We aren’t talking about people going around saying “I’m an agnostic, I have faith in God.”

So that’s not really a significant issue here.

I disagree. Applying this logic to theism would mean that because a theist does not know whether God exists or not, then that theist does not believe that God exists. Belief does not necessarily require proof, if it did then all beliefs would roughly equate to knowledge (justified beliefs which have a high probability of being true). Many theists do not claim to know whether or not God exists, but they believe that He does. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your message.

Agnosticism, in the literal sense, is somewhat of an empty term when applied to the atheism / theism debate. Atheists do not proclaim to know whether or not God exists. If I was provided with strong evidence for the existence of God, and / or witnessed His works myself, then I would believe. As Hitchens always put it, atheism is not a commitment to there being no God, it is the acknowledgement that no convincing evidence or case has ever been offered to substantiate the claim that a God does exist. So that makes me agnostic, and Hitchens an agnostic. Agnosticism is really the default position. Unless there are people out there whom God has spoken to secretly (as history suggests has tended to be the case), then we are all agnostic, and it is belief which separates peoples’ standpoints. There are those of us who see no reason to believe, and so don’t. Then there are those who believe so wilfully and strongly that they reach a point of inner certainty, whilst still knowing that they don’t know. As you pointed out in ‘Proving History’ (if I recall), whether or not we acknowledge it, we all do the mental arithmetic when assessing evidence, developing hypotheses / beliefs, and determining the probability that our beliefs are true. I’m sure most people know why religious adherence is overwhelmingly referred to as ‘faith’, and know there is always the chance that they are wrong. Even ostentatious charlatans like Ravi Zacharias sparingly claim their beliefs equate to knowledge.

As you said, I think people tend to understand agnosticism as an ‘undecided’ position. That being said, I cannot imagine what this adds to the picture because the reason they have not decided is precisely because they do not know whether or not God exists (referring back to the true definition of agnosticism) because the evidence is so scarce. But regardless of what they know or do not know, they will still have a belief. A workmate of mine claims to be agnostic, and I always respond with “yes, but what do you believe?” Or “do you live your life as though a God exists or not?”

Maybe I’m just tired and muddled up. Care to rebuke (if this is not off-topic enough already) :P?

(Just FYI, this discussion is just barely tangentially on topic enough to stay in this thread.)

I believe in Evolution, of course, but I don’t think that rules out some sort of Creation event 3 or 4 billion years ago. What if the most advanced race of Beings in our Universe sent a starship to Earth 3.5 billion years ago and they launched a probe with basic DNA into the ocean. What if the Supreme Leader of the most advanced Beings in our Universe gave the order to do this. Then for all practical purposes, the Supreme Being would have started life on this planet.

It is out-of-topic, but since Richard has addressed one of your points, I’ll chance addressing another: When theists refer to Creation (capital C) they generally refer to the ex nihilo creation of the universe, not to biogenesis.

(But you are correct in separating evolution from biogenesis; they are two different concepts which creationists typically conflate into one)

Is it possible for someone to be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same?

Yes.

Agnostic means don’t know, atheist means don’t believe. If you don’t know, you by definition don’t believe.

Agnostic is sometimes used to mean “undecided” (even though that would actually be anapophasist). In that connotation, you are still an atheist, but it could be useful to distinguish (A) the fact that you aren’t yet decided or teetering between atheism and theism (or deism), from (B) being persuaded there is no god. The problem is, “agnostic” comes from “a-gnosis,” “absence of knowledge,” and has from its inception been used most commonly in that sense, so expecting people to automatically know which sense you are using (if you are using it in the awkward sense of “undecided”) is not a practical way to communicate.

In the end, the distinction always dissolves into a fuzzy blur on any analysis of your beliefs from a perspective of your assignment of epistemic probability.

Just always ask yourself, “What’s the probability that any god exists?” (Limiting “god” to actual gods; we all agree metaphorical gods exist. And we aren’t talking about aliens.)

