Is Atheism a Rational Stance?

[Technical Ben]

Sorry, what is your definition, or the common one, for something eternal?

"Time" is just a measurement. It's an axis like "space" or "energy", right? So, anything outside the universe is subject to either "changes in measurements" or not. Is this rational? If we invoke "it is changeable" then we invoke "time". Which one do you see as being correct, a timeless thing outside the universe, or one with time? If you take time away, we take the possibility for it to change also.

Basically, in the statement "A then B", time does not exist when it is just "A". So, as time does not exist, we use the word "eternal" to describe the state of A. There is nothing operating on A, that would include time or change. Even after "A then B", A has not changed, has it?

How does something eternal cause the universe or take action? Well, what reason is there to say it cannot? Could we look at the statement "A is eternal. One property of A is to cause a single universe". In this instance, even in an eternal state, A proceeds to cause a single universe. Do we need to change the properties of A in the processes or after the universe is caused? Or have we been able to comprehend A keeping it's properties even after the universe is caused?

Besides, if we observe no change, can we assume there is a change?

Thanks Qetzal. I'll take note of that. I've been more confused as to how it seems some beliefs get lumped together with others. With such a broad spectrum, I don't think a single answer could be given to "is this thing rational". Only one that tells us to "ask the right questions" or "do the math/science/learning".

[LaserGuy]

As you said, we cannot assume it is effected by time if it existed before time, so is Eternal the best description of this?

If it is not affected by time, what impetus leads this eternal thing to create the universe at the particular point that it did? What causes this eternal thing to change from the state of "doing nothing" to the state of "doing something"?

[Griffin]

The common one is "to last forever".
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal)
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless:

Yours is the standard definition in metaphysics, it's just important to clarify this stuff. But that's why circles and rings are considered symbols for eternity in some places - they have no beginning or end. Moving on.

I'd like to note that movement through time are not the only way to "change" that we experience. Movie film could be argued to change from frame to frame, though there is no time in movie film. Valleys change to mountains.

Just because an extrauniversal impetus exists outside of our time doesn't mean he exists in a framework that precludes

One property of A is to cause a single universe

Causation still, in my mind, requires causality, which A doesn't have. If A is frozen, eternal, it seems like actions such as causation would be precluded to it. Or, I suppose, if the causation is eternal as well. "causing" in our understanding is generally an action, maybe even a process, and actions, the act of "one thing then another thing" requires some sort of time. Also, you then go on to talk about "before" and "after" the universe is caused, but such terms would have no meaning when discussing an eternal impetus. It's atemporal - there is no before and after. Even the manner in which it could "cause" something is up for debate.

But lets ignore all that for now, I'll accept your stance on this issue, with the note that anything said with surety about extrauniversal properties, states, and natures is always going to be hypothetical - heck, even your bible says we won't be able to grasp this bit, so let's accept it.

You've got an eternal impetus that causes a temporal universe. Lots of assumptions to get here, we're on shaky ground, but nothing extremely or overtly irrational. At the very least, its reasonable.
You're still not quite in god territory yet, though - what's next?

[induction]

Ben, it is not rational to conclude anything about events or objects or anything at all outside the universe. We can speculate all day, but our physical laws, intuitions, and logic only apply inside the universe. These things can't be simply negated, they must be replaced by something, and we have no way of knowing what to replace them with. Humans have only ever existed within time, and it is beyond our abilities to draw conclusions about anything outside of that framework because there are too many possibilities, and no way to determine which, if any, are accurate. There can never be evidence of any kind about anything that occurs outside (or before) the universe, by definition. We have never witnessed anything eternal and have no way to compare such a thing to what we observe. Without the possibility of logic or evidence, there is no basis for rationality.

It is lots of fun to imagine the possibilities, but it is totally irrational to believe that you have figured it out.

That said, I am looking forward to the bit about concluding that whatever causes the universe must be qualitatively similar to the Christian (or any other) idea of God.

[Griffin]

I would like to note that many of my arguments with your assumptions here comes from being someone who creates universes for a living. I am not eternal, yet I most definitely exist outside of time from the perspective of those inside my universes (of course they are all as dumb as rocks, so I doubt they've ever considered it). I did not create them in a vacuum. I don't really have any control or way to influence them once creation has started.

I suppose I might be eternal TO them - which brings up the question, is Eternality context sensitive? It would certainly make sense! It would explain how an eternal being could create, could have "cause and effect".

Once I've created my universe, if I were to log it at 100%, each moment of that universe would existent concurrent with each moment of my own life (after creation, of course) - I would be an infinite number of me's, extending over all time without end. (Actually, about 20,000 years. And I fudge a lot of the early ones.) So change is possible for an eternal being, it simply means that every aspect of the eternal being that fluctuates throughout the change exists concurrently.

Actually pretty cool to think about!

[jules.LT]

One property of A is to cause a single universe

Causation still, in my mind, requires causality, which A doesn't have. If A is frozen, eternal, it seems like actions such as causation would be precluded to it. Or, I suppose, if the causation is eternal as well. "causing" in our understanding is generally an action, maybe even a process, and actions, the act of "one thing then another thing" requires some sort of time. Also, you then go on to talk about "before" and "after" the universe is caused, but such terms would have no meaning when discussing an eternal impetus. It's atemporal - there is no before and after. Even the manner in which it could "cause" something is up for debate.

What about using the additional time dimensions from string theory&co? An entity could be eternal as far as our usual dimension of time is concerned, but "cause" things along another dimension?

[Soralin]

So does it follow that whatever we observe, within the bounds of confidence, we can assume it will have a "cause" (that is something previous to it)? When you say "nothing observed is a first cause", implies they are causes or that they are only caused?

Sorry if you think someone else's ideas are stupid Griffin. But I was just using the term "first cause" as a generic logical representation of the phrase "Thing that has always existed (thus needs no cause of it's self). This thing is also the first to act/change/effect anything". This meets many, though not all, concepts of a god in types of theism. That is, an eternally existing God (or god) whom was the first to act and cause (through whichever mechanism required) the universe (universe = "everything else" not "everything"!).

Well the idea here would be that additional uncaused causes would break things in the definition of a first cause.

First off, an object doesn't have a single direct cause, it doesn't even have a linear chain of causes. If I have an object, and an atom collides with it, then that's a cause for its current movement. But if that object was earlier struck by another atom, and that caused its movement to change and get struck by the more recent atom, you could also say that that was a cause for its current movement. Likewise, if something struck those atoms that struck it, causing their movement to change such that they struck the object in question, those could also be causes for the objects current movement.

Which means, that the cause of any given object or event being what it is, is an exponentially expanding tree of events into the past. And what it causes is an exponentially expanding tree of events into the future. If we have an uncaused event, then that is a point where a branch of the tree ends (looking backwards), or looking forwards, the root of a tree of causality.

If a first cause is simply an uncaused cause, then any given object or event could have many uncaused causes. If the decay of an atom, or hawking radiation or so on is uncaused, then anything that is then effect by that, or effected by anything effected by that, or anything effected by anything effected by (etc., etc.) that, would have that endpoint exist in its past tree of causality. And therefore many objects could have many first causes in their past tree of causality.

If a first cause is the cause of everything in the universe, that the past tree of causality for all events converges back to a single point, then the existence of other first causes in the universe would invalidate that. Since not everything would trace its history back to that cause, there would be broken branches that lead back to later uncaused causes, which do not converge on that point.

How does something eternal cause the universe or take action? Well, what reason is there to say it cannot? Could we look at the statement "A is eternal. One property of A is to cause a single universe". In this instance, even in an eternal state, A proceeds to cause a single universe. Do we need to change the properties of A in the processes or after the universe is caused? Or have we been able to comprehend A keeping it's properties even after the universe is caused?

Because taking action is a change. And without time, there is no change, and therefore can be no action.

It also means you lose a lot of the other things associated with a god. Say for example, that we could make it so your mind did not change, what would that be like for you? The answer is that it wouldn't be like anything, if your brain were frozen in time, you would have no awareness of anything, your mind would be stopped. If such a thing would later be undone, you would be completely unaware that anything had even happened (other than the sudden changes outside of yourself). A mind is a process, thoughts, intelligence, awareness, all of these things are processes, and processes require time, require change; Without time, they cannot exist.

What about using the additional time dimensions from string theory&co? An entity could be eternal as far as our usual dimension of time is concerned, but "cause" things along another dimension?

That would be a way around it. In such a scenario the cause of the universe wouldn't be eternal or timeless, it would just be on a different, perpendicular timeline. Hypertemporal rather than atemporal, which would at least allow for change and actions. Although not any within our own universe, unless the process of making it took time, which seems more plausible, since otherwise it would take an infinitely small span of time. (and in which case such a cause would not be eternal or unchanging to us, breaking the assumption, not would it be a completely perpendicular timeline). Our universe itself, from such a viewpoint, would just be an unchanging 4-dimensional object.

