• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheist literature that has shaped your life [W:229]

Ikari said:
That's not true. Agnostic atheist is probably the most compatible with extreme skepticism.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't been reading what I have been writing, ikari.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Definitely God is not Great. Not trying to diss Dawkins, but Hitchens was a superior writer.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to remember that Dawkins is a scientist and writes from that perspective. Hitchens was a great observer of human events. So obviously, their writing styles and content would be different. I liked both books.
 
afr0byte said:
Nope, I'm talking about atheism. I don't make the leap of faith to believe in any of the gods I've heard about. Atheism is the default position.
Click to expand...

No, agnosticism is the default. It takes a leap of faith to affirmative disbelieve in something when you have no evidence either way.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, agnosticism is the default. It takes a leap of faith to affirmative disbelieve in something when you have no evidence either way.
Click to expand...
With no objective proof that something exists, the leap of faith is assuming there's some equal chance of something existing or not existing. Agnostics might buy into that hogwash, atheists do not.

Atheists, except maybe "strong" atheists, do not go chasing orbiting teapots. There's always the given that anything might exist regardless of how minutely improbable it's existence might be. Atheists believe in God as much as they believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and garden gnomes. That's not the stance that agnostics take at all.
 
MoSurveyor said:
With no objective proof that something exists, the leap of faith is assuming there's some equal chance of something existing or not existing. Agnostics might buy into that hogwash, atheists do not.

Atheists, except maybe "strong" atheists, do not go chasing orbiting teapots. There's always the given that anything might exist regardless of how minutely improbable it's existence might be. Atheists believe in God as much as they believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and garden gnomes. That's not the stance that agnostics take at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks for illustrating how simplistic and foolish the atheist position is. A true skeptic remains agnostic about orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, it is absurd to affirmatively disbelieve something without any evidence. It is only rational to withhold an opinion on something that is unknown or unknowable. The atheist, like an impatient child, must rush to a certainty when there is no evidence. This is why it is so silly.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Thanks for illustrating how simplistic and foolish the atheist position is. A true skeptic remains agnostic about orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, it is absurd to affirmatively disbelieve something without any evidence. It is only rational to withhold an opinion on something that is unknown or unknowable. The atheist, like an impatient child, must rush to a certainty when there is no evidence. This is why it is so silly.
Click to expand...
"agnostic about orbiting teapots"?? :lol: Do you even know what you're saying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot



Where in my post do you see an "affirmative disbelief"? Only 'strong' atheists have that signature.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
"agnostic about orbiting teapots"?? :lol: Do you even know what you're saying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Click to expand...
Better read that yourself, partciarly where Russell says that he is an agnostic!

Shoot yourself in the foot much? :lol: Talk about "weak" atheism.
Where in my post do you see an "affirmative disbelief"? Only 'strong' atheists have that signature.
Click to expand...
So you are just an agnostic who wants to call himself an atheist because it sounds cool. Understood. You are equivocating. You are an agnostic, and an intellectually dishonest one, to boot.
 
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
-Bertrand Russell
 
Guy Incognito said:
Thanks for illustrating how simplistic and foolish the atheist position is. A true skeptic remains agnostic about orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, it is absurd to affirmatively disbelieve something without any evidence. It is only rational to withhold an opinion on something that is unknown or unknowable. The atheist, like an impatient child, must rush to a certainty when there is no evidence. This is why it is so silly.
Click to expand...

Surely you must find the religious equally as childish then? They don't have evidence that a god exists.
 
Atheist literature that has shaped your life

The default is not agnosticism, atheism or theism. The default is the question not even existing in the first place - hence no opinion. Atheism could mean that position, but definitions vary.
 
