Comment by athenot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by athenot | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's so much about identity as it is about (in)security.

Regarding politics, I completely follow his argument: I don't identify with any party and like to think I'm evaluating each policy on its on merits and according to my personal beliefs. Which leads me to the other one.

I happen to be Catholic and strongly believe in the mental and societal framework put forth by that theology. However, I'm more than happy to discuss objectively with fellows of other faiths (including atheism) and will happily point out the common threads in seemingly opposite belief systems. Yet if others make arguments that I'm not in position to counter, I'm happy to let it go. My identity is deeply rooted as a Catholic, yet my security is not in being right.

There is a temptation on my part to put forth the argument that some religions foster greater amounts of insecurity, but I don't think that is fair to say. Pretty much every belief system has a version of the Golden Rule.

To take Paul Graham's argument just a little further, I would say that religion and politics can be misused as convenient mental shortcuts behind which to hide one's insecurities.

Just a nitpick but atheism is not a faith, it's the absence of faith.

Do you identify as atheist? Is the distinction important to you? Grouping different religious views together with atheism under the same category is useful when discussing people and their beliefs. Arguing the semantics of wether Atheism is a "belief" or "faith" (or some nicer, more certain-sounding term) is in my experience unfruitful and most often besides the point. /nitpick

I find there's a pretty wide gulf between our day-to-day beliefs vs. what we claim to believe with all the pedantics and caveats added when our beliefs come under scrutiny (especially by a critic).

I didn't mean to discuss, just to correct OP in case he was genuinely misinformed.

Atheism is faith just like any other; belief that no god exists is just as substantiated (i.e. not at all) and provable (i.e. not at all) as the belief that particular god(s) exist.

Atheism doesn't have any doctrines or the spiritual connection of a religion.

I didn't say it does. But it requires faith, i.e. belief into something that is fundamentally unprovable.

Still depending on definitions, but faith is the belief in something. Not accepting that there's anything to have belief in is something separate, and grouping a-theism with different types of theism isn't a usually accepted argument. I appreciate the angle you're taking, but the semantics of it are important.

Many of them believe in a big bang, that came from nothing where the laws of physics don't apply, and created the universe...... (Sounds almost as crazy as religion to me).

"Many" perhaps, but Atheism != scientific belief.

Depends on your precise definition. Most atheists consider atheism the lack of belief in a god, as opposed to the belief that there is no god. The distinction is important.

Most people I know who claim to be atheists seem to believe there is not god, despite not being able to prove it. Agnostics seem to be the most honest ones....

That's a very theistic way to frame atheism. Theism requires active belief in prescribed dogma, whereas atheism can include both rejection of said dogma or simply not subscribing to religious ideas.

For example, many people are vegetarian for one subjective reason or another. Just because I'm not vegetarian doesn't mean I believe being vegetarian is wrong or isn't a thing -- it just means I like eating meat and don't have the same reasons as vegetarians to subscribe to vegetarianism. And I don't think about vegetarianism, like how some atheists don't think about god; this stands in contrast with those who subscribe to religion, which requires active belief / prayer / practice / absorption of certain ideals into your identity.

That's interesting. I know plenty of people who label themselves as atheists, but AFAICT not a single one of them take the position of "belief in god not existing".

What sysk is saying that atheism is not the belief that no god exists, but rather the lack of a belief in a god.

It's also not as if any two unsubstantiated and unprovable positions are just as likely to be true; see Russell's teapot[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Yes, that's what I meant.

Ok, then we're using two different definitions. I use agnostic for the one you describe as "atheist".

Agnosticism is the stance that what we are talking about is unknowable, as opposed to gnosticism.

I think what you refer to as atheism seems closer to antitheism than anything else. The difference here is the same as the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial".

So is there any difference between agnosticism and atheism (as you use it)?

Yes, but they're not different points on a scale that goes from religious to irreligious, if that is what you mean.

One can be an agnostic christian, for instance, in which case one would believe that it is unknown or unknowable whether the divine or supernatural exists (and believe in it still).

