Enough said; great last link; thank you

(I know, I know I said, and I do have stuff I need to finish, but - the cat came back...)

Patrick, don't stop talking (unless you're tired and all of course) - this *isn't* easy stuff and and discourse is never tidy in real life. It's harrowing when you delve into it seriously, and for us Catholic toads the harrow has been particularly heavy at late. One reason I recommitted two-three years ago was *because* of the scandals - it seemed important to me to deal with my doubts and agnosticism so that I could be one criticizing *from within*, a loyal opposition, where there seemed a dearth of same - not because outsiders didn't have valid grounds to criticize the coverups, but because it seemed that I might have more leverage from within. Silly hope, I know, but still - technology has changed the world, and when over 120 people have read my Catechism-sourced explanation of why the bishops are being theologically unsound in their defenses of the coverups and moving policies, it's got to have had some effect.

fwiw *I* think you're doing a good job raising questions and examining problems. And by the by, did anyone notice that Nicholas Kristof said *exactly* the same thing today in the NYT? He is often saying things along this line, being scrupulously fair even to those rather aggressive evangelicals that we more ecumenical sorts would prefer to distance ourselves from, in honour of the good works that they do - but I don't know that he's ever been this explicit about stating both the need for respect, the problem of generalized dissing, and the honest objections he has that nonetheless do not prevent him from giving Christianity its due.

More to think about: fact is, it's not just Liberal Christians/Conservative Christians/Liberal Secularists - the spectrum is way wider and more messy and a huge chunk of the population should be classed as Egotists, alignment Cultural, which is to say people who don't think about much except what's on tv tonight and go to church or have a bar Mitzvah because, well, it's traditional, and could be drawn either way - have consciences awakened, or be lulled to support those who claim to be looking out for them.

Those folks will be harmed and offput by Maron's ilk.

Others who will be, are people like me as I was - someone culturally aligned Conservative, but in all points rationally held and examined, a Liberal, but in denial and unaware that there was a place for me as a believer legitimately in the latter alignment, and offput by ignorant and reflexive sneers - I know some here don't like it for being too weak, but NPR was a major factor in my "outing" as liberal, because I had been told it had an anti-Catholic, anti-religious bias by default, being liberal media - and yet, as I listened to the coverage of the scandals locally, the rigor and dispassionate courtesy of the reporting by comparison to other media, made me start to question the blanket assertions of secular bias and to accept that not all criticism was necessarily a mark of bigotry. (Ditto the recent coverage of the southern governor whose failed effort to raise taxes to raise services was inspired by his Gospel reading: admiring and respectful, at least locally, and presented in counterpoint to the judge with the rock.)

--One way to think of it, for those who still have a hard time understanding how we believers feel being indiscriminately* dissed is the way you might feel hearing someone mock all those foolish scifi fans who watch Star Trek all the time and are out of touch with reality &c &c...

*indiscriminately being the operative word: no one who has followed the "heresy" sub-threads can possibly imagine that either Teresa or Patrick don't have a sense of humour about religion, in fact the sense of humour that only those within a group can ever have; I'm just impressed that there are so many people who can make *and* get obscure jokes about obscure heresies in this community, the sort of jokes I'd only expect to hear in a grad school theo program ordinarily. Neil Gaiman quotes from GK Chesterton for very good reasons...

It isn't about making people stop talking and forcing an unmeant politesse - I personally find nothing more loathesome than the Xtians who say, essentially, "yes, I think you're damned for being X, but I won't mention it because it's rude (ie, I don't want to deal with the fallout)" - but about raising consciousness and the level of discourse, and a mindful courtesy that used to be the ideal that all sides held up, conservative and liberal alike, however honoured in the breach. Let us leave mindless mockery to the Coulters and Limbaughs, and keep to target-specific, merited mockery with satiric corrective intent.

"I’m entirely opposed to the kind of hand-wringing calls for cultural and political “civility” that always seem to presuppose that if the rest of us were just nicer to the wingers and fundamentalists, they’d be nice to us right back. No they wouldn’t. We’re clear on that."

Hmmmm...I think you're right on this one...but it reminded me a lot of the response I got to a recent post on anti-American sentiment I wrote lately, which actually got a lot of reaction from my Canadian friends...they argued pretty much along the same lines, that people shouldn't bother to be non-judgmental about Americans, when that's what Americans are with the rest of the world.

Needless to say, I disagree with them profoundly. I don't expect one single person to treat me nicely because I refuse to judge Americans as a people. I agree with you a lot in saying that if we are nice to those who disagree with us, they won't be nicer. So I guess this is just to say that I wouldn't make any claim to political civility based on the consequences of such an action, but on the principle itself ;)

Just a little comment about this side issue you brought up. I think you are pretty much right on concerning the religious issue.

The everythingsruined link is very good and made me pause.
I guess much of the time I fall into the intolerant athiest class. There is a part of my brain that has a hard time considering a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim or Shinto as a rational human being. It is true that the outcome or intent is what's important not how one got there so my intolerance deprives me of many allies.

I just think people ought to be more or less decent to one another, or failing that, entertaining about it. I am by temperament a promoter of coalitions and alliances, and in that persona I wince when I see potential allies grinding their heels into one another’s toes.

Amen! (So to speak.)

Thank you for the link back; I went through and read a lot of stuff. (Because I should be writing, of course, heh.)

There are times I wish I had some sort of place I could look through and see what mainstream consensual reality looks like; I've never known, and it would be awfully useful at times like these. Because I really don't know how widespread this perspective is, this notion that the left is anti-religion.

To the extent it exists, I think it's a big bloody problem. I just can't judge the extent from here.

I know that a large part of where I have very little give in my political positions comes down to a refusal to support people who are opposed to who I am. (Like my position that I won't vote for anyone who thinks that my marriage needs to be defended from people like me.) Who I am is, among other things, religious.

As I said, I don't know how widespread this anti-religious presumption is; I see other commenters are far more familiar with its effects than I am.

I think there's another side to it, and it may be one that's more palatable to those people who are crying "pandering".

The vast majority of arguments of opposition to the concept of religion that I have seen are, well, dumb. They mistake the practices or beliefs of small groups for the beliefs of the majority; they mistake tendencies in religions that they're familiar with for intrinsic properties of religion as a whole.

I'm a minority of a minority, religion-wise; this puts me in the interesting position of rarely seeing a condemnation of "religion" that actually has any relationship with my religious beliefs at all. (And have the occasional dubious pleasure of seeing people cite my gods as notions too ludicrous to be believed in.)

I just can't take people who say those sorts of things seriously. If their positions are so ill-researched that they think that all religions are evangelising, that religion is the same as belief in an omniscient, omnipotent creator, that religion is intrinsically bound up with fear of hell, that religion and science are incompatible, or any of the other things that I see coming down the pike every so often -- well, if someone's arguing like that, I know they're talking ballocks. Am I supposed to trust what they say on some other subject?

Blowing one's credibility to make cheap shots that miss is not a productive strategy.

Please allow me to type a few words in defense of the anticlerical commenters at Political Animal/Kevin Drum and Eschaton/Atrios. The comment sections on both blogs are agnostic commons, a rare forum in an America which is generally not comfortably secular. Some contributors unbutton themselves thereabouts in ways they might not be able to do at home, in real life.

None among us fail to revere Dr. King or ignore the contributions of people of faith in our common causes. Few of us remind ourselves that for every apostle of desegregation or abolition of slavery there was an apologist claiming doctrinal support for whatever practice was then current.

Activists do tend to be drawn disproportionately from those most moved by religion. (King, Gandhi). Unfortunately, you still have to ask "Which side are you on?"

I don't think The Life of Brian is anti-religious. It makes fun of the New Testament, but making fun of something is not in itself being against it. The movie's final message is somewhat bleak, yes, but it is never actually biting against religion, unless one counts as being "anti-religion" being against silly bigotry and the determined refusal to think with one's own head. I think the most one can say is that it's somewhat wistfully agnostic. It never actually addresses the problem of there being a divine entity.

While on a base level I know that insults and incivillity can be pretty funny, for many of us--I'm thinking of Jews and Christians specifically--that kind of behavior is wrong. Not because it will make the Right be nice to us. Not because it will elevate the level of political discourse. But because it is immoral to be mean to other people. Jesus didn't say it was OK to call your brother a fool as long as you were witty about it.

And by the by, did anyone notice that Nicholas Kristof said *exactly* the same thing today in the NYT?

Molly Ivins has been saying the same thing for years.

"Please allow me to type a few words in defense of the anticlerical commenters at Political Animal/Kevin Drum and Eschaton/Atrios. The comment sections on both blogs are agnostic commons, a rare forum in an America which is generally not comfortably secular."

Quite so. Also, not to get too entangled in recovery-speak, but lots of people in our society are victims of religious abuse. Some of them are volubly pissed at anything resembling religion, which is hardly surprising.

I said that I don't want to live in a culture that doesn't have Lenny Bruce and The Life of Brian. I also don't want to live in a culture where it's inappropriate for people to make critical and even downright rude remarks about the often outrageous claims made on behalf of religion. Like government, religion has done inestimable damage to millions of people for thousands of years; the fact that its power is now kept in check, kind of, in our society and some other parts of the world, is the result of a lot of work, much of which involved saying some pretty impolite things about religion.

I just don't want to lose the extent to which religious feeling and commitment have historically been powerful engines of liberal (I use the word in its broadest sense) reform. Maybe it's not possible to have it both ways, and maybe the good and bad aspects of religion are often confusingly mixed together. (Making it, of course, unique among human institutions.) But I can't help but suspect it's possible to distinguish between (for instance) politically scheming archbishops and Jean-Paul Spiro's AIDS-patient-tending nuns.

"Jesus didn't say it was OK to call your brother a fool as long as you were witty about it."

Actually, I seem to recall Jesus losing his temper with foolishness a time or two.

Everybody does. I had my tongue partly in my cheek when I said "I just think people ought to be more or less decent to one another, or failing that, entertaining about it." But maybe I'll defend it as a moral formulation. Nobody's patience is infinite. We're all going to lose our temper at idiots sometime. When we do, far better to feel obliged to say something original that addresses the specific circumstance, rather than simply spewing boilerplate cliches that make nobody smarter.

I seem to be verging on the claim that good language is a moral obligation, and the can of worms is definitely perched on the edge of the slippery slope. Above deep waters, may I add.

The short version of my comment to the post below is this: I think people should write good letters to the media complaining about the terrible libel of Christianity that is being represented as "Christian".

From a confirmed agnostic, a note about atheism: it's illogical and therefore should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. To be an atheist you must know that no form of supreme/superior/all-knowing/knows-a-bunch/flawed-but-kind-angry/etc. being exists in the universe. You cannot suspect this and still be an atheist. Nope, you gotta know it down to your bones.

But that's impossible because we are simply not evolved enough, not intelligent and/or knowledgable to know that about the universe. We are not even evolved enough to know what dark matter is or to dissect the fabric of the cosmos. . . hell, it's been only a blink of the evolutionary eye since we figured out the internal combustion engine. And yet, there are those who have grasped an understanding of the universe so thoroughly that they know there is no god.

But they don't know it because humans have not developed the logical thought path that proves it. They might believe it, but that's different than knowing it. What they have isn't knowledge, but faith in their supposition.

Uh, please, not the "atheism is just another form of faith" argument again. I'm not an atheist, but I've never bought that one. My disbelief in the idea that ancient astronauts built the Great Pyramid isn't an act of "faith," it's an observation that I have absolutely no evidence for something which is on its face a pretty preposterous claim.

Waitaminute, Patrick - are you saying that dogs didn't fly spaceships?

But Patrick, how do you know what's out there? I mean, we can figure Ezekial was stoned out of his gourd when he saw the flying wheels, but that doesn't help us understand at all how the universe is structured. If you can refute the "atheism as faith" argument -- which I've never seen done -- then your sources are better than my sources. I maintain that it is the height of human arrogance to claim to know that we are the highest form of life in the universe, and that such a claim is merely evidence of our ignorance.

Ivor,

I had promised myself I wouldn't engage in the religious debate, but after reading your comment I do feel compelled to clarify one point ;)

(Btw I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, but the point I have to make is based on logic alone and does not necessitate a supporting theological theory)

Atheists need to KNOW and PROVE there is no God no more than theists -- whether monotheists or polytheists -- need to KNOW and PROVE there is a God(s).

What differentiates agnostics from atheists, to my understanding, is that whereas the former are unsure or skeptical either way, the latter are convicted in their BELIEF that there is no God. In the same way, theists believe that there is a God, but proof either way is something I have yet to come across -- hence both philosophy and theology have become as well developed over millennia as we find them today.

There is a very large difference between proving and believing. Of course, you could debate the theological ramifications of this forever. But the main point is that to dismiss atheism as illogical, when it can make sense from at least one logical point of view, is invalid.

Perhaps it can be considered illogical from a particular point of view -- but that does not make it illogical overall, and as such it cannot be disregarded by theological discussions.

One more note ;)

Atheism does not imply that we are the highest or the only forms of life in the universe. There are plenty of atheist scientists looking for life on Mars, aren't there? Atheism, by definition -- A-Theism -- means that one does not believe in God.

Yes, please. Let's not call atheists illogical. I'm an atheist, and my position is simply that life is too short to give much credence to improbable hypothetical entities that lack any supporting evidence for their existence. I disbelieve in god for the same rational reasons that I disbelieve in Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot. Ivor's characterization of atheists is simply bogus, rather like accusing all agnostics of being gutless, indecisive wimps, or all Christians of being witless sheep...all false.

Although I must admit that my objection to the responses to Atrios's post is that we see far too much sheep-like behavior from many Christians, who too readily identify with any old wolf (or oyster, or lichen, or mineral) that happens to have a fleece draped over it. There is a pattern of undiscriminating defense of anything labeled "Christian" that allows a lot of evil to flourish in this country.

My problem with religion is in the Nicene Creed, along with a whole bunch of other places, not all of the Abrahamic, never mind Christian --

One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

Not the 'holy' part -- everyone gets to form their own observational opinions about that one -- nor the 'apostolic' part -- a point of internal doctrine, seldom relevant to non-believers -- but the 'Catholic' part.

'Catholic' means 'universal'; that isn't a statement that the guy in
Rome gets to tell you what to do, it's a statement that these-here moral
teachings apply to all people, in all places, at all times.

That's the thing I have a problem with.

That's the thing that drives the demand for moral evaluation of public policy; if empiricism is acknowledged as a just and effective basis for making decisions, the universality goes.

If universality goes, everything in the public sphere goes, and the practice of religion and the questions of morality become personal matters of conscience, unable to support social power, hierarchy, or demands concerning the conduct of others.

That's the meaningful split, right there -- is this religious person claiming universality for their beliefs? Are they claiming that their morals must apply to me, irrespective of what I believe?

If they do not so claim, I can make common cause with them.

If they do claim universality, I cannot make common cause, because they're advancing something that is not only evil, but ineffective. ("The slaughter of millions is preferable to changing my mind" is an evil position; "but it should work that way!" when, obviously, empirically, observationally, it doesn't, is ineffective, as well as frequently shading into the first case the way hot tar shades into your white cotton shirt.)

Telling the one position from the other without asking isn't easy; members of the same congregation will often have markedly different positions about this question.

But the folks advancing universality for their system of belief, they're the enemy. They're the ones arguing for the moral necessity of the War on (Some) Drugs; they're the ones arguing for teaching outright, unhelpful lies to children ('intelligent design', 'abstinence is the only thing that works'), and they're the ones arguing for various doctrines of election ("If I'm rich, I deserve it; if you suffer, you deserve it", "I am subject solely to a higher law; you are subject to whatever I say the law is").

And, well, personally, experientially, they're the ones who see it as their proper and laudable duty to hurt me until I agree with them.

Which is why this is the only question where my emotional response starts with burning books, and becomes rapidly less nuanced from there.

Myerz,

(And now I guess I'm fully immersed in the religious debate, what have I been dragged into??)

It's funny you should say that, about a lot of Christians being witless sheep. I think that applies to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs. A lot of people do not seem to need or care for a coherent moral foundation of their own, and would rather follow a prescribed one -- usually the one that comes in the cultural package handed down to them by their environment. If we go to Brazil, we see a lot of sheep-minded Catholics. We also see a lot of sheep-minded "spiritualists," pan-African orichas, Buddhists, etc. It's not that one religion in particular makes people more irrational -- although I've heard of some cults where the purpose is entirely to brainwash you (but that's another story).

I've come across some very intelligent, rational Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, you-name-it in my experience. But even these people do not always care to develop their theological foundation to any great extent. Religion all too often has only a functional purpose in many people's lives, and that is what they need and that is what they get out of it.

The same can be said, however, of people's philosophical convictions. How many people do you know that have formulated intricate philosophical theories to understand their world, and act accordingly? Most people, when asked, have very marked opinions about ethical issues -- often contradictory and without a cohesive moral thread. My point, then, is to say that if most people cannot be bothered even to think about their life from a macro perspective, how can we expect them to have their theological convictions any more solidly? I don't think the sheep-mentality is a good thing, I really don't like it at all. But i do think it's a human, rather than a Muslim, Christian, or atheist condition.

There is a very large difference between proving and believing.

Yes, I agree and that is my point. Proving -- and, therefore, knowing -- requires logic. Believing -- having faith -- does not.

If atheists are not illogical in their belief that there is no god, then how do we understand how they came to that belief? Logic is a discipline we use to seek conclusions. I am simply unaware of any logical thought contruction that can get us there from here. I argue that we do not yet possess sufficient understanding of the universe to reach the conclusion that a god/supremebeing/.400 hitter doesn't exist, any more than we can conclude that a god does exist.

Logic isn't the be all and end all of human life. If it were, then I wouldn't own a Ducati motorcycle. And three Triumphs.

Ivor's characterization of atheists is simply bogus, rather like accusing all agnostics of being gutless, indecisive wimps, or all Christians of being witless sheep...all false.

An illogical reading of my post, I believe. Agnosticism, at least as practiced by yours truly, is the acceptance and an unknown quantity in life when it comes to god. Agnosticism = Damned if I know. Atheism is an aboslute. Atheism = I know.

I just don't understand how anyone can truly know.

Right on, Patrick.

Ivor,

(and I promise myself this is my last reply, ugh)

Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do. Theists belive there is a God, and therefore they know. Similarly, athesist do not believe there is a God, and therefore they know. Although many points in religion are based on reason (such as developing theological beliefs to a full, cohesive state), I think the ultimate decision of whether or not you believe in God is based on faith. You cannot ask anyone to prove or disprove the existence of God. If we say that atheists are illogical for believing without proof, then we also have to throw theists in that same sack, and we are all illogical.

This is really a chestnut. Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying "I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force." They're saying "I don't have a positive belief in any God's existence." The constant gotcha! insistence that this constitutes some kind of "act of faith" is up there with the idea that, hunh hunh, that science stuff is just as much about faith as religion, since do you know how your television works, huh, betcha never thought of that.

Agnosticism ought, etymologically, to mean the belief that the nature of the universe is unknowable; but in practice most people who call themselves "agnostics" appear to be basically saying "I'm not sure" or "I don't know." A certain number of these "agnostics" seem to be wedded to the false idea that atheism is a kind of "faith", and regard their "agnosticism" as a form of disagreement with that. Thus Ivor's formulation "Agnosticism = Damned if I know. Atheism is an absolute. Atheism = I know." It's fine to take the position "damned if I know," but it's simply false to assert that everyone who calls themselves an atheist is making the totalizing claim that "I know." It's just plain not true. Yes, there are people who call themselves atheists and who make totalizing claims. And there are atheists and non-atheists who promulgate that as a definition of atheism. They're wrong, and they're misrepresenting the views of a lot of perfectly sensible atheists.

It seems to me that I've met two kinds of atheists--atheists for whom their atheism is clearly very important, a kind of substitute faith, and they're as threatened as any fundamentalist by anything that seems to be challenging that faith; and the other kind of atheists, the ones who just don't believe in God. The second kind are probably much more common, but, like Christians or Muslims who don't belong to one of the narrow, fundamentalist, you-must-all-live-exactly-the-way-I-say-because-God-told-me-so sects, they're a lot less visible, precisely because they're just getting on with living their lives the way they believe they should, rather than trying to enlighten everyone who disagrees with them.

Ivor,

You've started from a position where faith is assumed to be necessary to hold a position, and (so far as I can tell) that it's necessary to hold absolute positions.

Start from some other place, and you get different answers.

John-Paul often has great posts.

I sometimes think that on the left, the only religious maxim that even the atheists need a version of is:

"By their acts shall ye know them."

Scorpio
Eccentricity

Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying "I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force."

But is that individual truly an atheist in the mainstream definition of the term? I say "no." You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism.

Patrick, in your post I see some of the same arrogance that prompted this conversation in the first place, that of non-believers smirking at the believers. You somehow "know" that you have the straight dope, and you ridicule those who aren't on the same path. I think you should take a step back and analyze your thoughts, yes, more logically.

Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do.

My last post, too.

Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical. If you "know" something but have no proof, your belief is illogical.

Okay, all done. Let's return to the world, already in progress.

Graydon: I prefer the usage in "I have catholic tastes," which doesn't mean I like all music, but that of the great smorgasbord of music, I can like Louis Armstrong and The Beatles and Beethoven and The Amazing Rhythm Aces and Nine Inch Nails all at the same time, even though there's some stuff I'm not wild about.

Avedon --

I don't have a problem with that usage, but I don't think it can properly be applied to the meaning intended by the Nicene Creed.

It certainly cannot be applied to the very real claim of universality modernly made by various Christian sects -- all times, all places, all people, and some of them, in a terrible absence of history, mean that with neither nuance nor irony.

I wrote:

"Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying 'I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force.' They're saying 'I don't have a positive belief in any God's existence.'"

"Ivor the Engine Driver" responded:

"But is that individual truly an atheist in the mainstream definition of the term?"

Yes.

"You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism."

No, I don't think so. A review of several dictionaries reveals a considerable range of definitions for both words. Under the circumstances, it seems fair to examine what most people who actually call themselves "atheists" or "agnostics" actually mean by that. Using my own experience as a base, I'm pretty confident in my assertion that most self-described atheists are simply expressing lack of belief, as opposed to making an unprovable, totalizing claim. I'm similarly confident in my other assertion, that most self-described agnostics are expressing some nuance of doubtfulness or unsurety. (With a nod toward those agnostics who actually believe, as the word's origins would imply, that the question is literally unanswerable.)

I'm sorry if this seems to you like "blurring the lines," but I suggest that the lines aren't really where you think they are.

"Patrick, in your post I see some of the same arrogance that prompted this conversation in the first place, that of non-believers smirking at the believers."

That's a pretty gratuitous ad hominem. At whom do you suppose that I'm "smirking"? My remarks in this exchange have been in defense of the intellectual integrity of atheism. Many--probably the majority--of my friends are atheists. I'm not, but I have a lot of respect for my friends.

"You somehow 'know' that you have the straight dope, and you ridicule those who aren't on the same path."

I'm not sure where the word "know" got its scare quotes in your sentence, but I think if you review our exchange, you'll find that I've done more than simply make the argument from authority. Quite the contrary, I've backed up my conclusions by pointing to discernable facts in the real world.

As for "ridicule," I really don't think the term "chestnut" in reference to your original argument is actually all that severe.

"I think you should take a step back and analyze your thoughts, yes, more logically."

This is of course good advice for most people most of the time, me included, but having gone over our exchange so far, I find I'm reasonably happy with the level of logic I've brought to it. Would you like to respond by citing something other than the fact that you're really, really sure your definitions are correct? Or is your response really limited to the suggestion that I'm arrogant and wrong to disagree with you?

Patrick,

I'd ignore Joel and his attention seeking, as that's at the root of all his posting of comments like he did regarding you and Kevin. He tried this with me last year, and it's just not worth the agita. He's all that's bad with the Left.

I am reminded of my occasional encounters with adamant creationists who insist that the defining characteristics of evolutionists are that they hate god, and that their goal is to destroy society. Never mind that I can produce lists of Christian evolutionary biologists and that many of them are working in universities to better people's educations--their definition is absolute and any contradiction with it means that I'm just trying to mislead them about the real meaning of evolution.

Ivor's insistence that all atheists are claiming absolute knowledge is the same thing, and he's reacting in the same way to any argument that shows that his beliefs are erroneous.

Elsewhere, Hlvictoria wrote:

"Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do."

To which "Ivor the Engine Driver" responded:

"Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical."

I don't think that word "supports" means what you think it means.

"If you 'know' something but have no proof, your belief is illogical."

As has been pointed out now by multiple people in this exchange, the claim to positively "know" the non-existence of God is not inherent to atheism. This is true in connection with both (1) the uses to which the word has been historically put and (2) the way millions of self-identified atheists describe their beliefs today. In insisting against all evidence that atheism necessarily entails a totalizing belief, you're either claiming that a very large number of otherwise benign people are mysteriously lying about their true beliefs, or you're putting remarkably little energy into taking on board observations and comments which don't happen to completely agree with the notions you brought to this conversation in the first place. Either way, it wouldn't seem like you ought to be the first person to be accusing others of "arrogance."

Scott, that sounds like excellent advice, but (I am honestly not joking, this is a real question) who is "Joel"?

(glyph of briefly wondering if he slipped from one parallel universe into the one next door)

I would commend to Igor's attention this article (one of many) on the difference between strong and weak atheism.

Ivor, let's look at the dictionary definitions, shall we? After all, "mainstream" is not a reasonable classification, as my impression of mainstream atheism is clearly radically different than yours.

These are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.
agnostic: n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
atheist: n. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

The very definitions of the words allow for the existence of a kind of 'agnostic atheism', as it were. Not all atheists are of the American Atheists variety, which tends to be the "There is no God and we know better than you do" type with which you appear to have a problem. Most atheists, in my experience, do not fall into this latter category, which I call "hardliner atheism". Rather, atheists tend to simply want proof that there is a God, and in the absence of that proof do not believe. Seems pretty logical to me.

Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical. If you "know" something but have no proof, your belief is illogical.

Atheists are both logical and illogical because before they are atheists, they are human, and thus full of many contradictory sentiments. However. I do take offense at being written off as illogical (as I do considder myself an atheist).

As I see it, I'm mostly (about 90%) sure there is no God. I can't prove there isn't because you can't prove a negative. You can, however, prove a positive, but no one has proven the existence of God that is even remotely satisfactory. I think we can agree upon this point. If there were such a satisfactory proof of the existence of God, a logical person, like myself, would accept it. After all, I don't dispute the existence of gravity or neutrons just to spite the Gravitists or Neutronists. We have pretty indisputable proof of the positive existence of both gravity and neutrons. Even though I can't see them with my eyes, I can see the effects of their existence. Thus, denying the existence of either gravity or neutrons would be irrational.

You cannot say the same about God and back it up with any sort of evidence, which is why I'm pretty damn sure there isn't such a being. Notice I say pretty sure, not absolutely sure. Because if modern science has taught us anything, it's that we can't really be absolutely sure of anything, only reasonable sure. This relative certainty may not answer all the pesky problems about existence but it gives us enough of a foundation to live our lives in a meaningful way, without having to rely any longer on fairy tales as a catchall for things we can't explain.

Graydon: As I read it, 'catholic' in the Nicene creed is simply saying "As Christians, we hold these truths to be self-evident; never mind whether you pray standing up or sitting down, if you subscribe to these beliefs, you're part of a wider catholic church." After all, Nicea was about defining doctrine that all the churches could agree upon.

(Note: I'm just a clergy brat, not a theologian or church scholar. YMMV, the value of souls can go up as well as down, etc. etc.)

Patrick: I assumed "Joel" was the guy you first linked to, at http://www.notfrisco2.com/webzine/Joel/archives/004690.html.