I can't claim it shaped my belief, but I highly recommend Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World for anyone who is religious or superstitious and for non-believers wanting to learn some history and hone their arguments for science and against irrationality.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Thanks for illustrating how simplistic and foolish the atheist position is. A true skeptic remains agnostic about orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, it is absurd to affirmatively disbelieve something without any evidence. It is only rational to withhold an opinion on something that is unknown or unknowable. The atheist, like an impatient child, must rush to a certainty when there is no evidence. This is why it is so silly.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, most are both regarding concepts they're agnostic about. Atheism (without belief) of something you have no evidence of like a celestial teapot is not a certainty, one simply doesn't believe in said teapot.

Don't make the mistake of conflating "I do not believe in" with "I believe it doesn't exist." Being without a belief in something doesn't in any way imply certainty, for there are many things I have never heard of thus I am without belief in said thing.

You're an agnostic atheist in respect to every conception you've never heard of. For those you have heard of, there is nothing silly about being unconvinced by bad fallacious arguments and a lack of evidence.

Hard Truth said:
I can't claim it shaped my belief, but I highly recommend Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World for anyone who is religious or superstitious and for non-believers wanting to learn some history and hone their arguments for science and against irrationality.
Click to expand...

Can't believe I forgot to list that one.
 
Last edited:
Paralogic said:
First of all, "Agnostic" means theist. If someone allows for the possibility of superhuman, or supernatural spirits existing, then they are religious.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is mostly a matter of degree. I accept the EXTREMELY slim possibility of supernatural or superhuman beings in the universe, but think they are most likely to be extraterrestrial lifeforms rather than gods. Many who identify as atheists will also acknowledge the very slight chance of the supernatural/superhuman but conclude that it is so unlikely as to be irrelevant to their identity. As an agnostic I feel that we don't have access to all the information we need to make firm conclusions at this time, but I feel safe in saying that the evidence indicates that no earthly religion is 100% correct.
 
afr0byte said:
Surely you must find the religious equally as childish then? They don't have evidence that a god exists.
Click to expand...

Not so. The religious believer often has unassailable evidence: direct subjective experience of the divine.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Not so. The religious believer often has unassailable evidence: direct subjective experience of the divine.
Click to expand...

How do they rule out the religious experiences of those of other faiths, of those that believe in a different god?
 
MoSurveyor said:
With no objective proof that something exists, the leap of faith is assuming there's some equal chance of something existing or not existing. Agnostics might buy into that hogwash, atheists do not.

Atheists, except maybe "strong" atheists, do not go chasing orbiting teapots. There's always the given that anything might exist regardless of how minutely improbable it's existence might be. Atheists believe in God as much as they believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and garden gnomes. That's not the stance that agnostics take at all.
Click to expand...

In my view, if you "accept the given that anything might exist regardless of how minutely improbable it's existence might be," then you are an agnostic, which literally means "without knowing."
 
afr0byte said:
How do they rule out the religious experiences of those of other faiths, of those that believe in a different god?
Click to expand...

Direct subjective evidence is very strong.
 
afr0byte said:
I'm sure believers in a different religion would argue their direct subjective evidence is just as wrong. Why do you not believe in their god?
Click to expand...
I don't recall saying anything whatsoever about my personal beliefs.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I don't recall saying anything whatsoever about my personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Fine. Why would some other random believer not believe in another believer's (of a different god) direct subjective evidence?
 
afr0byte said:
Fine. Why would some other random believer not believe in another believer's (of a different god) direct subjective evidence?
Click to expand...

Because direct subjective experience is far stronger evidence than second hand subjective experience.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Better read that yourself, partciarly where Russell says that he is an agnostic!

Shoot yourself in the foot much? :lol:
Click to expand...
I hope you were looking in the mirror ... :lamo

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
Click to expand...


Guy Incognito said:
So you are just an agnostic who wants to call himself an atheist because it sounds cool. Understood. You are equivocating. You are an agnostic, and an intellectually dishonest one, to boot.
Click to expand...
I think I'll stick with Russel on this one: "for all practical purposes, I am an atheist".
 
Guy Incognito said:
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
-Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...
Wow! DP is a "purely philosophic audience"?!? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom