View SF Weekly‘s video iTeam investigation on the Web and decide for yourself: Are anti-religion authors colluding with metaphysical-minded appliance makers to give the masses a new opiate?

Promoting science, logic and reason as the best tools for understanding the world and fighting against the negative effects religions have on society are endeavors common to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, naturalists, brights, skeptics and most secular humanists. There is a rather loosely defined online community of these individuals and they’ve been arguing since long before this blog was conceived about the meaning of the word “atheist”, whether atheists can be fundamentalists or extremists, what is the right way to promote science and reason, and what these different terms mean. This is my take.

First, let’s look at the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism” and what they might mean. “Atheism”, in popular use and many dictionaries, is the outright denial of the existence of any god, i.e. an atheist is a person who’s absolutely sure that there is no god. However, this is not how self-described atheists use the term. They use it to mean “lacking belief in god”, thereby including many who consider themselves agnostics. They support this by pointing out the etymology of the word, which stems from the greek “theos”, god, and the prefix “a-”, which means without. However, many feel that this is faulty logic. They, quite correctly, point out that the etymology of a word not necessarily denotes its current meaning. They might also point out the use of the word to mean any person that has a faith differing from the speaker’s. However, this line of thought doesn’t necessarily support the view that atheism is the positive belief in no god, because if the current usage is what defines a word, it can be convincingly argued that “atheism” has come to mean “lacking belief in a god” simply by atheists using the term in that way.

More helpful than looking at the etymology and usage of the word is to look at its semantics. All definitions deal with belief; none of them necessarily entail a knowledge of any sort. We can also point out that there are three possible answers to the question “do you believe in a god?”, yes, no and “the question is meaningless”. If theism is the first answer, for symmetry atheism could be the second, but then we lack a term for the third. Alternatively, some people have come up with the terms strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god, whereas weak atheism is simply the lack of belief. These terms come closer to describing what people actually believe. It follows that, if we are to use the term “atheism” without any qualifiers, we should use it to mean weak atheism, because it is the broadest (all strong atheists are necessarily weak atheists as well). It also its into the symmetry, where theism means belief in a god and atheism means the lack thereof.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge rather than belief. Agnostics claim not to have knowledge. They have also been associated with the stronger position that it is impossible to have knowledge about this particular thing. The term originated with Thomas Huxley, who describes it like this:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. […]

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.

He combined the greek word “gnosis”, which means knowledge, with the “a-” prefix that means without, thereby professing his lack of knowledge about the subject. Huxley explains what he means by it:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

This is certainly compatible with weak atheism. Weak atheists do not pretend they are certain of conclusions that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Some self-described agnostics will of course object to Huxley’s use of the word “faith” to describe agnosticism and hold that, as the first sentence proposes, it is not a faith or creed but a method. Others will once again say that the origins of a term are unimportant and insist that the current usage is the correct usage. But the current opinion is that agnosticism is a third position, a middle point on the question “do you believe in a god?” This is inconsistent with both the way Huxley used the term, and the way agnostics use it. The third option on the question “do you believe in a god?”, if there is a third option, is not “I don’t know” but rather “the question is meaningless”. Perhaps we need to find a term for those who think the question is meaningless or meaningful but impossible to know. We must conclude that “I don’t know” is a claim about knowledge, and therefore can apply to atheists and theists alike. So, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge; the other option is “I do know”, which is what many theists and some atheists claim.

I can then call myself an agnostic atheist. There are some gods that I am absolutely, positively sure do not exist, either because they’re logically impossible or because they would leave evidence. Other gods I am not so sure about, either because they would not leave evidence or because the evidence they would leave is of such a kind that it is consistent but not conclusive with the evidence we do have.

- Simen

Original Source: MapsOfWar

- Agnostic Atheist

I am still the same “somewhat intelligent, rational being” I was in my many years of following, teaching, and defending the Christian faith. In fact, during those years, I believed my faith to be more rational than emotional. From my perspective at that point, the central message of Christianity was a very rational world view.

My deconversion from Christianity began when I realized the Bible did not support the “rational” Christian message I believed. The God described in the Bible was not a loving, forgiving, merciful, kind, caring Father in heaven who had “plans to prosper [me] and not to harm [me], plans to give [me] hope and a future.” (Jeremiah 29:11) Also, when I realized that the Gospels showed Jesus as being very inconsistent in his central message of compassion, loving your neighbor and doing unto others as you would want them to do unto you, I became very disillusioned.

Here is Richard T Scott’s response to the above referenced post and comment:

… it is also not necessarily true that those who believe in God are devoid of intelligence or rationality. One can logically come to a conclusion that God does exist, just as intelligently and rationally as one can conclude that he does not. I’m assuming that you’ve based your conclusion on the most concrete evidence available – i.e scientific observation. It is obvious from history and the progress of scientific knowledge that data can be construed in different ways and that every “law” is simply the best possible explanation that we have thus far come up with. Science is excellent in answering “how” things happen. But science does not seem to be so good at answering “why”. An apple falls because of gravity, but why does a body exhibit a force called gravity? Why did the Big Bang occur?

Science is the most accurate means that we have for quantifying and understanding the universe, yet our data is incomplete. Measurement is ultimately imprecise due to the limits of the tools we use for measurement, especially on a quantum level.

Further, it is impossible for a human being to be completely objective. Our perceptions, and therefore what we conclude from the given data, are relative to our experience. It is admirable and necessary to strive for objectivity, yet it is an ideal which is never truly reached. Thus, logic is just as relevant as “objective” observable phenomena.

Science has a limit. There are many things left unanswered, which perhaps are more rationally answered by other means for the time being. It’s simply a matter of choosing to believe one system for viewing and understanding the universe or another, either way both require “faith” of some kind. Though people generally see it this way, I don’t think it’s absolutely one or the other.