That insistance on logic in matters of faith sounds strange to me. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, logic hasn't been proven. The law of identity hasn't been proven. Belief in logic could therefore be pressured as being yet another act of faith, even if it's one who bears fruit in daily routine applications.
Personally, I think faith don't need to be logical, whether it was imposed by background settings or chosen through personal (?) reflexions.

We don't need to be nicer to people of any other belief, religious, political or whatsoever, so that they are nice to us back in return. We need to be just, which with luck will earn us the respect of some of these people, the ones we can, and may, work with toward a common goal. This implies stating divergence of opininons, bringing to light abusive positions of any party and struggling against when needed. It implies also giving credits and paying respect where dues.
This may appear childish to the rogish political mind, but in this I believe.

I think Ivor is mistaking, "I have no faith in the existence of God," for, "I have faith that there are no Gods."

A formulation I read somewhere or other that I quite like goes: atheism is a religious belief in the same way that absolute zero is a temperature. To me, the notion that there's this all-knowing, all-seeing being who cares about what we do on this insignigficant speck we live on is self-evidently absurd in the same way that, say, the contention that the Earth is surrounded by an intangible and invisible field of cheese is. Both are equally impervious to scientific testing and my 'faith' in believing each to be nonsense is about the same. I suppose that makes me an 'acheesist' too. I'm kind of irritated that my opinion on the particular preposterous assertion that is God is considered somehow different in kind to that I might hold on any other preposterous assertion. Because it's so important *to them* theists seem unable to comprehend that it could possibly be this level of unimportant to others but, trust me, it is.

I was very sensibly going to stay out of this, but one of my pet peeves was triggered. The notion that God wouldn't care about us because we're small and weak and live on a small planet around an ordinary G-type star, blah, blah, blah, is silly. By "silly" I mean it contradicts the moral principles most of us claim to believe in. For instance, suppose scientists discovered a mud puddle inhabited by a species of intelligent microbes. Would we say we shouldn't care about them because they're just a bunch of insignificant amoebas sitting there waiting to dry up and perish? Might as well drain the puddle and put in a parking lot, I guess.

So if God exists, He wouldn't care about us because we're too small to matter? Sheesh, if that's His attitude, I'd be an atheist myself. But my own belief is that God is better than humans, not worse.

Ivor: You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism.

That’s sort of like blurring the lines between fruit and vegetables.

The mere fact that two words exist does not guarantee that there will always be a bright-line distinction you can draw between them.

Life of Brian

It is very much the sort of film you would expect from a bunch of iconoclastic, well-educated, people who know both history and how to be funny.

And, after The Passion of the Christ, I'm glad to hear that Life of Brian may get a cineema release,

Though it may have been confusing enough that The Passion of the Christ shared some cinemas with The Return of the King

From a confirmed agnostic, a note about atheism: it's illogical and therefore should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. To be an atheist you must know that no form of supreme/superior/all-knowing/knows-a-bunch/flawed-but-kind-angry/etc. being exists in the universe. You cannot suspect this and still be an atheist. Nope, you gotta know it down to your bones.

Crap, nonsense, and posthumously-written L. Ron Hubbard novels.

As has been mentioned, several times, you are willfully refusing to differentiate between the two distinct philosophical statements that form the generally-recognized poles of atheism: "I believe/can prove that there is no god" and "I haven't yet seen any evidence in favor of the existence of a god." *

The "strong atheist/weak atheist" description is a good one; in my own mental filing cabinet, I've always labelled the positions "active atheism" and "passive atheism."

For quite a while, I thought of myself as an agnostic (believing in an unnamed higher power, but not in organized worship) until it gradually dawned on me that I had absolutely no feelings of "faith" in any sense. I don't believe in worship. I have no worshipful, thankful, or vengeful feelings toward any higher or unseen powers. In fact, I don't accept, logically or emotionally, the division of events into "natural" and "supernatural" categories. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the universe around me requires (or would be enhanced by) the existence of higher/unseen powers. So I'm a classic "weak" or "passive" atheist; "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" strikes me as a wonderful idea.

Something may yet come along to change that belief; this is the crucial point you continue to miss or ignore. Weak/passive atheists don't spit on possibilities; we wait for what we believe to be sufficiently irrefutable evidence.

I can't and don't speak for strong/active atheists here-- remember, I disagree with their approach. When you criticize them, you're not even touching the edges of my own philosophy.

I understand the constant temptation to look cross-eyed at theists and supernaturalists, believe me-- the attractive urge to congratulate oneself for being "stronger" or "more rational," for not using religion as a "crutch." I mean, recite Henley's "Invictus" in front of me and I'm ready to punch angels in the face-- bring 'em on.

But.

I know too many decent, mature, rational, and responsible theists (and too many mean-spirited, self-satisfied evangelical atheists) to imagine that my club already owns Park Place and Boardwalk on the Monopoly board of spiritual truth.

I've had too many sleepless nights, close scrapes, and sad losses in life to begrudge anyone else whatever philosophy helps get them through those same events, and helps them appreciate this world to the fullest while they're here, so long as they don't start setting other people on fire because of it.

So, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop kicking straw men in the face and patting yourself on the back for it. Real arguments by real people who hold real beliefs have been set before you here. Ignoring our points won't mark you as a bold crusader for truth; it'll prove that you're a smug-souled nutsucker with both thumbs up your mental bunghole.

Cheers,

SL

*"God," in these sentences, is used as convenient shorthand for every possible manner of god, gods, spiritual forces, banished thetans, unseen powers, collective unconsciouses, tentacled horrors, etc.; imagine it as such and save us all many long paragraphs of defining terms, splitting hairs, and re-inventing wheels. ;)

Rob Hansen wrote:

"I'm kind of irritated that my opinion on the particular preposterous assertion that is God is considered somehow different in kind to that I might hold on any other preposterous assertion. Because it's so important *to them* theists seem unable to comprehend that it could possibly be this level of unimportant to others but, trust me, it is."

The only part of this I object to is the notion that "theists" are inevitably the ones who can't comprehend your position. Looking at this particular instantiation of the argument, for instance, it looks awfully like it's been self-declared agnostics attacking the intellectual integrity of atheism, and more than one theist defending it.

Which probably proves, at the very least, that people aren't always predictable.

Well, I, for one, have proof of god's non-existence which works for me as their own private proofs of god's exitence works for my friends who believe. I don't necessarily expect anyone else to buy it, but it works for me.

MKK

Scott, how would you distinguish between "weak/passive" atheism and agnosticism?

As I understand it:

An agnostic doesn't believe in the rituals, dogmas, or conclusions of any organized religious sect, but believes in a spiritual something, however vague or idiosyncratic their conception of that something might be.

An atheist doesn't even believe in that spiritual something.

Scott — Very nicely put, especially the bit about the Monopoly board.

Mark — A slightly different place to draw the line would be this: My current working hypothesis is that there is no God, so I call myself an atheist. If I didn’t feel I had enough evidence even to form a working hypothesis, I might call myself an agnostic.

Life of Brian is good, but I wonder if the better antidote to The Passion might not be Hellboy, instead.

