I'm religious, but I pretty much agree that of the non-religious positions, agnosticism is the most sound. Atheism requires just as much faith as religion, in it's own way.

Atheism can, and often does, describe the simple lack of a belief in a specific god or gods in general and can be used interchangeably with the word agnosticism in most speech.

Atheism can also mean the belief that no gods exist.

It is common to distinguish the two points of view in categories of "weak" and "strong" atheism.

Strong atheism is supported by arguments that the very definition of god is logically self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

Debates on this subject tend to degrade rapidly into semantics.

Vac,

Yes, I guess it comes down to semantics. Technically, atheism means the belief that there is no God and yet it seems like functionally it has come to mean the belief that religion is bogus.
I think, ironically, those who call themselves atheists have a bit of a persecution complex and like to oppose theism, but have no more proof that there isn't a God than theists do that there is.

Aaron,

I believe Einstein's anecdote (and certainly my post) were not aimed at those who believe in a God, because, yes - as you state belief in a God is based on faith, rather than empirical evidence. But rather, Einstein was suggesting that if someone claims to base their opinion on science or on evidence, then at best they are agnostic because ultimately Atheism requires faith, just as theism does.

Well, I'm fairly sure from some of the things that he said that Einstein was convinced that there was a God. But it is an interesting way of looking at it.

Ultimately, belief in anything requires some measure of faith. There's simply no easy way for either side of this coin (and many others) to ultimately "prove" who is correct. And even if it were possible, it wouldn't matter. You can show someone proof that the world isn't flat and they'll still find a way to argue, if they're that vehement in their beliefs.

I think what I find astounding in the atheism vs theism debate is the willingness to beat the horse to death as much as possible. If you believe in a God - great, if you don't - great. As long as you're not trying to force me to change my mind, then we can all get along.

I insist that "technically" the definition of atheism does not require any belief or statement of knowledge whatsoever. Though there are some atheists that do insist there is no god, there are countless more who simply do not commit either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

Arguments for the non-existence of gods are based on establishing god definitions and then demonstrating those definitions to be self-contradictory and impossible. It's an entirely logical exercise and it can be done without 100% knowledge of the physical universe.

There are three forms of argument.

Semantic apologetics: Arguing that the concept “god”, as well as related concepts, are meaningless, in order to prove strong-atheism.

Incoherency apologetics: Arguing that divine attributes are contradictory, lacking, or contradict religious texts, in order to prove weak and strong-atheism.

Materialist apologetics: Arguing that God’s divine creation contradicts the necessary attribute of various features of human understanding, in order to prove strong-atheism.

http://www.strongatheism.net/intro/what_is_strong_atheism/

I recently read a novel called "Blashemy" (pretty decent), in which a group of scientists powering up a particle accelerator open up a hole in time-space and end up having a conversation with an entity claiming to be God.
When they ask it to explain the meaning of the Universe to them, it replies "I could no more explain the Universe to you, than you could to a beetle."
And to me, that's the line of reasoning that makes both religion and atheism absurd - in the grand scheme of things I just don't believe our tiny human brains are capable of understanding it and the fact that we believe we can just means that we're drunk on our own sentience.

Vac,

If there are those atheists who simply do not commit one way or another to whether or not there is a God, - why do they call themselves Atheists instead of Agnostics?

Albeit, by using philosophical definitions you can explain it, but surely they must realize that in the common vernacular, the word "atheist" means one who does not believe in the existence of a god.

It seems that by calling themselves atheists they must purposely be sowing confusion in order to get a rise out of theists.

vac's response irritates me no end. atheism does not mean the same thing as agnosticism.

as an agnostic, i picked a word which actually described my thoughts on the subject of gods. the idea that there are strong and weak atheists is part of what makes me believe that atheism is actually a religion: you're spawning denominations. please feel free, but stop trying to redefine words to suit your faith. it's just confusing and offensive to the people who are not identifying as atheists.

The word "atheist" is a little more precise than "agnostic" about what it is you don't believe in. I like it for that reason. Agnostic sounds wishy-washy - almost like you don't care or you haven't given it much thought. But that's subjective to me.

In your most recent response you define atheism more broadly, as a non-belief in god. This is the definition I agree with, and it embraces even those who think of themselves as agnostics.

And this is exactly the kind of semantic exchange this sort of thing always develops into. I'm ejecting. I just wanted to get in a couple statements about how atheism is defined and what evidence positive/strong atheists use to support their point of view, since these points are quite often misunderstood.

bstrangely,

Good observation - a weak-atheist then is just an atheist who can't yet bear the thought of calling himself an agnostic.

How long until a religious war breaks out between the weak and strong atheists to determine which side more accurately represents the faith? And if someone dies in their defense of their version of "non-belief" can they be called a martyr? Maybe in the future we'll have a patron saint of Atheists. The spectre of atheism as a religion brings up all sorts of bizarro possibilities!

fins two the left.
I'm sad because the sharks are caught for the so-called-well-to-do.