Is it possible for someone to be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same? In The God Delusion, Dawkins claims it is illogical to be a Theist but also illogical to be an Agnostic. He has a scale from 1 to 7 where a “1” is a pure Atheist a “7” is a pure Theist and a “4” is an Agnostic. He claims that there are almost no 1’s (pure Atheists). That most Atheists are somewhere in between 1 and maybe 2 or so. This seems about right.

Maybe I am just weird but I can’t seem to put myself on that scale anywhere straight away. There are two components to my belief system. When I consider all the Gods invented in the minds of men, on planet Earth, in the distant past, in the infancy of our species, I am a 1 on the scale (a pure Atheist).

I don’t think any religion on this planet has even come close to getting things right in describing the real Universe.

That being said, when I consider the 100’s of billions of galaxies in our Universe and that there may even be a MultiVerse, I don’t know what to think. I am humbled. Maybe there is some force, or energy or consciousness, that could be considered some sort of God or Supreme Being but is currently way beyond our comprehension at this time. So when I consider the MultiVerse I am an Agnostic. I am a pure 4.0 on the scale.

Most Atheists seem to be pretty sure that all the God’s of Homo Sapiens are made up and I agree with that, but some seem to be pretty sure that there is nothing else out there that we haven’t discovered yet. That nothing even resembling a God is even remotely possible. That may be presumptuous.

I believe in Evolution, of course, but I don’t think that rules out some sort of Creation event 3 or 4 billion years ago. What if the most advanced race of Beings in our Universe sent a starship to Earth 3.5 billion years ago and they launched a probe with basic DNA into the ocean. What if the Supreme Leader of the most advanced Beings in our Universe gave the order to do this. Then for all practical purposes, the Supreme Being would have started life on this planet.

I don’t think it happened this way. Life probably just started on its own, but we don’t know that for sure yet.

This suggests that as long as they hold hands with me while singing about ‘love peace and harmony’ that I wouldn’t oppose their ban on abortions or birth control.

Indeed.

Although the people who think such silly things aren’t the ones attacking us.

And true the rest.

My concern are the people who think atheists needn’t even be moral at all, or that they (themselves) can never be morally wrong, because, atheist.

Hence we need atheism plus humanism plus skepticism. No one of those alone is enough.

The objective is not moral purity. That is a conservative idea. All we want is baseline empathy and fairness. Baseline.

That will never be too much to ask.

I am sympathetic to your theory.

And it might be an interesting way to show that this means we do have atheists using purity-based ethical reasoning (cf. moral disgust). As one model proposes:

The five foundations [of moral reasoning observed] are psychological preparations for caring about and reacting emotionally to harm, reciprocity (including justice, fairness, and rights), ingroup, hierarchy, and purity. Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations.

And our opponents do tend to track conservative, and do make arguments against justice and fairness and empathy by appealing to ingroup arguments (“How dare you attack my hero Dawkins”), hierarchy (“You aren’t of sufficient rank to have valid arguments”), and now as you point out, a purity-defending sense of disgust (“Feminists disgust me”).

It would not be surprising if I walked in there tomorrow during one of their mega services and took a poll with the result that every person in attendance has heard of Richard Dawkins and knows he’s that evil atheist and at the same time not a single one of them knows who Greta Christina is or has ever heard of her. You would probably come out the same.

I concur. That’s kind of the problem.

Of course, those same people would tell you atheism means communism and Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq.

However, your thesis doesn’t hold up at the most crucial point: Greta and I used to get this stuff from Christians. Your theory cannot explain that. Indeed, I know for a fact I am far more widely known among Christians now, than I was five years ago, yet the flak I took from Christians five years ago was measurable, and now it’s nil.

So how would you explain that?

That said, I concur with one aspect of your point:

When Christians feel threatened by us, they will attack us. What does that tell you about the atheists who are attacking us instead?