Crap, nonsense, and posthumously-written L. Ron Hubbard novels.

This isn't really that difficult to comprehend, Scott. If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.

My position is that it is possible for an agnostic belief to be logical, but that it is impossible for atheistic belief to be logical.

So, Ivor, are you ready to admit that belief is illogical, or is this only a one-way street?

This conversation is valuable, if for no other reason than it demonstrates that emotional responses to external doubts about one's belief system aren't limited to rightwing Old Testament thumpers. A simple statement, that it is impossible to build a rational, logical basis for atheism because we as a race are too ignorant of the facts about our existence to make such a construct, elicits from some a lucid and measured response, but from others insults and off point arguments.

Life of Brian is good, but I wonder if the better antidote to The Passion might not be Hellboy, instead.

I nominate Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers

Ivor, in my experience there are two flavors of agnostics: the kind who dip their toes into various forms of religion without ever committing, and the kind who are indistinguishable from atheists but lack the courage of their convictions. Which are you?

Ivor,

By your own standards, agnosticism is equally illogical, since you can't prove that there isn't enough evidence to decide whether or not God exists. For that matter, you can't prove that Marduk, Santa Claus, or the Loch Ness monster don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that you don't believe in any of them.

If proof were required for belief, it would be impossible to believe almost anything. Fortunately, we don't require proof for belief; instead, we tentatively accept the best explanation available, knowing full well that new evidence may invalidate it at some point. Proof is required for certainty, but as has been pointed out about a thousand times already, atheists don't usually claim certainty.

In my opinion, a universe without God fits the evidence better than a universe with God. That's why I call myself an atheist. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if persuasive evidence for God's existence can be mustered, but that doesn't make me an agnostic.

And yet, it seems to me that your own position is one based on emotion rather than logic, Ivor. How are we to reconcile these two opposed views?

Because, you see, it is the very nature of faith that it is, you know, faith. Whereas unbelief is merely the absense of faith.

I'm beginning to think that one of 2 things is true about Ivor. 1. He is, or believes he is, vastly superior to the rest of us and is enlightening us about the error of our ways in all kindness. 2. He is a troll of a slightly different sort. Perhaps it's time he had a chat with T if she's finished with the roses and with supper.

MKK

Huxley coined the term "agnostic" to distinguish himself from religious people and Ivor's notion of atheists, but it's obvious reading his writings that I'd call him an atheist like myself now:

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889]"

Probably a Southall fan, too.

I couldn't resist commenting on the definition of atheism, since I am an atheist and I consider my position to be entirely logical.

I think that one of the problems with defining atheism and agnosticism is the imperfection of the English language and confusion over the definitions of the words "knowledge" and "belief".

It is not possible to "know" anything about the material world in the sense that we know that 1 + 1 = 2 in the abstract world of natural numbers where we have defined all the rules. It is also not possible to "prove" anything - merely to have a sensible theory which does not contradict any of the available evidence.

(The screen you're reading this on - you may say you "know" that it's the same screen that was there yesterday, but it is conceivable that invisible, intangible space aliens beamed into your room last night, stole your computer screen and replaced it with a perfect replica, right down to the chips, scratches and dust bunnies, for reasons known only to themselves.)

When I say that I "know" something about the physical world, I actually mean "believe beyond any reasonable doubt". It's linguistic shorthand.

I am as confident in my belief that there is no god as I am in my belief that gravity will continue to work tomorrow. Therefore I call myself an atheist. If I were undecided (whether it was because I hadn't properly considered the issue, or because I did not consider all the available information to be conclusive), I would call myself agnostic.

What I believe to be true stems from a logical analysis of what I can observe about the world, and the opinions of trusted sources.

There are people who believe things for irrational reasons - because they really, really, really want them to be true, or because they were taught them in childhood and were never willing to question them, or because they accepted some attractive but flawed reasoning, or all of the above. This does not imply that belief itself is irrational or illogical.

However, there seem to be people who follow the nonsensical semantic path of "'belief' means blind, unfounded faith, therefore when somebody claims to believe something they are being illogical". Which is just silly.

*Grins at thought of Ivor chatting with T.*

Would that be like throwing a lion to a christian?

Thanks for the image, MKK.

Ivor wrote:

This isn't really that difficult to comprehend, Scott. If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.

You're right, provided they cite no evidence. But I cite the evidence of my own experience and observations, as does, oh, every human being on the face of the flippin' planet when discussing their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Now, replace "god" in your paragraph above with "Loch Ness Monster" or "Tooth Fairy" or "Outstanding Rob Liefeld Illustration" to see how elementary the flaw in your alleged logic is. Do you believe in any of those three things? According to you, if someone can't prove that they don't exist, it's illogical to not believe in them. That's craptacular enough, but you also have the problem of continually confusing "categorical denial" and "simple disbelief."

It would indeed be illogical for me to claim that "God" absolutely cannot exist. It's nothing near illogical for me to claim that the evidence I've seen so far indicates that "God" does not exist. And if you can't wrap your brain around that, Ivor, you're the one who's either a) having comprehension problems or b) being deliberately disingenuous.

My position is that it is possible for an agnostic belief to be logical, but that it is impossible for atheistic belief to be logical.

And your position is demonstrably wrong. You're very welcome to feel that way all you like, to be sure of it on a deep and emotional level; just don't pretend for a second that "logic" backs it up in any way.

Now, let's look at what we have so far.

The Ivor Argument Timeline

1. You make sweeping and moderately insulting statements of opinion backed by wonky logic.

2. You are justly and accurately refuted, not necessarily with malice, but with verve and vigor, from multiple viewpoints.

3. You call Patrick "smirking" and "arrogant," which he hasn't been. You'd know it if Patrick had it in for you; I mean, it would be more obvious than someone running your grandmother over with a Zamboni. It would be flagrant.

4. Then, because you're being an obstinate jerk, you get an ass-walloping from posters who know more about what you're talking about than you do.

5. You then enter passive-aggressive mode, claiming that your opponents are big meanies with no recourse but to call you names, conveniently ignoring your own initiation of Part 3 in this little history.

6. I call you an obstreporous chickenshit arguing in bad faith.

You, sir or madam, are an obstreporous chickenshit arguing in bad faith. From Electrolite's heart, I stab at thee; for amusement's sake, I spit my last ad hominem at thee; get bent.

Ta,

SL

*"God," in these sentences, is used as convenient shorthand for every possible manner of god, gods, spiritual forces, banished thetans, unseen powers, collective unconsciouses, tentacled horrors, etc.; imagine it as such and save us all many long paragraphs of defining terms, splitting hairs, and re-inventing wheels. ;)

I use the term 'the Divine'. This may not cover all the ground, but it does provide a neutral court for practitioners of different religions to discuss their spiritual similarities. Sometimes.

'Illogical' has a negative connotation; it implies that the person or belief is attempting logic and failing. 'Irrational' carries a similar load. I use 'non-rational' when I'm talking about my reasons for believing something that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of my scientific mind.

Reason is a good tool. However, it doesn't have to be the only tool in the toolbox. There's room for faith (whatever that means to you), intuition, and any number of other things including 'that funny feeling I get in my eyes with the slight auditory hallucination of scratchy humming' -- which I think means something, but I don't know what. I'm fine with that.

