[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

WTF is a Dawkins drone?

It's the atheist version of a Jesus freak.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

To what end?

He's an attention whore and likes the publicity? He makes lots of money? Atheist strikes a chord and gets attention, agnostic doesn't.

Makes sense.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

It's not really worth arguing the point, but to my mind an agnostic is simply one who does not know. That is the proper definition of agnosticism, from a- "not", and "gnosis", "knowledge." Dawkins does not know, therefore he is an agnostic. Call him a hard agnostic, if you must, but until he is prepared to come out and say "There is no God" (a- "not", theos, "God") then he is not, technically, an atheist. Yes, and that applies to tooth fairies and unicorns too because while there are many degrees of uncertainty, there are no degrees of certainty. To say that you are almost certain is to say that you are slightly uncertain. And however miniscule that uncertainty, it's uncertainty, and that makes you agnostic.

Dawkins just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

I've been saying this for >5 years around here, but they don't listen.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I thank you, you've done a very good job of making my point. Which is, the vast majority of "atheists" are clueless. They make claims, but are oblivious to how much faith they're exercising in maintaining them.

Dawkins himself stated that he isn't "100% sure that a deity doesn't exist", but like so many others, he proudly proclaims his "atheism". I imagine it can only be wholesale ignorance. Or, as I've stated before on this forum, these people simply enjoy the shock value:

"I'm an atheist!"
"So, you're saying that it isn't possible for a deity to exist?"
"No."
"Then you're an agnostic."
"I'm an atheist!"
"You just like stirring **** up, don't you?"
"Maybe a little..."
"Thought so."

The fact is, most are simply attention whores who have some (often justified) gripe against organized religion. Personally, if that's what they need to feel special, then more power to them. Just as long as they realize that their belief is an emotional response, the same as any Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc..

You just make **** up as you go don't you?

Atheism is the absence of a belief in god or gods. Absence of a belief is NOT a profession of an absolute disbelief.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or, as I've stated before on this forum, these people simply enjoy the shock value:

"I'm an atheist!"
"So, you're saying that it isn't possible for a deity to exist?"
"No."
"Then you're an agnostic."
"I'm an atheist!"
"You just like stirring **** up, don't you?"
"Maybe a little..."
"Thought so."

Heh. This, more than anything, just illustrates the underlying point: Some people take offence to the word "atheism".

If someone proclaims to be an atheist they are "stirring up ****"?

OK. Whatever.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He's an attention whore and likes the publicity? He makes lots of money? Atheist strikes a chord and gets attention, agnostic doesn't.

Makes sense.

If that's the case, it doesn't bother me whatsoever.

But since you are just making **** up, I'll go with what he says.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's the atheist version of a Jesus freak.

Well, I don't personally know anyone who talks to themselves thinking that Dawkins is listening, do you?

[smacintush]

...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Heh. This, more than anything, just illustrates the underlying point: Some people take offence to the word "atheism".

If someone proclaims to be an atheist they are "stirring up ****"?

OK. Whatever.

Yeah sometimes I forget to follow what my own sig says…

I'M OUT!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Heh. This, more than anything, just illustrates the underlying point: Some people take offence to the word "atheism".

If someone proclaims to be an atheist they are "stirring up ****"?

OK. Whatever.

Oh, you like the attention, and you know that it sparks emotion with quite a few people. Stop deluding yourself.

[- - e r i k - -]

Projecting much? You're the internet troll, so you should know

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You just make **** up as you go don't you?

Atheism is the absence of a belief in god or gods. Absence of a belief is NOT a profession of an absolute disbelief.

There's that emotion I was talking about...

Atheism is the assertion that no God or gods can exist, it is an absolute belief, whether you want to admit it or not.

It exists quite well on it's own without your acknowledgment.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Projecting much? You're the internet troll, so you should know

I guess I was right, you religious types are quite emotionally attached to your beliefs. I guess when Dawkins produces some loaves and fish the cycle will be complete.

[Doofy]

Dawkins?

He's like a really, really crappy rock star. Z-list celeb.

That's why he does what he does. Money, fame, boobies. Militant atheism is all the rage in some circles of British society.

And let's face it - if he didn't do what he did he'd be an obscure uni lecturer on £30k a year with no fame and no boobies.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, I guess he's the Oral Roberts of the militant atheist set.