[Griffin]

Soralin really understood my arguments well, and explained them better than I was doing. So bravo.

I wouldn't mind staying on this topic for a while, truth be told, but I am interested in seeing where he goes next, though.

[qetzal]

Thanks Qetzal. I'll take note of that. I've been more confused as to how it seems some beliefs get lumped together with others. With such a broad spectrum, I don't think a single answer could be given to "is this thing rational". Only one that tells us to "ask the right questions" or "do the math/science/learning".

If you make that "is this belief rational," then yeah. (Things - in the sense of rocks or bicycles - aren't rational or irrational. The terms don't apply.)

We've covered this before. A belief is rational if it can be logically derived from your starting assumptions or axioms. Depending on the axioms, either theism or atheism can be either rational or irrational.

For example, one of my axioms is "beliefs should always be consistent with empirical evidence." Based on that and the available evidence, I argue that atheism is rational while theism is not.

Depending on your axioms, you may be able to give a rational argument for theism. However, I don't think you can do so based simply on the possible existence of a first cause. Not unless you're starting from some extremely contrived axioms. Which you are free to do, but in that case I'd say your axioms are faulty. Of course, then we'd have to argue over justifying our axioms, which has already been split off to another thread.

[Technical Ben]

Spoiler:

So does it follow that whatever we observe, within the bounds of confidence, we can assume it will have a "cause" (that is something previous to it)? When you say "nothing observed is a first cause", implies they are causes or that they are only caused?

Sorry if you think someone else's ideas are stupid Griffin. But I was just using the term "first cause" as a generic logical representation of the phrase "Thing that has always existed (thus needs no cause of it's self). This thing is also the first to act/change/effect anything". This meets many, though not all, concepts of a god in types of theism. That is, an eternally existing God (or god) whom was the first to act and cause (through whichever mechanism required) the universe (universe = "everything else" not "everything"!).

Well the idea here would be that additional uncaused causes would break things in the definition of a first cause.

First off, an object doesn't have a single direct cause, it doesn't even have a linear chain of causes. If I have an object, and an atom collides with it, then that's a cause for its current movement. But if that object was earlier struck by another atom, and that caused its movement to change and get struck by the more recent atom, you could also say that that was a cause for its current movement. Likewise, if something struck those atoms that struck it, causing their movement to change such that they struck the object in question, those could also be causes for the objects current movement.

Which means, that the cause of any given object or event being what it is,

is an exponentially expanding tree of events into the past.

Spoiler:

And what it causes is an exponentially expanding tree of events into the future. If we have an uncaused event, then that is a point where a branch of the tree ends (looking backwards), or looking forwards, the root of a tree of causality.

If a first cause is simply an uncaused cause, then any given object or event could have many uncaused causes. If the decay of an atom, or hawking radiation or so on is uncaused, then anything that is then effect by that, or effected by anything effected by that, or anything effected by anything effected by (etc., etc.) that, would have that endpoint exist in its past tree of causality. And therefore many objects could have many first causes in their past tree of causality.

If a first cause is the cause of everything in the universe, that the past tree of causality for all events converges back to a single point, then the existence of other first causes in the universe would invalidate that. Since not everything would trace its history back to that cause, there would be broken branches that lead back to later uncaused causes, which do not converge on that point.

How does something eternal cause the universe or take action? Well, what reason is there to say it cannot? Could we look at the statement "A is eternal. One property of A is to cause a single universe". In this instance, even in an eternal state, A proceeds to cause a single universe. Do we need to change the properties of A in the processes or after the universe is caused? Or have we been able to comprehend A keeping it's properties even after the universe is caused?

Because taking action is a change. And without time, there is no change, and therefore can be no action.

It also means you lose a lot of the other things associated with a god. Say for example, that we could make it so your mind did not change, what would that be like for you? The answer is that it wouldn't be like anything, if your brain were frozen in time, you would have no awareness of anything, your mind would be stopped. If such a thing would later be undone, you would be completely unaware that anything had even happened (other than the sudden changes outside of yourself). A mind is a process, thoughts, intelligence, awareness, all of these things are processes, and processes require time, require change; Without time, they cannot exist.

What about using the additional time dimensions from string theory&co? An entity could be eternal as far as our usual dimension of time is concerned, but "cause" things along another dimension?

That would be a way around it. In such a scenario the cause of the universe wouldn't be eternal or timeless, it would just be on a different, perpendicular timeline. Hypertemporal rather than atemporal, which would at least allow for change and actions. Although not any within our own universe, unless the process of making it took time, which seems more plausible, since otherwise it would take an infinitely small span of time. (and in which case such a cause would not be eternal or unchanging to us, breaking the assumption, not would it be a completely perpendicular timeline). Our universe itself, from such a viewpoint, would just be an unchanging 4-dimensional object.

I thought the evidence was we had the opposite? When looking back at the universe historically, what do we get? (Approaching infinite density or unified fields and forces etc.)
A contracting system when looking into the past. Not an expanding one. What rational conclusion do we make from that?

[gmalivuk]

There's an exponentially expanding tree of causes in the same way that you have an exponentially expanding tree of ancestors. Sure, there comes a point when this trend has to stop, but it in no way disproves the shorter-term fact that you generally have more ancestors n+1 generations back than you do n generations back, by approximately a factor of 2.

[lalop]

As you said, we cannot assume it is effected by time if it existed before time

I'm going to have to go with the Doctor on this one: there is no such thing as "before" time. "Before" implies a measurement of time between some event and another; without time, there is no such thing as "before".

The common one is "to last forever".

"Forever", unfortunately, is just as non-descriptive a term as "eternal": it too must be defined.

1. without beginning or end;

The sequence of natural numbers integers has no beginning or end, but I don't think "eternal" would be the right word for it. "Eternal" seems to be supposed to having something to do with time.

always existing ( opposed to temporal)

This is a good one. There exists no time at which the thing does not exist. By this definition, the universe is also eternal (since time started with it and will end with it).

[gmalivuk]

The sequence of natural numbers has no beginning or end, but I don't think "eternal" would be the right word for it.

No, the sequence of natural numbers definitely has a beginning. I suspect you're talking about integers.

[Griffin]

His point that the universe is, by definition, eternal, is a good one though. Even if it WAS created, ultimately, by containing time it must, from any viewpoint not inside of it, be eternal itself.

[lalop]

The sequence of natural numbers has no beginning or end, but I don't think "eternal" would be the right word for it.

No, the sequence of natural numbers definitely has a beginning. I suspect you're talking about integers.

My bad, you're right.

[Diadem]

1. without beginning or end;

The sequence of natural numbers integers has no beginning or end, but I don't think "eternal" would be the right word for it. "Eternal" seems to be supposed to having something to do with time.

But I can just reorder the integers: 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, .... It's still the same sequence, but now it has a beginning.

The thing is, I can always do that. Our universe began with the Big Bang at t=0? Well sure. But now define τ = log(t) which means t = e^τ. In our new time frame the universe has always existed. There is no good reason to prefer using t for time over τ. Both are equally valid coordinates. So the notion that the universe began a finite time ago is entirely subjective.

In other words: Eternal must mean "there is no time where it didn't exist". Definitions about it having no beginning are not unambiguous.

always existing ( opposed to temporal)

This is a good one. There exists no time at which the thing does not exist. By this definition, the universe is also eternal (since time started with it and will end with it).

So I'm basically agreeing with you in a complex way

[Griffin]

Tech Ben, just a reminder of standing question:

Let's move on. You've got an eternal impetus (from a universal perspective) that causes a temporal universe. Lots of assumptions to get here, we're on shaky ground, but nothing extremely or overtly irrational. At the very least, its reasonable.
You're still not quite in god territory yet, though - what's next?

[lalop]

1. without beginning or end;

The sequence of natural numbers integers has no beginning or end, but I don't think "eternal" would be the right word for it. "Eternal" seems to be supposed to having something to do with time.

But I can just reorder the integers: 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, .... It's still the same sequence, but now it has a beginning.

You can reorder (indeed, well-order) everything; that does not, however, make it the same sequence, only the same set.

The thing is, I can always do that. Our universe began with the Big Bang at t=0? Well sure. But now define τ = log(t) which means t = e^τ. In our new time frame the universe has always existed. There is no good reason to prefer using t for time over τ. Both are equally valid coordinates. So the notion that the universe began a finite time ago is entirely subjective.

Not sure that works because of plank time. (I'm not a physicist, though.) Also, if t = 0 in fact exists, your coordinate system doesn't account for it (I think Hawking said it doesn't, but again I'm not a physicist). Even if everything works out, however, it's irrelevant to my observations.

[annarose]

If an individual truly believes that something is imaginary then why discuss it? .

I'd like to bring us back to this original question if I may.

First of all I don't understand why it is questionable to discuss imaginary things. I for one am quite fond of discussing things like elves and orcs and time travel, for example. I think its an intrinsic part of human nature to discuss the imaginary. And in the case of religion/atheism I think it is an important discussion because it plays such a major role in all of our lives whether we are religious or not.

I grew up in a very small town that was primarily Catholic. I found it very confusing and frustrating because the theology didn't make any logical sense to me and because whenever I asked a question about anything the only answer I would get was "because God said so" or "because God made it that way", which never satisfied my scientific curiosity. It wasn't until I came across a discussion about atheism on tv that I found out that there were other people who saw that the probability of the existence of a "God/god" was very slim. As a 12 year old child I found it very comforting to know that I wasn't the only freak out there who didn't believe something just because everybody else said it was true.

Religious people get to talk about their thoughts on things like morality and what happens when we die all the time, why shouldn't atheists be able to do the same? Just because Richard Dawkins wrote a book trying to convince theists to become atheists doesn't mean that's what being an atheist means. Atheism is simply the lack of conviction that God exists, and the reason we discuss it is to try and understand why so many people believe that he does.

[Metaphysician]

If an individual truly believes that something is imaginary then why discuss it? .

I'd like to bring us back to this original question if I may.

First of all I don't understand why it is questionable to discuss imaginary things. I for one am quite fond of discussing things like elves and orcs and time travel, for example. I think its an intrinsic part of human nature to discuss the imaginary. And in the case of religion/atheism I think it is an important discussion because it plays such a major role in all of our lives whether we are religious or not.

I grew up in a very small town that was primarily Catholic. I found it very confusing and frustrating because the theology didn't make any logical sense to me and because whenever I asked a question about anything the only answer I would get was "because God said so" or "because God made it that way", which never satisfied my scientific curiosity. It wasn't until I came across a discussion about atheism on tv that I found out that there were other people who saw that the probability of the existence of a "God/god" was very slim. As a 12 year old child I found it very comforting to know that I wasn't the only freak out there who didn't believe something just because everybody else said it was true.

Religious people get to talk about their thoughts on things like morality and what happens when we die all the time, why shouldn't atheists be able to do the same? Just because Richard Dawkins wrote a book trying to convince theists to become atheists doesn't mean that's what being an atheist means. Atheism is simply the lack of conviction that God exists, and the reason we discuss it is to try and understand why so many people believe that he does.

I found this article http://www.livescience.com/19665-belief-magic.html a rather interesting commentary on the inclination of human beings toward magical thinking. I make no claims as to the reputability of the website, the article seems rather casual, but interesting nevertheless. One of my major struggles in discovering exactly what I believe is that I understand how people can believe the things they believe. I mean, many of my heroes were either avowed atheists or were at least likely atheists. Douglas Adams, Christopher Hitchens, Kurt Vonnegut, Nietzsche. I have read their works extensively, and I understand where they are coming from and identify with their skepticism.

I also understand the beliefs of Christians, of Muslims, of Buddhists and Taoists and the ancient Greeks. I don't see why Science and religion should be fundamentally opposed to each other. Science is concerned with Truth. Most religions tend to claim to be concerned with Truth. Science is concerned with proving things about the reality in which we live. I mean common epistemology across all philosophical frameworks recognizes that there must exist something that cannot be proven. Godel (I am not so much a maths person here so correct me if I'm wrong) proved that there must exist fundamental mathematical truths that cannot be proven, which formalized(?) Aristotle's view of first principles which is that any attempt at proving a first principle leads to an infinite regress (the main issue with any attempt to explain the origins of the universe whether one is challenging God or that the Big Bang started it all). I understand that not all first principles are necessarily created equal (pasta monsters and all that) but this doesn't mean that religion and science must necessarily be opposed to one another on a fundamental level. Now, I will say that I believe much of the fault when it comes to this perceived opposition lies at the feet of the religious, particularly various religious institutions that viewed scientific discovery as threatening to their political power. But it would be nice to see, over time, the scientific community and the religious community finally realize that there is nothing inherent in either science or religion (or at least most religion, I can't speak for all religion) that opposes the other. For instance, if I, as a Christian, believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and then scientists come along and prove that it is actually millions of years old, is not the proper response on my part to say "oh, well I suppose that Genesis was allegorical and meant to communicate something other than the literal events involved in the creation of earth." This would theoretically allow me to derive even more satisfaction, fulfillment and understanding of my religion and the world in which I live. The problem arises when men seeking to use the Church as a political tool for the accumulation of power look at this as threatening their control. The real bogey man in this whole situation isn't religion, it's the people using it to further their selfish political ends. Same with science, because science is used this way all the time and with more and more scientific fraud coming to light, becomes apparent that science too has its false prophets, but this does not mean that it is not to be used as a tool to further the collective understanding of the human race.

Hopefully a small portion of that actually made sense. I'm not terribly articulate right now and all of that was just stuff that has been sifting around in my head for a while.

Also I think atheism can be either rational or irrational right? It depends on why the person believes what they believe.

[yurell]

Science is concerned with Truth. Most religions tend to claim to be concerned with Truth.

They claim to be concerned with the truth because they believe they already have it. The central tenet to a religion is faith — for example, Christianity requires faith that God exists, he created the Universe, and that Jesus is His son, who died for our sins (I believe that's the minimum required set of beliefs to be considered 'Christian', correct me if I'm wrong). Meanwhile, Ancient Greek religion required the belief in Zeus etc., Norse required Thor etc. and so on. Now, if religions were interested in the truth, they would attempt to prove that their religion is more valid than that of the others (rather than asserting it). However, these attempts suffer a major problem — all the claims being made by the other people are unfalsifiable, with no reason to believe them over any others. Furthermore, there is little to no positive evidence in the favour of any religion, and any attempt to stretch the acceptable evidence includes more 'evidence' for the other religions.

So when we're faced with multiple contradictory unfalsifiable claims (with no predictive capabilities), with the same amount of evidence for each, what do we do if we wish to establish the truth? The answer is that we believe none of them if truth is our goal. This is why atheism is a rational stance — it makes no assumption as to the existence of these untestable, unfalsifiable beings.

For instance, if I, as a Christian, believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and then scientists come along and prove that it is actually millions of years old, is not the proper response on my part to say "oh, well I suppose that Genesis was allegorical and meant to communicate something other than the literal events involved in the creation of earth." This would theoretically allow me to derive even more satisfaction, fulfilment and understanding of my religion and the world in which I live.

Yes, that is a sensible response. And many religious scientists do exactly this (even if it means that they don't believe in many of the essential tenets of their religion e.g. transubstantiation in Catholicism), but you do run into an issue — how do you tell before the fact what parts are fact and what are allegory? What reason do you have to research the age of the Earth if you already know it for a fact? And if you're searching for confirmation, how sure are you of the 6 000 year figure? Is there anything wrong with just saying "I don't know how old the planet is, but we're going to run tests to find out"?
My point is that if you're going to allow science to overrule what's written in scripture, why take anything written in scripture as literal? And if you're not going to take it as literal, how does it help you on your search for the truth about the universe? It may help you as far as moral questions go, but it's not going to lead you closer to any objective 'truth'.

[00squigzilla]

My personal belief is that any stance is based purely on faith. If you were to collect all the information about everything in existence then the amount of that knowledge that the human race possess is practically nothing. Whose to say that a particular piece of information that is thousands of years away from our grasp doesn't hold the key to proving or disproving a belief? Is it rational to have faith? Yes, of course it is. Atheism is rational although in my opinion a bit depressing.

[krogoth]

∴ Atheism is a rational stance
But I would say
Agnosticism is THE rational stance.

Is that fair to say?

[yurell]

My personal belief is that any stance is based purely on faith.

I feel that such a belief can only be trivially true (in the sense that we cannot be 100% sure we aren't brains in a jar).

∴ Atheism is a rational stance But I would say Agnosticism is THE rational stance.
Is that fair to say?

Spacing modified by me. Presuming I understand agnosticism correctly (the idea that we can never gain enough evidence to disprove or prove a deity), I'm not entirely sure this is true. One can be a theistic agnostic, and I don't think that would be rational, or one can be an atheist agnostic. While we can never technically 100% disprove the existence of a deity, we can gain sufficient information to disprove most well-defined ones (e.g. many have contradictory traits, so those are immediately proven to not exist). There comes a point where you look at an unfalsifiable theory that you've never gotten any evidence for and just give up on it — for example, one could argue that while we have microbes, there could have been spontaneous generation at least once somewhere. This is unfalsifiable, and hence can't be disproven, but not many people take it seriously.

[jules.LT]

∴ Atheism is a rational stance
But I would say
Agnosticism is THE rational stance.

Is that fair to say?

For any sufficiently restrictive definition of "knowing", I know nothing. That is a sound philosophical argument, but not a very practical one.
What is your attitude going to be when confronted with religious belief? Are you going to try to be perfectly neutral? Withdraw from discussions as soon as religious belief is mentioned? Or maybe consider only the material evidence and ignore all religious arguments? (then you might as well be an atheist...)

[krogoth]

∴ Atheism is a rational stance
But I would say
Agnosticism is THE rational stance.

Is that fair to say?

For any sufficiently restrictive definition of "knowing", I know nothing. That is a sound philosophical argument, but not a very practical one.
What is your attitude going to be when confronted with religious belief? Are you going to try to be perfectly neutral? Withdraw from discussions as soon as religious belief is mentioned? Or maybe consider only the material evidence and ignore all religious arguments? (then you might as well be an atheist...)

I don't see why there is an issue of practicality when the only issue is cause by those whom believe or disbelieve strongly enough to make irrational choices.

Unless the number of people making the irrational choice of forcing their 'faith' on others makes it dangerous for others to admit their lack of faith, would I say Agnosticism would be an irrational choice (to practice or advise others of).
But I suppose that's not really saying anything, as it should go without saying.

I feel free to advise other's of the lack of provability faith outside of one(we'll call it one) inaccurate book in most cases (I can't say I know all religions).

There is a major difference in the statements "Your stuff is wrong I don't believe any of it and you are wrong" and "Much of your stuff is wrong, but the rest doesn't give enough evidence for or against what you believe, so I'll admit I don't know, but say while you have faith, you truthfully don't 'know'(for all practical definitions of know) either."

I would say the statement of Atheism is "you are wrong- there is no god" where Agnosticism is more "I don't know, you could be right, but without further or more convincing evidence there is no reason to believe for or against your argument".

[jules.LT]

I would say the statement of Atheism is "you are wrong- there is no god" where Agnosticism is more "I don't know, you could be right, but without further or more convincing evidence there is no reason to believe for or against your argument".

Your definitions may vary...

[yurell]

I would say the statement of Atheism is "you are wrong- there is no god" where Agnosticism is more "I don't know, you could be right, but without further or more convincing evidence there is no reason to believe for or against your argument".

Atheism is the stance 'I do not believe in a deity'. Agnosticism is 'I don't think there will ever be proof one way or the other'. You can be theistic and agnostic (I believe there is a god but I don't think we'll ever be able to prove it), or atheistic and agnostic (I don't think there is a god but I don't think we'll ever be able to prove it).
Now, there are subsets of atheism that say 'there are no gods', but these are subsets, not the entirety of atheism.

[Diadem]

Definitions that are often given:
weak or negative atheism: I don't believe there is a god
strong or positive atheism: I believe there is no god
weak agnosticism: I don't think there is any proof either way
strong agnosticism: It is impossible to get any evidence either way

The original meaning of agnosticism is the strong one, but these days it's mostly used in the weak sense. For atheism the overwhelming majority of atheists are weak atheists, though many arguments against atheism are built against the strong claim.

Interestingly many people who call themselves agnostics are in fact atheists. Especially if you restrict agnosticism to its original claim.

[Elliot]

For atheism the overwhelming majority of atheists are weak atheists, though many arguments against atheism are built against the strong claim.

I'm not sure that's right. Perhaps we need to further divide 'strong atheism' into two more categories. First, there are atheists who believe that there are no gods, given sensible definitions of 'believe' and 'gods'. Second, there are atheists who claim to have Absolute Knowledge that nothing exists which could possibly be called a god.
Many of the arguments against atheism are built not against 'strong atheism' generally, but exclusively against this second category. But in my experience a large proportion, if not a majority, of atheists would fit the first category of strong atheism.

[jules.LT]

atheists who claim to have Absolute Knowledge that nothing exists which could possibly be called a god

Even militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens don't claim to have such an absolute knowledge. They merely claim that, given the evidence, the existence of any kind of god is so remotely improbable that it is not even worth considering.
Much like Bertrand Russell said that he merely regarded the Christian god as "just as improbable as the Homeric gods". This made him an agnostic in the strictest sense but meant that, to convey the right impression to the man on the street, he needed to label himself as an atheist.

[yurell]

Much like Bertrand Russell said that he merely regarded the Christian god as "just as improbable as the Homeric gods". This made him an agnostic in the strictest sense but meant that, to convey the right impression to the man on the street, he needed to label himself as an atheist.

One can be both atheist and agnostic — he doesn't believe that a god does exist, which makes him an atheist. If he doesn't believe it can be proven one way or the other, he's agnostic.