The sharks are trolled.
Then, they cut the fins.
Let them eat? Next life?
Yea. Ya arms are sunshine?
Ya born at a early age also?
Ya see the caverns in eyes?
Ya will shake hands? Yikes!
Ya grumpy? Bashful, okay!
Ya smile like sunshine huh?
Hymn. Hum. No hurl mud?
okay one hug. two hugs Ya!
I was reading Ya O Yummy?
No speak to strangers? huh!

bstrangely, I'm as disappointed as you are that our language allows words to have multiple interpretations that sometimes need to be clarified in conversation, but how that makes atheism a religion more than agnosticism, objectivism or Freudian theory of psychoanalysis is beyond me.

This is the way these conversations always go. Atheism is a religion too, some will claim. In fact every idea or concept is or can be and you can picture a future religious war where followers of Campbell's go to war against the heretical generic brands over who's soup is chunkier. That's not far-fetched at all.

But in the real world there are real religions and real people are really fighting and really dying. But I guess if we use our words the right way there may be room for god to live out in the margins somewhere.

vac, this is a woefully incorrect description of what has happened:

"bstrangely, I'm as disappointed as you are that our language allows words to have multiple interpretations that sometimes need to be clarified in conversation, but how that makes atheism a religion more than agnosticism, objectivism or Freudian theory of psychoanalysis is beyond me."

if someone insists that they ascribe to the freudian theory of psychoanalysis without ever having read any freud and a studious ignorance of his existence, then maybe i would say this parallel makes sense. but the fact that you consider your personal definition of atheism to be similar to freudian theory when we're talking about GODS is just odd to me. are you atheist or agnostic about siggy?

you're obviously not disappointed that these conversations must occur, you're the REASON they occur. if you would just grant that you use "atheism" to describe something very personal, then that would be different. but the fact is, you brought up agnosticism as if it were the same as atheism, and now you're arguing with an agnostic about whether or not that's true.

now doesn't that seem odd to you? at no point have you defined agnosticism... only atheism: you just insist you're both and that one term is just a "wishy-washy" version.

and i would say to you, this is much more important than your dismissive semantic response seems to make out. i consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist because i like to discuss people's religious/spiritual views with them.

you prefer labeling them without any discussion. and then you're insulting to boot:

"The word "atheist" is a little more precise than "agnostic" about what it is you don't believe in. I like it for that reason. Agnostic sounds wishy-washy - almost like you don't care or you haven't given it much thought. But that's subjective to me."

yes it is subjective. why must you use both while you insult the people who prefer the one you don't like? that's just rude.

and this is why i'm not an atheist. the conversation is more than just semantics: it's belief. you're insulting mine, the same way you do with the theists, and you don't even seem to realize it.

If you want to take the word personally, that's your choice.

Atheism is "a - theism," without - god belief.

Agnostic is "a - gnostic," without - knowledge.

The word "agnostic" is not intrinsically clear what one claims not to know. Unqualified it usually means that you don't know if god exists or not, but the word can be used in other ways.

But if one is uncertain about the existence of god I'd call them a non-believer and therefore an atheist, with apologies if they find that word reprehensible. I think it's a good word, even if its definition is broader than what some want to accept.

Do I know for sure if god or gods do or do not exist? I'll admit I don't. I am agnostic. I also don't believe gods exist and that makes me an atheist.

"Do I know for sure if god or gods do or do not exist? I'll admit I don't. I am agnostic. I also don't believe gods exist and that makes me an atheist."

then the words are not interchangeable. if you're not sure if no gods exist, does that make you a buddhist? no? why not?

if you have a belief, by all means, tell people what it is with whatever word makes the most sense to you. but this is really a stupid thing to say:

"But if one is uncertain about the existence of god I'd call them a non-believer and therefore an atheist, with apologies if they find that word reprehensible."

wow, just like how christians insist we're all children of god even when we say we're not!

see why atheism is becoming a religion? this is why i'm not an atheist. i would also never insist that everyone is an agnostic based on the idea that agnosticism means "without knowledge" and no person seems to have realio-trulio firsthand knowledge of god. that does a disservice to the very idea of sovereignty of the mind. if you already know what everyone thinks, there's no point in discussing faith at all.

i admit that i do not: therefore, i am an agnostic. i am not an atheist, because i am willing to entertain the idea that gods are real to the people who claim to believe in them. you actively disbelieve and that is different from what i do.

this is not me taking the word personally, this is me, denouncing the attempts of your sect to claim real estate to which you are not entitled. i am not an atheist.

It doesn't make you a Buddhist because one becomes a Buddhist through acceptance of Buddhist principles.

If, for whatever reason, one has not accepted Buddhist principles you could fairly describe them as being without allegiance to that philosophy, I think. (a-Buddhist?)

If I called you "not a follower of the Buddha" would you pitch a fit about being unfairly labeled?

I don't see how not believing in god is a religion any more than not being Buddhist is a religion.

Hell, I don't even see how believing in a god is necessarily a religion. Religion has more to do with understanding what god is like and what it expects from you.

Great post.I think the problem is over the definitions of what an atheist and agnostic actually are ?
I'll follow up later,but as you know Einstein thought the idea of a personal God childish.
Neither requires a belief system,and both put the burden of proof of the existance of a creator,where it belongs,on the person who believes there is a creator.
Carl Sagan said ,'' Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ".
As I said,geat thought provoking post....