What I'm relating to the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial" is the difference between "atheist" and "antitheist".

If you don't care if a god exist or not and never thought about it then its not a faith. ;-)

An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god(s); a theist is the opposite and believes in the existence of god(s). The difference lies in lack of faith v. faith.

An agnostic believes it's not possible to be sure whether one or more gods exist.

Combinations are possibly; an agnostic theist believes in the existence of gods, but also thinks it's impossible to be sure.

There are also apathetic agnostics; they don't know nor care whether one or more gods exist. This usually seems to go with atheism.

I suppose there should also be a word like nontheists; those who have faith in the non-existence of gods.

An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god(s)

Rather, an atheist believes in the non-existence of gods. We don't need a word like non-theist because we already have a word for it.

I have never known a self-proclaimed atheist to actually say as much. This is purely a line toted about by those who wish to paint "atheists" in a certain light ("they're just as irrational as we!").

Then again, do you know many Christians who explicitly signal their beliefs like that? I think they're much more likely to say "Jesus is the son of God" than "I believe Jesus is the son of God".

It's rather uncommon for any follower of faith to preface their beliefs with "I believe". If they preface them at all, they're much more likely to use "I know", or "$authority says".

> Then again, do you know many Christians who explicitly signal their beliefs like that?

All of them that recite the Nicene Creed or some derivative...

Interesting. I'd never heard of it.

Doesn't matter.

When given the choice between

"I believe that God doesn't exist"

and

"I don't believe that God exists"

>99% of atheists would choose the latter as better representing their personal stance on the matter. Further, almost all would additionally agree that if there were evidence for God's existence, they would believe.

The concept of "faith" is not one that resonates with atheists. Christians however, love to pretend that disbelieving requires just as much magical thinking as believing, and this is a classic example.

>Rather, an atheist believes in the non-existence of gods. We don't need a word like non-theist because we already have a word for it.

No. That would be a gnostic atheist. One who claims to know and doesn't believe.

Nearly every single atheist I know, and it is generally a safe assumption to make [0], is an agnostic atheist. One who doesn't believe but claims to not know for sure.

If you ask me if gnomes exist, I will tell you I am a gnostic atheist. I am certain in my knowledge that gnomes do not exist, and thus I have no reason to believe in them. If you ask me if god(s) exists, I will tell you I am an agnostic atheist. I am uncertain in my knowledge that a god does or does not exist, but I have no reason to believe that one does.

And yes - there can be agnostic theists too! Although they are the minority as most theists claim to "know" and that knowledge is why they believe. So theists are assumed to be gnostic theists unless they state otherwise. My grandmother is the only person I've ever known to claim to be an agnostic theist. She claims to not know but finds comfort in believing. She doesn't follow any major world religion and her god is not a god of any scripture.

[0] It's the vast majority and so "agnostic" is usually superfluous and unnecessary in conversation. I only ever see it brought up when a theist tries to claim the Atheist is really just a Theist who "believes in some opposite thing". Then the difference has to be pointed out like I've done in this post.

If you ask me if gnomes exist, I will tell you I am a gnostic atheist

gnostic agnomist, I presume?

As for the rest, sorry, I don't subscribe to Smith's redefinitions as I'm not sure the distinctions make practical sense. More specifically, I don't support the definition of "agnostic theist" because in the context of religion, there is no distinction between "knowing" and "believing". An "agnostic theist" would be someone who still subscribes to the same religious identity and the distinction is therefore purely academic. Moreover, religions already have words to describe agnostics within their ranks: they're considered lost sheep, apostates or even heretics (depending on which religion and strength of its convictions).

Finally: the term "gnostic" has already been coined and does not mean the opposite of "agnostic". Gnosticism is a theist philosophy closely related to Christianity.

Disagree. Atheists believe there is no god (without any conclusive evidence).

Most people who call themselves atheists disagree with you. You should respect others more.

What is the name for people that believe there is no: santa clause, easter bunny, flying spaghetti monster, ... (without any conclusive proof)?

A big high-five to everyone in this subthread who decided to engage in a religious debate in response to this, of all articles!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com