Episode 130: Agnostics Suck! [Discussion]

[bsg]

Agnostics have the most annoying opinions on the Internet.

Watch or download now!

[bsg]

Best episode yet. Lacking belief in something that has no evidence is not a claim, and therefore lacks any amount of dogma or certainty. Explicit atheists may seem like they're trying to get you to believe what they do, but it's far more likely that they're simply trying to get people to think about why they believe what they do. Interestingly, all agnostics are implicit atheists, and the fact that this pisses them off shows they aren't actually interested in definitions and are far more interested in seeming correct.

[bells4art]

Yeah, this was definitely one of the (rather few) episodes where I 100% agree with Penn.

Though there is an underlying problem here that I think he only touched: Within Atheism, there are two fundamentally different streams, one being represented by the statement "I do not believe God exists" and another being "I believe God does not exist". People of type 1 simply see no evidence for the existence of God, while the second type believes there actually is evidence for the opposite, namely that the human mind created God and there is no such thing in reality.

Some people tried labeling the latter "Anti-theism" but it never really caught on. Strong and weak atheism are some other labels I've heard. Agnosticism is often just another word used for the weaker form of atheism - although used wrongly as pointed out.

Now, the reason why I think many people (including me) are looking for this distinction, is because they are tired of being put into the same drawer with rather extreme, outspoken Atheists, just for saying they don't believe in God. Personally, I've resorted to the term "not religious" for that purpose, although I would have no trouble at all saying I was an Atheist, as long as that term is understood correctly. But sadly, it usually isn't.

[cybersuchus]

This was a fantastic Penn Point, and one that I am likely going to direct people towards, who insist that being agnostic is some kind of middle ground.

Regarding strong and weak atheism, I've also heard the former called fundamentalist atheism.

[tokenuser]

Regardless of what its called, it pisses me off that Christians seem to only believe that they have morals and family values. As an atheist, I live a far more "Christian" lifestyle than many self confessed "Christians". I don't need a book or organised group based faith system to tell me whats wrong or right.

I am definitely in the "I don't believe God exists" camp, but unlike a Christian who looks down on me because "I have not embraced the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart and soul as my saviour", I am not going to look down on them for believing in fairy tales. Whatever it takes to get them through their day. Personally, I just need a caffeinated soda.

[bells4art]

Originally Posted by tokenuser

Regardless of what its called, it pisses me off that Christians seem to only believe that they have morals and family values.

Next time you hear that just ask them to name a few "christian values" and then ask them if they really think that only a christian would follow those. Typically they name pretty general stuff that any person with common sense would agree to, plus they are actually also pretty much the values of any other religion.

[scotty_flamingo]

The question becomes, "What do you mean by God?"

One great definition that I heard in the movie, "The Nature of Existence" was "God is the laws of the Universe" or something to that effect.

As an Agnostic, my guess [and all you can really do is guess] is that there is no such thing as a Personal God. There is no Personal God that cares what I do, is not taking notes down on me [except possibly for amusement or observational purposes], and when I die that's all there is.

Now to the question of whether some being or group of beings created the universe and everything in it - if I had to make a wager I would say yes. The notion that bacteria evolved into something as complex as the human brain - is simply too far fetched for me.

I like the 2001:A Space Odyssey idea - that mankind's evolution was deliberately prodded into action at certain moments in time by some entity.

[wolfmane]

Sorry, Penn, but you're wrong. Atheism is not a subset of agnosticism or vice versa. It does not follow that an agnostic is also an atheist, or that an atheist is also agnostic. On the contrary, agnosticism is mutually exclusive with both theism and atheism, because both believe they have the answer, while the one thing that agnostics believe is that *no one* has the definitive answer (that probably neither is true, but one or both could be at least partially). If you say that you're an atheist but admit the possibility of there being a "god", then you are by definition NOT an atheist. "A" = "none" or "no" (as in zero, not even a little); "theist" = "believer in god(s)"; "atheist" = "believer in NO god".
It may be true that agnostic is not in the middle between theism and atheism, because it may be somewhere out in left field. The fact is that agnostics "believe" that BOTH theists and atheists are wrong. Agnostics "believe" that the evidence points to irreconcilable problems with both atheism and theism. Atheists "believe" that the real explanation for the origin of species is not possible to achieve at this point in time due to insufficient data, and will not be possible for many millennia, if ever.
The truth is that there are only two possibilities for proving one or the other: 1) Time travel, allowing us to actually go back and record prehistory; or 2) Some event, such as a "second coming" or other similar arrival and revelation (to the entire planet, not just a select few individuals) of (a) being(s) demonstrably powerful enough to be responsible for creation.
As for the "facts" that are interpreted one way or the other, you can connect the dots any way you want, but that doesn't make your interpretation fact. Just because the dots on a "connect the dots" page are laid out in a certain way (and possibly even numbered) doesn't mean you can't connect them in a way that gets the (entirely different) result you want, rather than what the original designer intended or drew. And just because you connect the dots in a certain way doesn't make that way correct or factual.

[cybersuchus]

Originally Posted by wolfmane

If you say that you're an atheist but admit the possibility of there being a "god", then you are by definition NOT an atheist. "A" = "none" or "no" (as in zero, not even a little); "theist" = "believer in god(s)"; "atheist" = "believer in NO god".

Sorry dude, but that is just not accurate. To believe in no god is the same thing as denying god. You are assuming a priori that a god exists and then choosing to ignore it.

Atheists don't believe in the existence of a god(s) in the same way that they don't believe in the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, a flat Earth, or the tooth fairy. The key here is the lack of belief. It takes effort to believe in the nonexistence of something.

As for agnosticism, I still think Penn is right on the money. Belief is a personal thing equivalent to having an opinion. You either have belief in something, or you don't, there is no middle ground there. Agnostics always seem to beat around the bush with this, but all one is really doing is trying to side step the original question. It's not like one can't change their stance in the future.

Personally I blame the fundamentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins for making atheism seem more like anti-theism (which is honestly what I would categorize Dawkins as), and making agnosticism sound like a tenable "middle ground."

I don't believe in God, yet I have no proof God does not exist. Sounds like middle ground to me.

I personally believe in many ASPECTS of a god, though I usually call the over all aspect--the 'One' if you will--a goddess as I believe in the feminine aspect of the dual nature of nature, and humanity.