Bill O'Brien

I am called atheist, among other things.

I simply don't believe in religion.

I believe there are higher life forms. More smarter, more capable that would seem genies to us. Magical.

I guess that makes me an agnostic by default.

The truth is I just don't know.

So if we want to start a group of people that don't know... I will face the unknown by thinking and trying to learn and reading and I'll do this by myself.

Groups scare me.

Mathematically our universe has a great chance of containing more life.

And then there are more universes, in theory.

What we know is frequently proven wrong. What we think we know is a work in progress.

Religion does not progress, it stagnates. I prefer progress.

Just because we don't have the answers (to almost everything) I'm not going to shut down and chant: I believe.

We can draw no conclusions if the standard is knowing everything there is to know in the universe. By that standard, cars may or may not exist. We can only draw conclusions on what we can prove now.

I label myself an atheist but I, like most atheists, are willing to see the evidence of god, if it ever pops up. Like all things though, we can only base our ideas on what we know right now and right now, there is no evidence that god exists, just like there is no evidence unicorns exist.

Perdidochas: Atheism requires no faith. Faith is what you have in spite of or lacking evidence. That just isn't the case. Does it require faith to call youself an aunicornist?

"Yes, I guess it comes down to semantics. Technically, atheism means the belief that there is no God and yet it seems like functionally it has come to mean the belief that religion is bogus.
I think, ironically, those who call themselves atheists have a bit of a persecution complex and like to oppose theism, but have no more proof that there isn't a God than theists do that there is."

I think this is a feeling a lot of people have about atheists and it is a shame. When a theist asks an atheist about their "faith" or call them uneithical, or monsterous, it can be a bit exhusting. I suggest you get to know an atheist personally, we are pretty nice people.

Additionally, we (atheists) are not asserting something exists, so we aren't the one with the burden of proof. It is as impossible to prove that god does not exist as it is to prove unicorns don't exist. Prove that there is not a tea pot that circles the earth and controls our lives. Or there is a god who wants pirates and will warm the globe until there are more pirates.

Jlee Davis:
I spent 10 miserable days in a hospital with my very badly burned son. The experience certainly did not encourage me to believe in any God, least of all a benevolent God -- and why should anyone love a non-benevolent god?

By your definition, believing in God is as illogical as not believing in God. Further, the usual concept of God goes much further than an entity that created the universe and then exited stage left. I don't know of a religion that doesn't believe God is still around, influencing outcomes in the world. That's what I can't believe.

JLee: "I've never met an athiest with a child in the hospital."

How many people have you met with children in the hospital? Do you think you got a representative sample? Can I see your sample data? Isn't this just the same comment as "there are no atheists in fox holes."? Even if there were not any atheist parents of sick children, what would that prove? That atheist children are less likely to get sick? Have better medical care? Are stronger? Are less exposed to illness? What's the point?

I suspect between 12 and 15% of the people who have children in the hospital are atheists because that's the number of us in the population.

For the record, my dad was an atheist in a foxhole. It does happen. In fact, he went into the foxhole a believer and came out an atheist. His remark: "A lot of people prayed, but God never showed up."

My experience has been exactly the opposite: God did show up. Which is why I have to argue against Aaron Rury's statement that faith is belief in the unknowable. When Moses spoke with God, was he believing in the unknowable? Yes, to a degree - it's made plain that Moses was only able to "know" a small part of God. But neither was Moses doing what many modern people claim that believers are doing, believing at random with no cause and no evidence. He had the evidence of his senses. He had the evidence of events around him. He had the evidence of the testimony of others. Not all believers have all these things - but most believers have at least one of them - either a conviction that one has encountered God in some sense, or a conviction based on personal experience of what one believes is God acting in the world, or a conviction based on accepting the testimony, whether written or oral, ancient or brand-new, of those who claim to have had either a personal encounter or a personal experience.

Given the abundance of death, cruelty, stupidity, natural disasters and generally horrible things on this tiny planet of ours, I realised a long time ago that if there is a god he/she/it's a total and utter sadistic bastard. Ergo, there is n0 god.

When asked about "God", Einstein once responded, "I
believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein believed in something other than "God".

As for "logic", faith is illogical. Atheism -- literally, without belief -- is primarily based on the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of gods. Nothing illogical there.

Along with the mystery of consciousness, our proclivity to believe in God (counterpoised with our capacity to suspend or abjure any such belief), reinforced by all the accretions of dogma and ritual we construct -- this aspect of humanity is endearing to me.

I believe in God, and worship in a Christian church. Still, or because of this, I respect and admire those atheists who arrive at their belief after diligent assessment of all we know (or rather, from the pool of our communal knowledge, that droplet which is all that any one person can absorb).

My favorite testimony to atheism is this (with my apologies for having forgotten its source): "The reason that I am an atheist is because there is no God."

If the "Creator" has always existed and it created the universe wouldn't it be easyer and more logical to state the universe has always existed? How you may ask? The Big Bang, and The big Crunch. Simply put, a circle has no beginning.