beliefs and start believing in a god. My lack of faith is just as strong, just as valid, as a devote catholics to thier faith. As an aside, this 'foxhole' theory is very insulting to those of us who don't wear the athiest flag lightly. Why on earth would my feelings change about a lack of a god, because I'm facing death? It's not like I'm not aware of my eventual death. What's the difference being closer to death? (I digress).
"Freestinker:
Jihadist,
I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir."
HEAR HEAR!!! Well said!!!
"As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine."
Agree!
My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views."
I cannot agree on this. I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter. Other athiests that I know, facing death, also, did not waver in the face of a life ending. I've proven to myself that my prodestant upbringing was filled with fantasies, falsehoods, and false premises.
The common denominator of the religious and secular atrocities is the "truth" claim of its perpetrators, not the specific philosophy underlying those atrocities, be it Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Pope(s), Ahmadinedjad, King Saul, Atta, every single suicide bomber, Inquisition founder Torquemada - they all "possess" the truth.
On the funny side: Talking about who invented religion, man or god: Do you know the story of the hillbilly who visited a planetarium for the first time? The director asked him, if he liked what he saw. "Yes, it's great, almost unbelievable! Well, somehow I can still understand that scientists find the paths of the planets and even the distance of the stars. But tell me, how come they know their names?
Moderate, your argument rests on secularism being the root cause of those atrocities. I don't believe that's the case with any of them, which is why I find the argument disingenuous. For example, Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941 when it suited his political purpose. However, your point that not all forms of secularism are benign is well taken.
Gerry - interesting logic regarding proof/value of religion based on body count.
Could we include the plague? That was believed by the faithful to be a punishment from God. And belief and faith are all that counts when it comes to religion, right.
Does the comparison of murder numbers prove - or disprove - the existence of god, just simply logically arguing, which you always claim to do on such a high horse?
PRIVER - maybe next year, we can lobby to get Pagans and atheists in the annual "Unity Walk" against religious intolerance that's held the Sunday before sept 11 in Washington.
"Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous,..."
I don't. Because they are.
"...and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument."
Sorry it is irritating. But Apples are Apples, Oranges are Oranges, and Murder is Murder. There is no shortage of "supposed" secular atrocities.
YOUR secularism may be of a progressive and liberal kind. Not all secularists are.
Take Sam Harris who advocates torture one day and dumps on Mother Teresa the next for one example.
Or Richard Dawkins who calls religious training "a form of child abuse." Then suggests that the state should intervene to "protect" children from their parents' religious beliefs. Does that smack of compulsory state religion to you? It does to me.
So the brown spots are already on the your banana if this represents your secularism. Rot is not far behind. We know where this self righteous kind of secularism goes.
I will stipulate that you may be better than these kinds, but take a look a the dark side or your own camp an you may get some context to work from.
The religionists are not all bad, and the secularists and Atheists are not all good. To say only your group has the literal truth, and no other ideas should be allow into the public square is to be a fundamentalist.
Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
I'll weigh in. I wasn't "converted" and I don't know any atheist that was. To paraphrase something I read on On Faith: Through many years of Catholic schooling I failed to understand why I couldn't 'get it'. Then I realized there was nothing to get :-(
Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."
-- Are you suggesting our efforts are futile? ;)
Whey are we here? Because we're here.
We're here to disrupt the complacent comfort of the homogeneous community. You cannot show light without the dark, to quote an old PBS painter. Contrast has a way of creating an edginess that is necessary in our discourse. John Stuart Mill was very clear on the need arguing the counter-perspective, even if no one believed it.
The specter of doubt was raised in me at age 12 by myself. Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan finished the job by age 16. So yes, I was "converted" by atheists in a way. But no, I have never converted anyone, and no, it is not my intent to ever do so. We're here just to let y'all know that the "unity out of many" that we seek is not arrived at by simply casting out the inconvenient fringes on either end of the statistical bell.
My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.
Um.. what?
The short answer is that we don't necessarily like what is happening in America, just like the atheists, and some of us want to be allowed to contribute to the discussion, cause maybe we've got some good ideas too about how to bridge the gaps.
"[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."
So I've formulated the hypothesis that the atheist/agnostics are here simply because they like to argue (i.e. they are not here to preach). I can respect that.
My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.
I caught the Hitchens interview when it was aired live last Sunday. Good stuff, though nothing new for one who has followed the debates on his recent book tour.
There was a fascinating and provocitive interview with Hitchens on C-Span In-Depth this weekend. Worth a look if you haven't seen it before.
"What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect."
Ahhh what I'd give ... for the freedom to pick and choose my beliefs without an objective standard, skepticism be damned!
Moderate, my apologies. I have a bad habit of skimming. It seems we were making similar points. I think I missed the post you were responding to and wasn't getting the whole context.
That said, I think that religion ranks very high on the list of things that can bring out the worst pack animal potential of mankind, in a way that secularism by itself does not. Most religions are tribal systems by design. Mix claims of absolute truth with assertions that unbelievers or adherents to other faiths are inferior, should be converted, are not to be trusted, shouldn't be mixed with, should be killed if they don't submit, and all other such pearls of unwisdom codified in religious doctrines, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous, and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument. The more honest comparison would be not with secularism, but with racism, ethnocentrism, political extremism, nationalism, and so on.
In the context of the current On Faith topic, it wasn't secularism that inspired people to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon. It was religion.
I have used the term "provisional atheist" for myself in the past, just as I am a "provional evolutionist". Since all evidence-based claims to knowledge are subject to revision based on new compelling evidence (which might or might not ever come), the provisional qualifier should not be viewed as a cop-out, just an admission that human knowledge is incomplete.
I suppose a provisional atheist is not that far from an agnostic, although the latter seems to leave the door open much more for god belief, and may view theism and atheism as co-equal possibilities.
I prefer the term naturalist in lieu of atheist, however, because it describes the philosophy I accept, rather than the philosophy I reject.
I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir.
As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine.
My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views.
"But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
No. Those who describe themselves as atheists or agnostics come from a variety of backgrounds, some religious and some not. Nearly all seem to be strongly inclined to evaluate any claim to knowledge based on the evidence that supports that claim (many are scientists, so this comes naturally to them based on their training or some predisposition). In my experience, what they have in common is that they have given the question of god a lot of thought and study and ultimately found it lacking. They may have relied on a Dawkins or Harris to better articulate what they are thinking, but those I know were already there.
However, theists often assume that most if not all atheists are absolute in their denial of the existence of god(s). That’s why they claim such a position requires faith. And it would.
But I agree with you that most atheists consider the existence of god(s) to be highly unlikely but ultimately leave the question still open.
As for Thor, as cool as he seems to be .... I doubt (with a high degree of confidence) that Thor actually exists.
I think we can all take as a given that there are few absolutes in this world, and that using terms like certitude always begs the question. After all, scientists were quite certain that the coelacanth was extinct until one was discovered alive in 1938.
The best we can do is to go with the evidence at hand, and by evidence, I exclude hearsay and eyewitness reports. There's a reason that forensic evidence almost always trumps eyewitness testimony in our courts. There is no such thing as "evidence" for the Bible myths. In fact, archaeology, geology and the other sciences more often put the lie to the Bible, rather than proving its far-fetched tales. Add to that simple and unscientific common sense and the Bible comes out on the short end of the stick.
As rational thinkers, we understand this. The mistake the religionists always seem to make comes in the form of the special pleading they hold for their beliefs. Why, one wonders, do they insist that there is "evidence" for their religious claims when there is as much (or more!) evidence for the existence of Santa Claus? The smart ones dump the evidence claim altogether and go straight for the "faith" card. The ones who are a little less smart throw in the eternal damnation canard to go with the faith card à la Pascal and his Wager.
What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect.
I especially like your point about agnosicism. Many people use the term (incorrectly imo) to mean that the existence of god(s) is knowable but "I myself just don't know".
I think agnosticism means that the question is unknowable and I'm just not comfortable with such certainty about what is or is not ultimately knowable.
I prefer to think of myself as an open-minded or uncertain atheist.
Regarding what you termed, "a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found" for the existence of a god: Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point when he says that while he knows atheists who wish that there might someday be proof that the Biblical god exists, he would be aghast at such evidence. The thought of spending an eternity in mindless servitude and ceaseless praise of such a being sounds to him worse than the alternative of hell. Hitchens cites present-day N Korea an example of life would be like under such a godly dictatorship.
I tend to agree with him, which is why I call myself and anti-theist, rather than an atheist.
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open?
I agree with all your points. For rational thinkers, belief should never equal knowledge. The problem I see with vociferous atheists (including me at times) is the inference of certitude that often comes with passionate statements of disbelief.
What is really meant is: "I won't believe in any god(s) until I see scientific-quality evidence." So there is a presumption of non-existence, and a strong level of disbelief but always a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found.
If the term atheist does not infer absolute certitude, then it's a label that fits me well. If it implies that the question is definitively answered and closed forever then it would not. I could be happy with “agnostic atheist” unless agnostic means that the question is unknow
All Comments (556)
Hello!i have baG with
.vaigra
December 1, 2007 7:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 1, 2007 19:16
Your name is mud
November 30, 2007 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 18:31
Whole nine yards - The
November 30, 2007 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 16:16
Put a damper on
November 30, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 09:32
Put a damper on
November 30, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 09:32
Have a Captain Cook
November 30, 2007 6:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 06:58
Have a Captain Cook
November 30, 2007 6:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 06:58
Keep schtum
November 30, 2007 4:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 04:34
(The) unkindest cut of all
November 30, 2007 4:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 30, 2007 04:32
Tail wagging the dog - The
November 29, 2007 4:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 29, 2007 16:27
The moving finger writes
November 28, 2007 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 23:15
Come on down
November 28, 2007 11:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 23:13
Far be it from me
November 28, 2007 8:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 20:52
New kid on the block
November 28, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 20:48
Arty-farty
November 28, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 15:59
Paint the town red
November 28, 2007 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 15:55
Sleep like a top
November 28, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 28, 2007 13:33
Draw a blank
November 20, 2007 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 11:25
faxless cash advance no fax payday loan The balance of trade
November 20, 2007 2:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 02:36
cash faxing loan no payday Tickle the ivories
November 19, 2007 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 18:06
Nice.
November 14, 2007 4:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 16:33
It's silly to blame a deity for natural events, but that is the gimmick. Priests and shamans have forever offered to intercede in return for a handout. We're conditioned to that thinking.
We also have to look at the functioning of the human mind: it seeks out patterns and matches them up. The mind races through myriad combinations and finds the ones that resonate somehow. That causes coincidences to stand out disproportionately. Some accept that as proof of a deity. Again, we're conditioned to that by millennia of priests pulling off miracles in return for collections, by their simplistic use of ghosts and souls to explain how a couple pounds of meat in our heads can hold visions and produce ideas.
When will we grow up?
September 25, 2007 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 16:45
Hi Gerry,
We were talking about modern Germany, not today's Germany. Take a look back to WWII. You were the one who used the example of the 30 Year War. That took place during the seventeenth century. I use something that took place during the twentieth century? If you want to see the results of an atheist Government today look at North Korea.
September 20, 2007 2:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2007 02:34
To make my last post clearer:
During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All by religious CHRISTIAN regimes!
Where is the body count of atheist regimes in TODAY'S Germany (the Germans have learned their lesson!), today's France, today's England (oh yes, I forgot, there is indeed some religious Islamist body count around), all of today's Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others.
The number of murders prove nothing pro or against the validity ("truth") of an ideology of any regime: Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.
Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the POLITICAL usefulness or danger of an ideology (and that includes religion) as seen by its perpetrators, NOT ITS TRUTH.
September 18, 2007 6:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 18, 2007 06:46
Gerry, what it proves is that atheistic regimes have been a lot more brutal in eliminating those that oppose them, so far in history, the bloodiest of all who have been in control of power.
The body count for modern Germany has been the extermination of six million Jewish people in a span of six years. If Hitler had succeeded it would have been far greater.
These mass murders were done on members of their own society. The German concentration camps are evidence to this brutality.
September 17, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 17, 2007 14:53
During the religious 30 years' war the German population was reduced to less than one third. All religious regimes!
Where is the body count of atheist regimes in modern Germany, France, England (oh yes, some religious Islamist body count), all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, and a lot of others
The number of murders prove nothing pro or against any regime. The delusion of religion is neither proved nor disproved by murder numbers. Peter, this discussion is completely worn out.
Even if murder numbers would prove anything, it would only be the social usefulness or its contrary, not the truth of any religion.
September 17, 2007 3:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 17, 2007 03:55
Notice that Gerry offers the argument that,
"you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief."
"Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?"
The point is that when an atheist regime comes to power the body count skyrockets, showing just how barbaric and immoral the belief that there is no god can be. The twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date in the history of civilization with between 80-100,000,000 people being murdered by atheist regimes.
September 16, 2007 7:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 16, 2007 19:32
Anonymous,
how so? Patriarchal caricatures? Your belief in the eternal non-reason seems to have clouded even your sensory perception, maybe even your skill of word choice, let alone your power of deduction ("Maybe that's why she rejected religion").
September 16, 2007 4:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 16, 2007 04:19
It is interesting that although Ms. Jacoby always claims to be a "free-thinker" her religious paradigms are always strictly patriarchal caricatures.
Maybe that's why she rejected religion.
September 16, 2007 12:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 16, 2007 00:14
Funny how those who say "there are no atheists in foxholes" are the same people who say that during the Korean War, we were being shot at from foxholes teeming with "godless communists."
September 14, 2007 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 14, 2007 14:57
I have a couple of questions for atheists and agnostics (not sure this is the best place, but what the heck).
What social options do we atheists have to take place of church for gatherings/socializing/rearing children? I live in the DC area, and have been looking but have not found anything suitable.
How do you intend to explain religion, etc to your children? How do you explain to them that you are a (once silent) minority in this respect?
What types of (non insulting)responses can one have to "god works in mysterious ways", and "gods will", "thank god xyz is ok after a crash", etc etc?
What do you say when someone sneezes?
How do you responde when someone says "god bless you" after you sneeze? What about bless you?
For ex-believers - Have you told your parents how you feel? (given that they taught you your prior religion to you) How did that go?
How can we promote ourselves as a political force? We are clearly the minority in the US - I hope that one day changes.
Just wondering...
September 13, 2007 3:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 15:32
Freestinker:
Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
~~ didn't think you did. I had seen others comment on that; (figuring this isn't private, thought I'd throw that in :) )
The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.
~~ true enough. I just take "not very likely" to a new level of "not going to happen" :)
You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."
"I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong. "
"I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no."
~~ isn't this near or at the arguement that one cannot prove a negative? (and please, (everyone) don't bother quoting from the bible/koran/etc as an example because one cannot trace todays bible/koran/etc back to the original writers. And, no god did not write the bible)
I don't believe one needs faith in order to fully believe there is no god. Personally, I came to that conclusion by examining what "faith" I had in the religion I was taught as a child, and realizing I was basically talking to myself when praying, that the bible (I was raised prodestant), could not be authenticated (who wrote it and when), that the bible was translated from one language to another over the years and therefore could not be 100% trusted for accuracy, and the basic fact that I was taught a religion that was invented hundreds of years ago, when humans' understanding of the world was all based on myth, religion, etc, and science was but an infant at best, as well as the fact that human's brains were smaller, etc.. I think what people need is basic logic to understand.
For instance, if you were never taught a religion as a child, and as an educated adult were introduced to any of the world's major religions, would you not have instant doubt, given that there is not any shred of proof in any way shape or form that anyones god or gods exist? I think if you look at the god question with a view that has not been tainted by child rearing brainwashing of religious beliefs, one would come to the conclusion that faith is needed to believe in a god. I think the opposite is true as well - those people that have lived only in a religious environment, and were not allowed (etc) to investigate, they would be incapable of using logic/reason to undo their learned religion. Just a thought.
"Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence."
~~ maybe, maybe not. I personally feel that there is a ton of evidence - Darwin's theory of evolution is the most 'proven' theory on earth - more proved than physics, more proved than plumbing, electricity, etc etc. It has been proved for the past, present, and future by virtue of being able to watch in real-time how organisms evolve. Everything that evolution has "proven" goes against all that is religious.
Add to that the feeling one gets when they realize that "I just don't get it" readily translates into "there is nothing to get", and suddenly, all becomes clear to those people.
Part of arguements that I have heard for the existence of god is 'how can so many people be wrong?'. There are tons of examples on how the masses' knowledge is false, but believed anyways.
September 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 13, 2007 15:21
Michael in VA,
Thanks for your answers. I agree with your "no atheists in foxholes" rebuttal and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The only thing that would change my conclusion that god(s) do not exist, would be scientific-quality evidence of some god's existence. Not very likely in my opinion.
You wrote:
"... I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter."
I have very little doubt that god(s) do not exist but I still leave open the very small possibility that I might be wrong.
I say to have zero doubt (as opposed to having almost zero doubt) requires faith because the absence of evidence for god(s) is not evidence for the absence of all god(s). Persuasive, yes. Absolutely conclusive, no.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs (zero doubt vs.very little doubt) but I don't understand how one can completely and absolutely deny the possibility (however minute) without evidence.
September 11, 2007 6:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 18:03
Thank you Susan Jacoby for being the voice of reason, logic and rationality in this tidal wave of religiosity that is based on superstition, mysticism and blind faith. Your example of the grieving mother more comforted by a naturalist explanation of the loss of her 12 year old son to cancer rather than bewildered by the "God works in strange ways" idiom is an excellent one. Our self determination and self accountability qualities as skeptics prepare us far better to meet life's challenges with greater intelligence, responsibility and morality than any religion could possibly do.
Keep up your fine work as a very important light in the murky world of religionist propaganda.
Stan Friedland
September 11, 2007 5:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 17:45
"Freestinker:
Michael in VA,
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open? "
Personally, yes, I would exclude agnostics. The definitions I put up were from www.dictionary.com. (I didn't make them up!).
Like all issues of faith, or lack thereof, its a personal decision - I decided that with my experience in life, having been to church, etc, there is no god. Simple for me.
For me, there is no open part of the question; no doubt in my mind. I don't believe the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes". I don't buy it. While having not served in the forces, but having some near death experiences myself, I didn't suddenly give up my beliefs and start believing in a god. My lack of faith is just as strong, just as valid, as a devote catholics to thier faith. As an aside, this 'foxhole' theory is very insulting to those of us who don't wear the athiest flag lightly. Why on earth would my feelings change about a lack of a god, because I'm facing death? It's not like I'm not aware of my eventual death. What's the difference being closer to death? (I digress).
"Freestinker:
Jihadist,
I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir."
HEAR HEAR!!! Well said!!!
"As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine."
Agree!
My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views."
I cannot agree on this. I personally have zero doubt. While others may think I am wrong, I don't believe I am. I don't believe I will be proven wrong - either in my lifetime, or after I'm dead. I simply have zero doubt on this matter. Other athiests that I know, facing death, also, did not waver in the face of a life ending. I've proven to myself that my prodestant upbringing was filled with fantasies, falsehoods, and false premises.
-A Humble Atheist.
September 11, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 15:26
Mr. Moderate,
The common denominator of the religious and secular atrocities is the "truth" claim of its perpetrators, not the specific philosophy underlying those atrocities, be it Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Pope(s), Ahmadinedjad, King Saul, Atta, every single suicide bomber, Inquisition founder Torquemada - they all "possess" the truth.
On the funny side: Talking about who invented religion, man or god: Do you know the story of the hillbilly who visited a planetarium for the first time? The director asked him, if he liked what he saw. "Yes, it's great, almost unbelievable! Well, somehow I can still understand that scientists find the paths of the planets and even the distance of the stars. But tell me, how come they know their names?
September 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 13:13
Moderate, your argument rests on secularism being the root cause of those atrocities. I don't believe that's the case with any of them, which is why I find the argument disingenuous. For example, Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941 when it suited his political purpose. However, your point that not all forms of secularism are benign is well taken.
For anyone interested, here's an interesting (and far from complete) laundry list of religious atrocities through the ages:
http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
September 11, 2007 11:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 11:52
Gerry:
That was a joke. Levity, even.
All the best.
September 11, 2007 8:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 08:38
Gerry - interesting logic regarding proof/value of religion based on body count.
Could we include the plague? That was believed by the faithful to be a punishment from God. And belief and faith are all that counts when it comes to religion, right.
PRIVER - regarding next years unity walk, keep an eye on http://www.911unitywalk.org/
September 11, 2007 8:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 08:27
Does the comparison of murder numbers prove - or disprove - the existence of god, just simply logically arguing, which you always claim to do on such a high horse?
September 11, 2007 6:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 06:12
The Moderate,
you are so obsessed with murder numbers to prove your belief.
Then, what number of murders would be the minimum from where on you would judge religion as murderous?
September 11, 2007 6:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 06:08
Dear Banana Rama,
Brother Stalin has 100,000,000 motes on his banana. You shall know a thing by its fruit, Bunkey.
And...
My Banana is longer than yours.
September 10, 2007 11:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 23:34
E Fav:
What a cool idea- Count me in! :)
September 10, 2007 11:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 23:29
Banana rama - I like you
ARMINIUS - where are you?
PRIVER - maybe next year, we can lobby to get Pagans and atheists in the annual "Unity Walk" against religious intolerance that's held the Sunday before sept 11 in Washington.
September 10, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 23:07
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's banana, but considerest not the big brown blemish that is in thine own banana?"
September 10, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 22:39
Moderate: Check your own banana ... it's pretty much ready for the compost heap. Of course, it's had more time.
September 10, 2007 9:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 21:39
Dear Chip:
"Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous,..."
I don't. Because they are.
"...and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument."
Sorry it is irritating. But Apples are Apples, Oranges are Oranges, and Murder is Murder. There is no shortage of "supposed" secular atrocities.
YOUR secularism may be of a progressive and liberal kind. Not all secularists are.
Take Sam Harris who advocates torture one day and dumps on Mother Teresa the next for one example.
Or Richard Dawkins who calls religious training "a form of child abuse." Then suggests that the state should intervene to "protect" children from their parents' religious beliefs. Does that smack of compulsory state religion to you? It does to me.
So the brown spots are already on the your banana if this represents your secularism. Rot is not far behind. We know where this self righteous kind of secularism goes.
I will stipulate that you may be better than these kinds, but take a look a the dark side or your own camp an you may get some context to work from.
The religionists are not all bad, and the secularists and Atheists are not all good. To say only your group has the literal truth, and no other ideas should be allow into the public square is to be a fundamentalist.
September 10, 2007 9:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 21:14
Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
I'll weigh in. I wasn't "converted" and I don't know any atheist that was. To paraphrase something I read on On Faith: Through many years of Catholic schooling I failed to understand why I couldn't 'get it'. Then I realized there was nothing to get :-(
September 10, 2007 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 20:54
Archaeopteryx said: "[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."
-- Are you suggesting our efforts are futile? ;)
Whey are we here? Because we're here.
We're here to disrupt the complacent comfort of the homogeneous community. You cannot show light without the dark, to quote an old PBS painter. Contrast has a way of creating an edginess that is necessary in our discourse. John Stuart Mill was very clear on the need arguing the counter-perspective, even if no one believed it.
The specter of doubt was raised in me at age 12 by myself. Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan finished the job by age 16. So yes, I was "converted" by atheists in a way. But no, I have never converted anyone, and no, it is not my intent to ever do so. We're here just to let y'all know that the "unity out of many" that we seek is not arrived at by simply casting out the inconvenient fringes on either end of the statistical bell.
--FIUS
September 10, 2007 8:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 20:17
Archaeopteryx:
My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.
Um.. what?
The short answer is that we don't necessarily like what is happening in America, just like the atheists, and some of us want to be allowed to contribute to the discussion, cause maybe we've got some good ideas too about how to bridge the gaps.
September 10, 2007 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 20:00
"[S]ociological poll....Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
Well, only 2 replies to my query. But based on a nonrandom sampling of 3 atheists/agnostics (myself included), so far the answer is "no."
So I've formulated the hypothesis that the atheist/agnostics are here simply because they like to argue (i.e. they are not here to preach). I can respect that.
My next study: Why are the Pagans here?
Working Hypothesis: They like to hunt Christians for sport.
September 10, 2007 7:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 19:35
Freestinker -
I caught the Hitchens interview when it was aired live last Sunday. Good stuff, though nothing new for one who has followed the debates on his recent book tour.
September 10, 2007 5:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 17:24
Jay S.,
Provisional Atheist ... I like that one too.
September 10, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 17:21
Mr Mark,
There was a fascinating and provocitive interview with Hitchens on C-Span In-Depth this weekend. Worth a look if you haven't seen it before.
"What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect."
Ahhh what I'd give ... for the freedom to pick and choose my beliefs without an objective standard, skepticism be damned!
September 10, 2007 5:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 17:10
Moderate, my apologies. I have a bad habit of skimming. It seems we were making similar points. I think I missed the post you were responding to and wasn't getting the whole context.
That said, I think that religion ranks very high on the list of things that can bring out the worst pack animal potential of mankind, in a way that secularism by itself does not. Most religions are tribal systems by design. Mix claims of absolute truth with assertions that unbelievers or adherents to other faiths are inferior, should be converted, are not to be trusted, shouldn't be mixed with, should be killed if they don't submit, and all other such pearls of unwisdom codified in religious doctrines, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Of course that isn't strictly limited to religious systems but I think comparing them to secularism as if they are equivalent in terms of their potential to incite atrocity is disingenuous, and it irritates me when I see people counter claims of religious atrocities with a laundry list of supposed secular atrocities. It's apples and oranges, and it's a weak argument. The more honest comparison would be not with secularism, but with racism, ethnocentrism, political extremism, nationalism, and so on.
In the context of the current On Faith topic, it wasn't secularism that inspired people to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon. It was religion.
September 10, 2007 4:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 16:11
I have used the term "provisional atheist" for myself in the past, just as I am a "provional evolutionist". Since all evidence-based claims to knowledge are subject to revision based on new compelling evidence (which might or might not ever come), the provisional qualifier should not be viewed as a cop-out, just an admission that human knowledge is incomplete.
I suppose a provisional atheist is not that far from an agnostic, although the latter seems to leave the door open much more for god belief, and may view theism and atheism as co-equal possibilities.
I prefer the term naturalist in lieu of atheist, however, because it describes the philosophy I accept, rather than the philosophy I reject.
September 10, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 15:17
Jihadist,
I think atheists are finally getting the nerve to speak out and having been self or otherwise repressed for so long are just overly excited to speak our minds, especially when we get egged on by the choir.
As long as we are respectful and very clear about our views, we will all get along just fine.
My point here is to suggest that most atheists, no matter how vocal (or "militant" as some have put it) are ultimately skeptics and must therefore admit to some degree of uncertainty in our views.
-A Humble Atheist.
September 10, 2007 2:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:51
"But maybe I'm wrong. So let me start the sociological poll by asking the question: Do you know any atheist who was "converted" by another atheist?"
No. Those who describe themselves as atheists or agnostics come from a variety of backgrounds, some religious and some not. Nearly all seem to be strongly inclined to evaluate any claim to knowledge based on the evidence that supports that claim (many are scientists, so this comes naturally to them based on their training or some predisposition). In my experience, what they have in common is that they have given the question of god a lot of thought and study and ultimately found it lacking. They may have relied on a Dawkins or Harris to better articulate what they are thinking, but those I know were already there.
September 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:48
A Hermit,
Well put and I certainly agree.
However, theists often assume that most if not all atheists are absolute in their denial of the existence of god(s). That’s why they claim such a position requires faith. And it would.
But I agree with you that most atheists consider the existence of god(s) to be highly unlikely but ultimately leave the question still open.
As for Thor, as cool as he seems to be .... I doubt (with a high degree of confidence) that Thor actually exists.
September 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:36
Dear Freestinker -
Re: certitude.
I think we can all take as a given that there are few absolutes in this world, and that using terms like certitude always begs the question. After all, scientists were quite certain that the coelacanth was extinct until one was discovered alive in 1938.
The best we can do is to go with the evidence at hand, and by evidence, I exclude hearsay and eyewitness reports. There's a reason that forensic evidence almost always trumps eyewitness testimony in our courts. There is no such thing as "evidence" for the Bible myths. In fact, archaeology, geology and the other sciences more often put the lie to the Bible, rather than proving its far-fetched tales. Add to that simple and unscientific common sense and the Bible comes out on the short end of the stick.
As rational thinkers, we understand this. The mistake the religionists always seem to make comes in the form of the special pleading they hold for their beliefs. Why, one wonders, do they insist that there is "evidence" for their religious claims when there is as much (or more!) evidence for the existence of Santa Claus? The smart ones dump the evidence claim altogether and go straight for the "faith" card. The ones who are a little less smart throw in the eternal damnation canard to go with the faith card à la Pascal and his Wager.
What never ceases to amaze is that most religionists express such certitude about their beliefs without any evidence at all, while comfortably recognizing the "hearsay" nature of the beliefs of religionists who get their marching orders from a different god/faith/creed/sect.
Heaven help us!
Thanks for the chat.
September 10, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:30
Minimalist,
I share your disposition on the matter.
I especially like your point about agnosicism. Many people use the term (incorrectly imo) to mean that the existence of god(s) is knowable but "I myself just don't know".
I think agnosticism means that the question is unknowable and I'm just not comfortable with such certainty about what is or is not ultimately knowable.
I prefer to think of myself as an open-minded or uncertain atheist.
September 10, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:12
Dear Freestinker -
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding what you termed, "a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found" for the existence of a god: Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point when he says that while he knows atheists who wish that there might someday be proof that the Biblical god exists, he would be aghast at such evidence. The thought of spending an eternity in mindless servitude and ceaseless praise of such a being sounds to him worse than the alternative of hell. Hitchens cites present-day N Korea an example of life would be like under such a godly dictatorship.
I tend to agree with him, which is why I call myself and anti-theist, rather than an atheist.
September 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:04
Arminius,
Yes indeed!
I’m interested in getting a bit more specific with the terms we use here. I think many disagreements here are a result of ambiguous terms/labels.
September 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 14:01
Michael in VA,
So would your definition of atheist exclude agnostics because an atheist infers that the question is knowable by concluding that god(s) do not exist? By your definition, would an atheist leave any part of the question open?
September 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 13:56
Mr Mark,
I agree with all your points. For rational thinkers, belief should never equal knowledge. The problem I see with vociferous atheists (including me at times) is the inference of certitude that often comes with passionate statements of disbelief.
What is really meant is: "I won't believe in any god(s) until I see scientific-quality evidence." So there is a presumption of non-existence, and a strong level of disbelief but always a sliver of doubt left open for the unexpected chance that some evidence could always be found.
If the term atheist does not infer absolute certitude, then it's a label that fits me well. If it implies that the question is definitively answered and closed forever then it would not. I could be happy with “agnostic atheist” unless agnostic means that the question is unknow