"Send me $10M or God won't call me home!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, I guess he's the Oral Roberts of the militant atheist set.

I had to look up Oral Roberts, but yep.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I had to look up Oral Roberts, but yep.

I was afraid to Google that.

[Jawbone54]

The reason that atheism is labeled a belief system or set of beliefs by so many of us on the religious side of things is because atheists have kind of banded together, even though there is no official organization or structure for them.

Atheists have been a fairly heavily persecuted lot, especially by people who believe that their attempts to eradicate all public religious displays are an attempt to snuff out religion altogether, but that's beside the point. Since atheists are all labeled as one collective entity, they've begun to develop a cohesiveness and sense of unity against religious types.

Just go visit Digg in any of the stories that concern religion/atheism/science. The atheists make fun of Christians in particular, and Christians respond, there's some name calling, etc. (and yes, I'm aware it goes the other way as well).

Atheists prefer to think of themselves as independent thinkers, but there seems to be a culture that binds them, even if their perspective isn't always the same as others they associate with.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's that emotion I was talking about...

Atheism is the assertion that no God or gods can exist, it is an absolute belief, whether you want to admit it or not.

It exists quite well on it's own without your acknowledgment.

Your insistence that the definition of atheism covers only "hard" atheism (that is, absolute un-belief in God, not simply an intense skepticism of an idea which has no evidence behind it) seems like simply a way to marginalize anyone and everyone who describes themselves as atheist. That's a position that most intelligent people would describe as foolish. How convenient for you! The moment someone declares they are atheist, you can jump in and say "you are irrational because your disbelief in God is just as staunch and unmoving as a Christian's belief in the same!" Then you say that anyone who allows for even a 0.1% chance of God's existence (Dawkins has said that he is 99.9% atheist) is an agnostic and gets lumped in with everyone else who doesn't hold an absolute, 100% belief in either the existence or the non-existence of a deity.

Tell me this - if it requires absolute un-belief to be considered an atheist (by your definition at least), does it also require absolute belief to be considered a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, etc.? Are there really only three categories of belief in the world - atheism, agnosticism, and theism? Is every Christian who is struggling with their faith really an agnostic in your book?

Perhaps it would work better for people like Dawkins and others like him (those who believe pretty strongly that there is no God, but who still leave it open as a scientific possibility, however unlikely it is) to call themselves "nonbelievers" or "non-religious people" instead of atheists, but the fact is the term atheist has become widely used in society and as long as it's what we're stuck with, I think we ought to be allowed some flexibility with the term so it doesn't solely describe the most extreme and irrational portions of the non-religious community. It would be similarly disingenuous for me to attempt to characterize all Christians based on Fred Phelps' hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"I'm an atheist!"
"So, you're saying that it isn't possible for a deity to exist?"
"No."
"Then you're an agnostic."

Nice Chewbacca defense. You're trying to assign a definite position to an answer based on relative certainty. Doesn't work that way. In other words:

"I don't like Brussels sprouts."
"So you're denying that it isn't possible that there might be an alternate dimension where Brussels sprouts taste like strawberries and that you would like them?"
"No."
"Then you like Brussels sprouts."

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Atheists prefer to think of themselves as independent thinkers, but there seems to be a culture that binds them, even if their perspective isn't always the same as others they associate with.

Actually that is untrue. Because non-belief isn't a belief per se it is notoriously HARD to organise atheists in any meaningful way. There is no organisation, no lobby, no church, no leader.

The very fact that Shaddim so dearly WANTS Dawkin's to be the "atheist leader" so he can attack atheists as a group of mindless followers (just like religious people, see?!!!) is more of a symptom of needing to have a solid target. The need to have an enemy is the cornerstone of the immature us vs them mentality that Shaddim is displaying here.

Of course we are talking about a person that likes to join random bar fights here just for the adrenalin rush, so the psychology behind it is rather transparent.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Actually that is untrue. Because non-belief isn't a belief per se it is notoriously HARD to organise atheists in any meaningful way. There is no organisation, no lobby, no church, no leader.

Exactly.

Trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Atheists prefer to think of themselves as independent thinkers, but there seems to be a culture that binds them, even if their perspective isn't always the same as others they associate with.

I'm enjoying reading the defense (which they claim isn't a defense) of their belief (which isn't a belief).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Actually that is untrue. Because non-belief isn't a belief per se it is notoriously HARD to organise atheists in any meaningful way. There is no organisation, no lobby, no church, no leader.

The very fact that Shaddim so dearly WANTS Dawkin's to be the "atheist leader" so he can attack atheists as a group of mindless followers (just like religious people, see?!!!) is more of a symptom of needing to have a solid target. The need to have an enemy is the cornerstone of the immature us vs them mentality that Shaddim is displaying here.

Of course we are talking about a person that likes to join random bar fights here just for the adrenalin rush, so the psychology behind it is rather transparent.

I feel like your post agreed with Jawbone more than it disagreed with him. He made no claim towards organization.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I feel like your post agreed with Jawbone more than it disagreed with him. He made no claim towards organization.

You assume that every post needs to be a counter argument.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You assume that every post needs to be a counter argument.

I thought starting your post with "Not true" made it clear enough.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I thought starting your post with "Not true" made it clear enough.

Because I was disagreeing with that one point. What were you talking about again?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Because I was disagreeing with that one point. What were you talking about again?

No idea.

Also, how has this thread stayed in the Lounge? Not that I'm complaining, just curious.

[- - e r i k - -]

I really have no idea either, but it's nice that we can have some exchange of ideas here without being banished to the pw cesspool.

[Tiresias]

I've read The God Delusion and I've watched his documentaries Enemies of Reason and Root of All Evil, so I am aware of what his rationale is on the question of whether he should call himself an atheist or an agnostic. His argument is basically: In my opinion, the possibility that God exists is so absurdly tiny that I prefer the word atheism. In other words, he's such a hard agnostic, he wants to be called an atheist, but he's still an agnostic just the same.

Dawkins' says: "God almost certainly does not exist." Now compare: atheism: the theory that God does not exist; agnosticism: the theory that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. Dawkins book expressly affirms the words of the second definition (in a section on the burden of proof) when he calls the God hypothesis, like Russell's Celestial Teapot, "undisprovable". Ergo, Dawkins is an agnostic.

It's also important to remember that the difference between the two has nothing to do with available proof. If it did, we'd all be agnostic because there is no proof. The difference comes down to one's attitude towards the existence of God given the total absence of proof. Theists ignore the lack of evidence and say: I know there is a God. Atheists ignore the lack of evidence and say: I know there is no God. But Agnostics, who are more scientifically-minded, first acknowledge the lack of evidence, and admit, necessarily, that they do not know. And it doesn't matter what gut feeling they have, their agnosticism follows—logically and etymologically—from the admission of lacking ultimate knowledge.

/rant

[Tiresias]

I got so carried away on my rant I forgot to reiterate my point:

I don't think he's trying to be controversial by calling himself an atheist (as has been suggested). I think Dawkins just calls himself an atheist because it's easier than saying, "Well, strictly speaking, I'm an agnostic but... (long spiel on tooth faries, flying spaghetti monsters, and celestial teapots)."

[CharlesS]

But that's just admitting you're human and have limited knowledge. That could be applied to pretty much any position taken on anything - if you assert something and are a reasonable person, you will admit that you aren't 100% sure about it, because there's always a possibility, even if small, that there might be something beyond your understanding fudging with your perceptions. For example, I'm 99.9% sure that the earth is round. I'm aware that there are some scenarios in which I could be wrong about this - there could be some weird quantum-mechanicky principle, as yet unknown, that causes people who go to one edge of a flat earth to magically get transported to the other side without realizing it, and which also messes up pictures of the earth taken from space. The data about the round earth, the pictures from space, etc. could all be forged and fed us by a massive conspiracy that's been operating since the time of the ancient Greeks. The earth might not exist at all, and I might be a mental patient hallucinating the whole thing from a padded cell. However, while these possibilities could conceivably be true, I don't consider them to be of a high enough probability to take seriously, so for all intents and purposes if you had to classify people as round-earthers or flat-earthers, I would fall squarely in the round-earth camp, and would not need a special earth-agnostic label to describe my beliefs in that regard. If we did, we'd pretty much need an "agnostic" label for every possible belief, and everyone who wasn't a narcissist would always be on the same side. The PWL would actually be a much nicer place, because everyone who ever had a single misgiving about his/her party of choice would be labeled as a party-agnostic, and everyone would be in the same camp - voilà, no more partisan bickering. Sadly this isn't the case.

The word "atheist" simply means, according to Merriam-Webster, "one who believes that there is no deity." It doesn't mean, "one who believes that it is 100% impossible for there to even conceivably be a deity, or for there to be any remote possibility that one could ever be wrong." Do you believe in a god/deity/something supernatural? Then you're a theist. Don't believe in any deity? Then you're an atheist. You're also an agnostic, which is why I consider those two words to be pretty much synonymous. You don't have to be 100% on it - you can allow yourself some margin of error. After all, you're human - you're not God. If you believed otherwise, you wouldn't be an atheist.

[Tiresias]

But there is evidence that the world is round. To doubt its roundness, you have to invoke a fancy solipsistic hypothesis. And in that case, it is the solipsistic hypothesis that is undisprovable, not the roundness of the earth.

Your argument is that by my interpretation of the word everyone is agnostic about everything. But that is not the case. What I am saying is that an agnostic is someone who has an admission of uncertainty built into their interpretation of an undisprovable hypothesis.

[Chuckit]

IMO, it's really silly to define "agnostic" such that the average person is "agnostic" on topics such as the existence of the Tooth Fairy. The existence of the Tooth Fairy isn't completely contrary to the known order of the universe, but there's certainly no evidence that one does, and the universe does work exactly how we'd expect if there were no Tooth Fairy, so pretty much everyone feels safe saying they don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

But there is evidence that the world is round. To doubt its roundness, you have to invoke a fancy solipsistic hypothesis.

Or a massive conspiracy theory, or some really bizarre and convenient natural phenomena tricking us into thinking it's round.

And in that case, it is the solipsistic hypothesis that is undisprovable, not the roundness of the earth.

Exactly, but although all those hypotheses are undisprovable, and have no evidence either way, I feel fairly comfortable saying that I don't believe in them, even though I recognize that there's an extremely small possibility that I could be wrong. I don't necessarily need to call myself agnostic about those theories.

If you don't like that example, then go with Chuckit's Tooth Fairy example, which is similar but uses fewer words.

Your argument is that by my interpretation of the word everyone is agnostic about everything. But that is not the case. What I am saying is that an agnostic is someone who has an admission of uncertainty built into their interpretation of an undisprovable hypothesis.

But this applies equally well to the solipsistic hypothesis, the conspiracy theory, etc. They're all equally undisprovable, and I admitted a small amount of uncertainty into my disbelief of those hypotheses, yet I feel comfortable calling myself a disbeliever in those hypotheses. How is this situation any different?

To turn things around a bit, you could take a similar hard-line, absolutist stance with the word "agnostic". The OS X dictionary app defines the word as: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." So to absolutely fit this description perfectly, you'd have to have absolutely no leanings either way. If you were 50% on the existence of a deity you'd qualify, but if you were 49% or 51% you wouldn't. The conversation would go like this:

"I'm an agnostic!"
"So you're saying that you don't have any faith or disbelief?"
"Well, I think there probably isn't a deity, although I accept the possibility that there could be one."
"Then you're an atheist."
"I'm an atheist!"
"So, you're saying that it isn't possible for a deity to exist?"
"Well, no."
"Then you're an - oh wait, I guess we need some more words. Okay, you're an agnostheist. Or maybe an athegnostic."

[Shaddim]

"Well, I think there probably isn't a deity, although I accept the possibility that there could be one."
"Then you're an atheist."

and right there is the break.

"Well, I think there probably isn't a deity, although I accept the possibility that there could be one" is a perfectly rational agnostic reply, not atheist. To go further and state that there isn't a God is a leap of faith (or wishful thinking).

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Well, I think there probably isn't a deity, although I accept the possibility that there could be one" is a perfectly rational agnostic reply, not atheist.

Not according to the dictionary definition. The statement above is a claim of disbelief, which doesn't work with "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." It does however work with "the belief that there is no God", because nowhere does a belief have to be 100% certain - it just means that's what you believe.

It actually fits the definition of "atheist" better than it does "agnostic." Claiming that it's 100% absolutely impossible for a deity to exist ever sounds more like anti-theism than atheism to me, and isn't necessary just to believe that there is no God. Of course, that's beside the point, which is that this inflexibility in the language is not really very productive, since most real people don't fall neatly into these black-and-white categories.

[Tiresias]

But you do not feel the need to say, "The earth is almost certainly round," because there is proof of its roundness and you accept it. But if I were to ask you, "Do you think the universe is a simulation in a supercomputer?" and if I were careful to add that the supercomputer had designed the simulation so that its artificiality was cognitively-closed to his simulated inhabitants (thus, an undisprovable hypothesis) you would probably say: "I doubt it," or, "It's unlikely," or some other statement with a concession, however small, to uncertainty—and that would make you a computer-simulated-universe agnostic.

I think the definition I offered is a good one: If uncertainty is sufficiently salient in your belief system to be included into your statement of your beliefs, you're agnostic.

Non?

[Tiresias]

Thus (for simplicity's sake):

Q: Do you believe in God?
A1: Yes (Theist)
A2: No (Atheist)
A3a: Um, I'm pretty sure there isn't a God, but I could be wrong, of course. (Agnostic)
A3b: Hm. No one can know for sure. Maybe. (Agnostic)
A3c: Ah, there may be a higher intelligence I guess, but who knows? (Agnostic)
A3d: There is almost certainly no God, but I would not be a scientist if I said that God definitely does not exist, because I simply don't have the evidence in front of me. —Dawkins (Agnostic)

And so on, and so forth. If some kind of "I don't really know" is in your statement, you're an agnostic which means simply a not-knowist.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

But you do not feel the need to say, "The earth is almost certainly round," because there is proof of its roundness and you accept it. But if I were to ask you, "Do you think the universe is a simulation in a supercomputer?" and if I were careful to add that the supercomputer had designed the simulation so that its artificiality was cognitively-closed to his simulated inhabitants (thus, an undisprovable hypothesis) you would probably say: "I doubt it," or, "It's unlikely," or some other statement with a concession, however small, to uncertainty—and that would make you a computer-simulated-universe agnostic.

But if you're a computer-simulated-universe agnostic, you're also a round-earth agnostic, because the computer-simulated-universe would make all the evidence for the round earth bogus. So you can only be 99.9% sure of the round earth, which makes you a round-earth agnostic by your definition.

Everything in science is agnostic by your definition. You're never 100% sure of anything in science. Ever. Everything is falsifiable. So, with a comment like your A3d above, admitting doubt by virtue of being a scientist, you'd have to make pretty much everyone agnostic about everything for you to be able to insist that it can only be called agnostic.

By the way, your A3b and A3c (which say pretty much the same thing, really) are the only ones that actually fit the dictionary definition of agnostic.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Everything in science is agnostic by your definition. You're never 100% sure of anything in science. Ever. Everything is falsifiable.

Yes, ultimately that is what I am saying. It is not possible to know anything with absolute certainty. However, that everything is agnostic does not mean everyone is an agnostic. Like I said, in my humble opinion you are agnostic if the uncertainty is important enough to you to figure in your belief system.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Thus (for simplicity's sake):

Q: Do you believe in God?
A1: Yes (Theist)
A2: No (Atheist)
A3a: Um, I'm pretty sure there isn't a God, but I could be wrong, of course. (Agnostic)
A3b: Hm. No one can know for sure. Maybe. (Agnostic)
A3c: Ah, there may be a higher intelligence I guess, but who knows? (Agnostic)
A3d: There is almost certainly no God, but I would not be a scientist if I said that God definitely does not exist, because I simply don't have the evidence in front of me. —Dawkins (Agnostic)

And so on, and so forth. If some kind of "I don't really know" is in your statement, you're an agnostic which means simply a not-knowist.

So, what do you mean by belief?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Yes, ultimately that is what I am saying. It is not possible to know anything with absolute certainty. However, that everything is agnostic does not mean everyone is an agnostic. Like I said, in my humble opinion you are agnostic if the uncertainty is important enough to you to figure in your belief system.

But you're labeling people whose uncertainty is minuscule, and only mentioned basically for the sake of honesty, as agnostics.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Thus (for simplicity's sake):

Q: Do you believe in God?
A3d: There is almost certainly no God, but I would not be a scientist if I said that God definitely does not exist, because I simply don't have the evidence in front of me. —Dawkins (Agnostic)

That's atheist, not agnostic. You're also confusing relative certainty with belief. As a scientist, he can not rule out all possible solutions because they are not presented to him. That is not agnostic. Again, the subject could have been about Brussels sprouts.

"I don't like Brussels sprouts."
"So you're denying the possibility of there being an alternate dimension where Brussels sprouts taste like strawberries and that you would like them?"
"No."
"Then you like Brussels sprouts."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Everything in science is agnostic by your definition. You're never 100% sure of anything in science. Ever.

If a scientist is being true to themselves, then yes. Faith is often irrational. True atheism isn't very common, it's usually just simple anti-theism or hatred for the Church*.

Personally, I'm 100% certain the Earth is round and 100% certain that there is a "God". Nothing can change that.



(*some of which is quite justified)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

True atheism isn't very common, it's usually just simple anti-theism or hatred for the Church traditional values within the individual's native society.

Fixed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's atheist, not agnostic. You're also confusing relative certainty with belief. As a scientist, he can not rule out all possible solutions because they are not presented to him. That is not agnostic. Again, the subject could have been about Brussels sprouts.

Atheist: I believe that there isn't a God.
Atheist: I don't believe in God.
Agnostic: I'm not sure either way.

There are varying degrees of agnosticism. However, Theism and atheism are absolute values.

[CharlesS]

No, they're not. Don't most theists have a lingering doubt once in a while, even if a small one? Does that make them agnostics too? If someone is 99% sure that there's a God, believes in that God, prays, goes to church, does all the usual things expected of whatever religion he or she practices, then I'd say he or she is pretty much a theist. You'd call him/her an agnostic because of that remaining 1%.

A theist is someone who believes in a deity. An atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. I think we agree on these definitions - the problem seems to be the definition of the word "belief." You are arguing that to "believe" something, you have to be 100% with no doubts. I'd like to see the reasoning that leads to this definition of belief, rather than simply asserting it. The first definition of "believe" in the dictionary, and the one that seems to most support your definition, is "accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of." The first example given by the dictionary here is "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story," which doesn't imply to me an absolute belief that cannot be questioned at all - merely a decision of what one thinks is true based on what one knows. The second definition of "believe," which is even more flexible, is to "hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose." So basically, the definition of a theist/atheist could range anywhere from "one who feels sure there's a deity / there isn't a deity" (which still doesn't necessarily mean 100% sure), and "one who thinks or supposes that there's a deity / that there isn't a deity." Furthermore, in common use, I find that I use the second meaning of "believe" much more frequently - if I post something in a technical thread that I think is right but am not completely sure about, I might write something like, "I believe that <yadda yadda yadda> - correct me if I'm wrong." To my mind, prefixing something with "I believe" makes a less absolute statement than just stating it declaratively as fact. "To the best of my belief" is also common used as a substitute for "as far as I know."

Your turn. Convince me that "to believe" always means to be 100% sure, without ever having any lingering doubts whatsoever, no matter how small, at any point in time.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Faith is often irrational.

Faith is irrational by definition. If it made sense, it wouldn't be faith.

It may be hard for you to understand the concept, since you have an absolute belief in God, but there are some people out there (agnostics by your definition) who generally believe in God but who have had doubts about his existence. Not all agnostics are primarily nonbelievers.

The problem is you are trying to lump everyone who isn't at one extreme or the other into a single gigantic category. I'm not sure "agnostic" is the right way to classify that category, since agnosticism really only covers those who think the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable.

It would help if you could tell us what you'd consider a sub-category for people like Dawkins and many others, who think it's extremely unlikely that God exists but still leave the possibility open because it's not impossible. Isn't there anything more specific than "agnostic," which refers to tons of other people as well, many of whom don't share many beliefs with other "agnostics"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

No, they're not. Don't most theists have a lingering doubt once in a while, even if a small one? Does that make them agnostics too?

Yes, at different points in a believer's life they do have serious doubts and could be considered agnostics. That's why "great faith" is so rare.

Personally, I would put most followers (one way or the other) as "believing" agnostics, most of the time their faith sustains them through their doubts, but often they really aren't sure.


Edit: cleaned up post a bit.