So, all I can believe is this:
At this point in time, given the information available to me, given my subjective biases (some of which I’m aware of and try to take into account), I don’t see a direct correlation between the data and the Bible, but I do see a correlation between the data and the probability of a higher being. Call it the Creator, call it the Great Architect… call it what you will, but Christianity does not have a monopoly on ethics and God, nor does atheism have a monopoly on intelligence or rationality.

Respectfully,

- A Deist”

(emphasis mine)

- Agnostic Atheist

The address is:

www.atheismcentral.com

.

I use this along with Planet Atheism for my daily blog readings.

If you would like your blog included in Atheism Central, please let me know in the comments section below.

Enjoy!

- Agnostic Atheist

Your way just allows you to do what you want so you can get away with sin with no consequences. The Bible says there is punishment for sin, and just because you don’t want to believe it doesn’t make it not true. I would rather error and say there is a God. Please consider what the Bible has to say today before it is too late!

This is a pretty typical Christian response to atheism. They simply believe that we’re atheist because we need a license to “sin.” Huh?

First of all, what is sin? Sin, according to Christianity, is disobeying God’s Word (the Bible).

Well, as I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, there are numerous commands in the Bible that Christians do not follow. Women speak in church. A man can marry a divorced woman and not be in a perpetual state of adultery. Women can wear jewelry and costly clothing. I could go on for hours on commands from the Bible which are not followed by the majority of Christiandom. In other words, a Christian who subscribes to the above definition of sin is really nothing more than a perpetual sinner.

In addition to these clear violations of scripture, other “sins” have evolved over time. There was a time when drinking, smoking, and dancing were considered sins and still are in some circles – but these are now becoming more and more acceptable in Christianity today.

The ironic thing is I’m probably a better “Christian” today, as an atheist, than I was as a Christian. For example, I no longer sit in judgment of others (in line with what Jesus is quoted as teaching). I now try to be kind and compassionate to everyone in spite of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or a variety of other reasons Christians have to discriminate against others. In other words, I really do attempt to “love my neighbor.”

Yes, I no longer care whether a couple engages in pre-marital sex. I don’t see how it could be wrong for two consenting mature individuals. After all, sex is a part of humanity. I no longer care if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married. Hell, I’ve seen many heterosexual marriages void of love and respect. Yeah and who gives a damn if I curse (especially when I’m alone in my car and not offending anyone). However, is this why I’m an atheist? This question is so ridiculous to me that it doesn’t even deserve an answer.

I’m an atheist because I am a somewhat intelligent, rational being and I came to a point in my life where I could no longer simply believe myths to be true because a very flawed book said they were – and in the process, became a better Christian. How? Well, I do not subscribe to the Christian definition of sin hence believing the above stated issues does not make me a sinner. I do also attempt to live my life by the basic constructs supposedly subscribed to by Christianity. If you think about it- sin should really be defined as NOT violating the rights of another individual (to their life and possessions) but that’s another blog.

- Agnostic Atheist

The party will then take a break and then resume at 11:35 p.m. during the Nightline program.

How will our blog party work? Well, it’s quite simple. At 2:00 p.m., go to ABC News Now and also open another browser window to Agnostic Atheist. We will start a blog and have it open for your comments on the blow by blow details of the debate.

Then at 11:35 p.m., tune into Nightline on your TV and open our blog in a browser window to converse live with others who are watching the program. Of course, our conversations will be via comments on the blog so you’ll have to refresh often.

As mentioned above, it’s BYOB (Beer for atheists, Bible for Christians). Oh yes, Christians are also invited. However, I will warn you rumor has it that your side sustained quite a beating in this debate – which took place on May 5th.

Here’s what Becky Garrison said about the debates in her review:

Even though the atheists failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God could not have been the spark that set all of creation, they seem to have nailed this debate when Cameron pulled out the get-out-of-hell card. Simply put, this was “what you believe about God will determine where you spend eternity.” At this point, if I wasn’t covering this event, I would have crawled out of the church in shame. While this is supposed to be an ABC news program, I felt like I had entered a rather lame taping of Saturday Night Live instead.

Please help us spread the word by publicizing our BLOG PARTY on your blog.

- Agnostic Atheist

• Debate on ABC News Now
• Agnostic Atheist: Debate Blog Party (BYOB)
• Becky Garrison: Christian vs. Athiest Celebrity Death Match
• Friendly Atheist: Nightline Debate Preview
• Friendly Atheist: Nightline Debate Recap
• de-conversion.com: Theist Response

NOTE: If you’re having trouble finding the video on ABC News (not sure why they make it so difficult), go here: BSAlert.com.

….best-selling author Ray Comfort contacted the network and offered to prove God’s existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith. He and Kirk Cameron (co-hosts of an award-winning Christian TV program) challenged the two originators of the “Blasphemy Challenge” to a debate on the existence of God.

….ABC loved the idea, and will host a debate in New York City on May 5, 2007. Moderated by Martin Bashir, the debate will be streamed LIVE on their website and will also be filmed for “Nightline.”

As May 5 is quickly approaching, I went looking on the ABC Website to validate this article.

Here’s what I found on Is God Real? The Nightline Face Off – Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God:

Watch the Face Off Wednesday May 9 at 2 p.m. on ABC News Now, and on Nightline at 11:35 p.m.

Many Atheist blogs, forums, and groups picked up the Christian News Wire piece and publicized the wrong date for the airing of this event. Please note that the event will be taped on May 5th.

Please update your calendars.

– Agnostic Atheist

p.s. Don’t miss our Blog Party on May 9th (BYOB) during this event

Also, If you’re a Christian, please watch the following video clip prior to getting too excited about this debate: