"coming out" as atheist

[KabeRinnaul]

Ever since I started talking about religion online, the whole atheist/agnostic distinction has been something I've found very annoying. Honestly, it's almost a pointless distinction to make. Besides, it's usually used a red herring by fundies who've been backed into a corner they can't get out of.

I don't think it's a pointless distinction. I'd compare it to Schrödinger's_cat, with the question "Is the cat alive?" standing in for "Is there a God?"

The theist says "The cat is fine."
The atheist says "The cat is dead."
The agnostic says "I dunno, it's in a box."

[Ghel]

Schrodinger's Cat isn't a good analogy for a god because, whether the cat is alive or dead, it still exists. A better thing for an analogy of theistic positions would be unicorns.

A theist says "I believe unicorns exist."
The theist might go on to say "I know unicorns exist." (gnostic theist)

An atheist says "I don't believe unicorns exist."
The atheist might go on to say "I know unicorns don't exist." (gnostic atheist)

The gnostic theist's position should be easy to demonstrate, if what he claims is true. The gnostic atheist's position is impossible to prove, but I have never seen or heard an atheist claim it about all gods.

An agnostic says "I don't know if unicorns exist." (This is a knowledge statement, not a belief statement.)
The agnostic might go on to say "but I believe they do." (agnostic theist)
Or the agnostic might go on to say "but I don't believe they do." (agnostic atheist)

As you can see, theism/atheism covers belief, and gnosticism/agnosticism covers knowledge. Two separate but overlapping things.

It doesn't bother me if a person wants to label him or herself as agnostic (using whichever meaning they choose), as long as they choose the label for themselves. I'm tired of (mostly) theists trying to tell us what "atheist" and "agnostic" mean.

[KabeRinnaul]

Schrodinger's Cat isn't a good analogy for a god because, whether the cat is alive or dead, it still exists. A better thing for an analogy of theistic positions would be unicorns.

That's what I meant about the question of alive or dead standing in for existing or not. To write the question out fully, it'd be "Is the cat alive or dead?" versus "Is the concept of God true or false?" I was mainly using it to illustrate the way I use 'agnostic', that being we can't possibly know without evidence, and both answers are equally valid.

[Ghel]

... and both answers are equally valid.

Are you saying that the position "the concept of God is true" is equally valid with "the concept of God is false"? Because, depending on the definition of "God," they are nowhere near equally valid.

That is why many atheists ask for a definition before answering the question "do you believe in God?"

[KabeRinnaul]

Are you saying that the position "the concept of God is true" is equally valid with "the concept of God is false"? Because, depending on the definition of "God," they are nowhere near equally valid.

I'm saying that, if defining an agnostic as one who does not believe the question of God's existence can be answered (which I am), then in the absence of evidence to support either case, both answers are equally valid to an agnostic.

I think the problem is I am having a lot of difficulty phrasing the question I was trying to answer. My first attempt apparently implied that God's existence was assumed (as, in my metaphor, we knew the cat exists) and was just questioning His current state of being. And apparently my second implies that I'm just arguing that particular interpretations are true or false. Or maybe arguing the idea itself. Either way, it obviously wasn't very clear.

So let's try again.

What I meant to say was, as best I can phrase it, that the agnostic position can be compared to questioning the fate of Schrödinger's Cat. However, rather than questioning whether or not the cat lives, the question is whether or not God exists. If there is no evidence one way or the other, as is in Schrödinger's thought experiment, then one can, with equal justification, declare the cat dead or alive, or that God exists or not. The whole point was that in the absence of knowledge (thus the agnostic position), one cannot make a definitive statement.

[guywithashovel]

I don't think it's a pointless distinction. I'd compare it to Schrödinger's_cat, with the question "Is the cat alive?" standing in for "Is there a God?"

The theist says "The cat is fine."
The atheist says "The cat is dead."
The agnostic says "I dunno, it's in a box."

In most cases, it really isn't important enough to dwell on, since atheists and agnostics usually aren't that different. Granted, atheists tend to me more adamant that there are no deities, but that notwithstanding, neither one of them worships a deity (in most cases), and neither one believes that a deity has much if any influence over our world (once again, in most cases).

Besides, like I said, the atheist/agnostic distinction is usually thrown up as a smokescreen by people who've been backed into a corner in debate.

Though I do think the Schrodinger's Cat comparison is an interesting one.

[draco664]

Though I do think the Schrodinger's Cat comparison is an interesting one.

While interesting, it's not really an apt comparison.

The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was meant to describe a macroscopic parallel (eg, a cat in a box) to a quantum state where a particle could be both one condition (eg, alive) and a contradictory condition at the same time (eg, dead) until it was viewed/measured.

Once the particle was measured, the waveform collapsed and the particle took on one of the contradictory conditions (either alive or dead).

Schrodinger was trying to show Einstein the bizarreness of quantum mechanics, not suggest that a cat could be alive and dead at the same time.

So, unless you're suggesting that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, it's not really an apt comparison.

[muses_nightmare]

If you can't talk to someone without fighting about religion, don't talk to them. Get new friends.

Absolutely. I may not be Atheist but my beliefs tend to clash with the more traditional religious views, but I'm not one to start an argument for the sake of it with my friends. I have one friend who is a Christian, and yes we've had discussions about religion, but they've never turned into fights really, I got annoyed at her once for dismissing my experiences as coincidental while her's were supposedly miracles or something of the sort, but that's the closest we've come to a fight about it.

It's difficult to come out as anything non mainstream really. It's why I don't generally tell people what my religion is even when the topic comes up because it can cause more harm than good most of the time. I also think there is a big difference between "coming out" to Christians or other mainstream religions and coming out to non-mainstream religions. I for one would never try and convert someone to my faith because I don't believe they will be punished for not believing, Christians on the other hand believe they are saving people by trying to convert them.

[Gawdzillers]

Why do I choose science over religion? Because it works! We understand how the solar system was formed, how life happened, why it's best to buy seafood on a weekend.

It is possible to have both. In fact, I find pure atheism hard to believe, in regard to the origin of the universe. I just can't believe that nothing turned to everything for no reason. Should we investigate the universe through the scientific method? Yes, of course, but you might also want to ask, "Why?"

[Ghel]

but you might also want to ask, "Why?"

Are you asking why use the scientific method or why there's something rather than nothing?

To answer the first option, the scientific method is the best method humans have found to explain how the universe works.

To answer the second option, it's because something is more stable than nothing. The old saying "nature abhors a vacuum" is true. Even the "empty" space between planets and between stars has trace amounts of matter and energy.

[Andara Bledin]

Are you asking why use the scientific method or why there's something rather than nothing?

It's fairly obvious that the question is the second.

And if there's a universe because it's more desirable for nature to have one, why was there ever not a universe?

^-.-^

[Ghel]

It's fairly obvious that the question is the second.

I was asking to clarify, since the "why?" followed "Should we investigate the universe through the scientific method?". I didn't want to assume something and then be wrong about it.

And if there's a universe because it's more desirable for nature to have one...

That's not what I said. I said that something is more stable than nothing (which would be a complete vacuum). In any given space, it's more likely that there's something there than nothing.

...why was there ever not a universe?

Who says there was ever not a universe? Even the "big bang" is merely the beginning of the universe as we know it. It's very likely that there was something before the big bang, but it probably didn't follow the same physical laws that exist now. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a universe before then.

[Gawdzillers]

You've brought up an interesting point, Ghel. You said that there may have been something before our universe, but it "probably didn't follow the same physical laws that exist now". Think about this: Could it have been responsible for the universe as we know it? Could this "something" be a creator?

[Rapscallion]

To go down that route brings to mind part of an Eddie Izzard routine.

Scientist - "We know a fair amount, but we have gaps here, here, and here."

Regilious person - "Woo - it was magic!"

Rapscallion

[Gawdzillers]

To go down that route brings to mind part of an Eddie Izzard routine.

Scientist - "We know a fair amount, but we have gaps here, here, and here."

Regilious person - "Woo - it was magic!"

Rapscallion

I'm not saying it was magic, I was suggesting a view of religion from a scientific perspective (Although, after reading through the "Humans aren't animals" thread, this may prove to be difficult).