About stuff looking like nails? Yeah.

Science is based on a kind of consciously adopted objectivity which is, I think, akin to agnosticism. If a physicist wants to prove that the zingo quark is the second cousin twice removed of the bingo quark, s/he may devise an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment proves that actually they're unrelated little buggers, a physicist of any integrity will publish those results -- or even results that are inconclusive.

Prior to any experiment, there will be physicists who believe in the relationship and physicists who don't, but these beliefs are rather loosely held until the experiment is done. This is why some agnostics say that atheism is unscientific, because they think that atheists are holding a belief too strongly where no verifying experiment has been (or can be) done.

But religious belief is not the same as scientific belief. Heat water and it boils; tell me that heating water makes it freeze and I'll just tell you "Wrong!" Tell me that Amaunet is the wife of Amon and the Goddess of the Night, and I'll tell you "That's interesting." Do I believe you? Well...whether the ancient Egyptians believed that is a matter of research, like with the quarks. Whether I worship Amaunet as the Goddess of Night is a matter of my personal choice - it's an "act-as-if."

Atheists can be anything from fanatical "there is no God" types to people who see no evidence and choose the "act-as-if" of not worshipping, not believing. I know people who don't really believe in the Christian teachings they were raised in as a factual matter, but who continue to "act-as-if" as Christians, because a life without faith is too bleak. Is that an irrational choice?

I don't think 'logical' and 'illogical' are terms that apply very well to matters of spiritual belief (or lack thereof). It's just not the right mode of discourse. Atheism is certainly a spiritual position (just as absolute zero is a place on the scale of temperature). Is it a religion? Bad question; unanswerable.

Avram:

I take exception to your wanting to divide agnostics into two categories, which I boil down from your formulation as being:

1) people without the courage to commit to a religion and
2) people who don't believe in God, but are afraid to call themselves atheists.

1) There are agnostics who have tried committing to a religion and later changed their minds about it. ("I used to believe in God; but now I feel I *just don't know* what's true. It no longer makes sense to me to pray.")

2) There are agnostics who feel that they don't have the mental capacity or empirical information to formulate an opinion one way or the other. If you tell these people: "Since you say you don't have enough evidence to make you believe in God, then you're an intellectual coward unless you deny God's existence," you're going to make them angry.

One of the problems attached to this is the use of the word "God." Some agnostics try to deal with the question using other formulations, such as "First Cause," "Creator," "Supreme Creator," "Demiurge" and others.

Some people will respond differently to questions involving belief in the existence of subtly different entities or forces.

In my mental dictionary, "agnostic" still translates as "I don't feel capable or competent to make a pronouncement on this issue," and is still a position that deserves respect.

My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."

Sometimes, emotionally, I feel like something must have caused the universe for a reason. Other times I feel "Hey. The universe is a cold place that's mechanically working on a bunch of engineering problems. Consciousness is a byproduct."

But when I feel emotionally swayed by the second idea, I still have the comfort of the gnosticism popularized in s-f fandom by Phil Dick: "love might not have been present at the beginning; but the universe is working on it."

We're all going to lose our temper at idiots sometime. When we do, far better to feel obliged to say something original that addresses the specific circumstance, rather than simply spewing boilerplate cliches that make nobody smarter.

This would be the "lesser of two evils" argument?

Another take would be that it's actually worse to be witty and original, because you're candy-coating it and perhaps making its effects worse. We've all seen people hide poisonous words by saying "geez, it's a joke, lighten up!" and certainly an insult is more likely to be remembered and repeated if it's funny.

Jesus did flip out at the moneylenders in the temple, and didn't have much patience for hypocrites, but I'm pretty sure he didn't indulge in Limbaugh-style name-calling, and I'm positive he said that calling your brother a fool was not on God's happy list.

Of course we all screw up; we're human, and from the Christian point of view we're all sinners. Seems to me the response to that is to try not to sin, and to make amends when we do--not because we want to be nice to the right wing, but because that's what God asks of us.

(I realize, Patrick, that you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's just that holding one's bile is one of those virtues that right-wing Christians conveniently ignore because it's not as satisfying as, say, telling gays that God hates them. I like to think we can be more Godly than that. For one thing, it annoys the ever-loving snot out of 'em.)

Lenny Bailes refers to:

"the gnosticism popularized in s-f fandom by Phil Dick: 'love might not have been present at the beginning; but the universe is working on it.'"

One of life's great disappointments is the discovery that this isn't actually the theology of that denomination that calls themselves the "Assembly of God."

Mythago, I figure my fool-killing habit just means I have to work harder at other, more positive virtues to make up for it. Meanwhile, for onlookers, entertainment! Everybody wins.

Atheism is certainly a spiritual position (just as absolute zero is a place on the scale of temperature).

I don't like this analogy, because I think questions of spirituality aren't necessarily related to the existence of God (or gods). I believe in the sacred; all you have to do is take one look at Mount Shasta and you can see that it's a sacred mountain. I just think that spirituality is intrinsic to consciousness rather than extrinsic. I don't feel that that diminishes it in any way.

My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."

My atheist response is "I don't know, but saying 'God did it' leads us further from explanation rather than closer to it." At some point, something rather than nothing just is. I don't see any advantage in pushing that is-ness back a level.

Language is an interesting thing. It is far less precise than we might like it to be, but it is also far more precise than we'd like it to be, sometimes. Everyone has, in their head, their own set of connections and connotations, rather like an individual subset of the language. If you want an example, ask people what the difference between "grey" and "gray" is.

Just because language builds personal, and sometimes idiosyncratic relationships in our brains doesn't mean that it has no meaning. The meanings are developed as an agreement between people who speak the language, and those meanings develop and those relationships change over time. Language is mutable. It is not, however, mere noise. Nor is it one person's privilege.

Agnostics and atheists are always identifying themselves and each other as one or the other. Various religious people will also sometimes use those terms to describe themselves. (What is the apocryphal story about the man who, on his death bed, is alleged to have said, "There is no god, and Mary is his mother"?)

When terms start clashing, though, nothing is going to make any damn sense at all until you get your terms straight. Since no one lives in any head but his own, if the dispute is about the meaning of words, the dictionary is a reasonable authority. Someone else's idiosyncratic usage, developed over years, based on experiences not shared with the rest of the people in the discussion, are actually worse than useless, they are confusing. They lack the weight of agreement that normal words used in conventional fashions have. We're going for clarity, here, not poetry. Let’s start by sticking with the OED, which is a pretty authoritative source. Suzanne (than you) quotes it as saying:

agnostic: n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

atheist: n. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

Italics mine. Please note that unknown and unknowable isn’t the same thing is denial or disbelief, and that in fact, denial and disbelief aren’t the same thing, either.

Ivor, you seem to have a problem with believing that your own usages are laws of the universe, which is pretty strange, really, since language isn't a law of the universe, it's an approximation of agreements made over generations between people who speak roughly the same tongue. Not only do you seem to be trying to redefine atheist, but you also seem to be attempting to redefine logic and rationality.

If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.

Ok, you probably haven't noticed you're cheating, here, but you are. You can't prove a negative. There is no good evidence for ancient astronauts, reincarnation, or God. Failing to believe in something for which there is no evidence is not illogical or emotional. Refusing to believe in something for which there is good evidence, like evolution, or the New York Subway, is illogical and irrational. Believing and not believing are not the same thing, either. Belief is an action. Failure to believe is not an action, it is the lack of one.

Denial is an action, but, it is hardly irrational. I disbelieve in Atlantis. How much evidence do you think I need before I can be accounted rational in this disbelief? Hint: none. That damn proving a negative thing, again.

I acknowledge the existence of people for whom the emotional basis of their universe is the absence of any invisible power. Lots of people have issues with religion. I certainly do. However, lots of people have emotional issues with almost anything. I used to know a woman who had serious emotional issues with eating a balanced diet. Just because she was bug-fuck on the topic doesn't mean that people who think that eating a healthy and balanced diet are all doing so because of deep-seated emotional issues.

This conversation is valuable, if for no other reason than it demonstrates that emotional responses to external doubts about one's belief system aren't limited to rightwing Old Testament thumpers.

*sputter* You condescending git. You think I don't know that? Or Patrick, or Xopher, or most of the people who've been posting here?

A simple statement, that it is impossible to build a rational, logical basis for atheism because we as a race are too ignorant of the facts about our existence to make such a construct

Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant, and will remain too ignorant, to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe? In essence, you are once again insisting that someone prove a negative. Again, that's cheating. It is also illogical, by definition. For something to be logical, it has to be disprovable. You also need to provide a logical structure to explain why it is that atheism and theism require different levels of proof, seeing as you’ve set up a dualism where one of them must be believed. So far, you haven't offered anything more solid than an implied Pascal's Wager, and if you want to hare off into that, we can, but I warn you, I'm not the only person here who's had that particular philosophical chestnut for lunch.

Well, my goodness. I go away for a few hours and look what happens. We have got to come up with the equivalent of a RASFF Award, in this case so we can give one to Scott Lynch.

Ivor the Engine Driver is no great mystery: First, he's a Who fan. Second, he fancies himself (someone has to) a logician. Third, he unfortunately has failed to understand that what logic does is test propositions. Logic is to data as a flush is to four of a kind. Fourth, he has failed to understand that Mr. Spock is a fictional character.

This isn't going to be as elegant as one of Mike Ford's or Virge's, and it's in a less respectable poetic form than they would use, but:

There was a logician named Ivor
Less ingenious by far than McGyver.
Definitions, he found,
Were diffuse and unsound.
Quelle fromage, sucker. Cry me a Ryver.

Mmm, roast chestnuts.

Jakob --

I'd call that a politer way to interpret the creed, and have to trouble with such a doctrine.

I trust we can agree that there are quite some number of folks who will argue that their moral system does extend to all people, in all times, and all places, and that some of them have described themselves as Christians?

Lenny, you’re wrong. I never said anything about courage in my description of the first type of agnostic. Those types — I think of them as “seekers” — are just happier looking for a spiritual path than actually sticking with one. Courage doesn’t have to enter into it.

It’s the second type I think lack courage. They are indistinguishable from atheists in the ways they live their lives, but for some odd reason are frightened of the word “atheism”.

Drawing a distinction between atheists and this second type of agnostic is essentially arguing that the position one takes in college late-night bull sessions is of more import than the actual effect that beliefs (or lack of beliefs) has on one’s life.

Graydon, my moral system extends to all people etc. insofar as it lays certain responsibilities on me.

Rob, I think I have some points coming for having never, ever tried to impose any kind of theism on you. In fact, your existence has informed my spiritual life; so neener.

Avram, I think of your second type as people who find they don't believe, and hope that if that turns out to be the wrong guess, He won't take it personally.

Lenny says:

"agnostic" still translates as "I don't feel capable or competent to make a pronouncement on this issue," and is still a position that deserves respect.

I rather like the formulation: I'm a militant agnostic; I don't know, and neither do you.

I believe in the real world, the solid, measurable, scientifically examinable world, the one where rocks are solid and the stars are lit by fusion, one we can study and understand. Infinitely complex, but not mysterious, not arcane. This is an axiom, it's not debatable. Solipsism is the next door down.

I also believe in the world of experience, which is where I actually live, what with being a bag of protoplasm hooked up to the world via nerves that feed into a not entirely reliable neural network. Experiences are interesting, often valuable, but not measurable. Hopefully, most of my experiential world is congruent with the empirical world, but that will not always be the case.

If there is an invisible world, then everything I read and know about people's reports of it suggest that it exists in the world of experience, not the solid, measurable world. I've had my own experiences which appear to have been of a metaphysical nature. Mystical events happen to people, inside people, and cannot be transferred.

It seems to me that if the invisible world could be measured, weighed, tagged, and understood, it would cease to be numinous, and become a part of the real world, as fascinating as science, but not more.

Since the invisible world would cease to be mystical if were a part of the real world, and since the invisible world can only be experienced, and experiences can be related but not truly shared, then I don't think it is possible for anyone to say anything about the invisible world that is definitive for anyone but themselves. It's not possible for me to know if your experience of the divine is anything like mine. The very nature of transcendence is such that it cannot be communicated, only experienced.

My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."

I don't remember who it was, alas, but it was a respected physicist. His response was, "That's not a meaningful question." That answer contents me. Asking for the first cause is like asking for a picture of the square root of negative one. The first cause, on a cosmological level, is not the logical question that it seems to be, up here at the macro scale. Hell, our time only runs one direction. Math allows us to describe things we cannot comprehend. The first cause can't even be described in math.

Those types — I think of them as “seekers” — are just happier looking for a spiritual path than actually sticking with one.

Avram, I guarantee you I'm not afraid of the word atheist. Neither am I a seeker. I'd just as soon the invisible world left me alone. For the most part, it does. I figure, if there is such a thing as ennlightenment, I'll work on it next lifetime round. This time through, I'm pedalling as fast as I can just to keep up.

There's also the problem of the scope of the question.

One God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible

The White Christ, God of book-learning, peacemaking, and kindness to strangers I believe in, but do not follow; the Watchmaking God, who set the Heavens in Their Courses, doesn't exist, though the temples of His followers are amazing things. Yahweh the Storm God has way too many believers, and I don't care to be one of them. The Old God the Father, the one the Christians had up from the Fall of Rome until a couple centuries before Martin Luther, and in whose honour there are many works of hand, from Eadfrith's Gospels and the Rule of Benedict to the bright glass and dark stones of tall cathedrals I would call worthy of respect, and gone from the world, both together.

Red Thor on the world's walls, and Half-faced Hel, and Seaxneat of the Walls and Ditches, I call real, and worth remembrance; Skadhi of the Skis, and Sif of the Golden Hair, and Uller of the Bow, these also, who will be the friends of men.

Earendel the Mariner, who glitters above the twilight, he is surely not real, but worth remembrance anyway. So is Old Theoden, and the shadow of Arthur holding honour better than life, and pe