[jules.LT]

edit: never mind, after checking the original text it doesn't seem that clear cut.

[Diadem]

atheists who claim to have Absolute Knowledge that nothing exists which could possibly be called a god

Even militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens

Militant? Interesting. I've never seen Dawkins with a gun. Pics or it didn't happen!

They merely claim that, given the evidence, the existence of any kind of god is so remotely improbable that it is not even worth considering.
Much like Bertrand Russell said that he merely regarded the Christian god as "just as improbable as the Homeric gods". This made him an agnostic in the strictest sense but meant that, to convey the right impression to the man on the street, he needed to label himself as an atheist.

No this makes them atheists in the normal sense of the word atheist. As has been pointed out in the very post you are replying to, an atheist is not someone who claims to have absolute proof that no type of god can possibly exist. That's a (largely christian) strawman.

[jules.LT]

Militant? Interesting. I've never seen Dawkins with a gun. Pics or it didn't happen!

Go fetch a dictionary and check "militant", please.

They merely claim that, given the evidence, the existence of any kind of god is so remotely improbable that it is not even worth considering.
Much like Bertrand Russell said that he merely regarded the Christian god as "just as improbable as the Homeric gods". This made him an agnostic in the strictest sense but meant that, to convey the right impression to the man on the street, he needed to label himself as an atheist.

No this makes them atheists in the normal sense of the word atheist.

They're not exclusive, and there isn't a "normal" sense of the word.

As has been pointed out in the very post you are replying to, an atheist is not someone who claims to have absolute proof that no type of god can possibly exist.

That's what I was saying, because the post I was replying to seemed to consider those to be a significant portion of actual atheists.

[Elliot]

As has been pointed out in the very post you are replying to, an atheist is not someone who claims to have absolute proof that no type of god can possibly exist.

That's what I was saying, because the post I was replying to seemed to consider those to be a significant portion of actual atheists.

I was probably unclear then. I didn't mean to suggest that atheists who claim absolute knowledge exist as anything other than an abstract category. I only identified them for the purpose of distinguishing them from atheists who hold a positive belief without claiming absolute knowledge. Those are the ones I think make up a significant portion of actual atheists.

[gmalivuk]

They're not exclusive, and there isn't a "normal" sense of the word.

Which is why this is a fucking stupid argument, each and every single time it inevitably comes up in a thread about any type of non-theism.

I was probably unclear then.

No, I think you were quite clear. I had no problem understanding that you were drawing a distinction between the actually existing version of strong atheism that some people believe, and the straw version people most like to argue against.

[morriswalters]

They're not exclusive, and there isn't a "normal" sense of the word.

That's wishful thinking. Certainly to the average person on the street there is a normal sense to the word, and not liking it doesn't change it. I break it down three ways.

1. Theist, believes in God and thinks he can prove it.
2. Agnostic, straddling the fence and getting sore.
3. Atheist, doesn't believe in God, but knows he can't prove it.

[elasto]

I'd be pretty surprised if the average Theist thinks he has proof for God. He might think he has sound reasons for believing in God (just like an Atheist would think he has sound reasons for not believing in God); He might even think he has evidence for God (eg. he prayed and a miracle occurred). But I doubt he thinks he can prove God exists. He will almost certainly acknowledge that belief in God requires faith.

The three categories to my mind are:
- A Theist believes God exists
- An Atheist believes God does not exist
- An Agnostic has not come to a conclusion as to whether he believes God exists or not - though on balance he probably sides one way or the other

(I know the 'more correct' definition of an Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists rather than someone who believes God does not exist, but, to my mind, that's a rather weak form of Atheism - with elements in common with Agnosticism)

[Jonesthe Spy]

The three categories to my mind are:
- A Theist believes God exists
- An Atheist believes God does not exist
- An Agnostic has not come to a conclusion as to whether he believes God exists or not - though on balance he probably sides one way or the other

(I know the 'more correct' definition of an Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists rather than someone who believes God does not exist, but, to my mind, that's a rather weak form of Atheism - with elements in common with Agnosticism)

I think the emphasis on 'God' as too limiting. I would say a more accurate definition would be like this:

A Theist (for lack of a better term) believes that existence includes a spiritual aspect of some sort that transcends the material universe as we normally interact with it.

An Atheist believes the universe has no spiritual dimension of any sort and that the material universe we perceive with our senses and devices is all there is.

An Agnostic believes there is not enough evidence to conclusively judge the previous two beliefs.