We’re not talking Intelligent Design here.

We’re talking “Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean)”.

I understand the basic idea of Intelligent Design. It’s an updating of an old Christian philosophical tradition: “Natural Theology” — the idea that God was orderly and Lawful and uncovering the laws behind Nature would be “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Learn about the creation, learn about its Creator. Not so much science as a philosophical foundation for science which was prominent from the 17th through 19th Centuries.

But when Young Earth Creationists (under the name “Creation Scientists”) were defeated in the courts, they re-attacked under the banner of Intelligent Design (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean).

And so an old and respectable theological/philosophical tradition became nothing more than a fresh coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism.

Perhaps all national scientific and medical societies should consider omitting Louisiana from the round of conference locations? And informing the government why, of course.

Although I do understand the point Robbie’s trying to make, that a firm belief that there’s no God is (arguably) a faith-based opinion. Which is why I mentioned that to him before, that going after “strong” atheists would be his best bet. He’s already shown by his logic that if atheism=religion then disbelieving the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a religion, and he said he was happy with that. Now I don’t really believe* he thinks that the latter is true, but you never know. Poe’s law and all that.

*Have I just invented a new religion?

I think here is the distinction. To many self-professed atheists there is no distinction between being a weak/negative atheist and being an agnostic. Both positions state that there is not enough evidence to conclude that God exists, ergo there is no justification for positive belief. They see the scale as the 2 position scale – belief, or not belief.

Most self-professed agnostics see the scale as 3 position – belief, unknowable, disbelief. That unknowable is inherent to the nature of God’s existence, not just a matter of digging deeper or taking more time or evolving mental abilities or whatever. As I said, they think any conclusion is not evidence-based, so it is faith-based. Thus, they don’t like the term “atheist” because they focus on “cannot know” rather than “do not believe”.

No. I think I understand Robbie’s position, and will attempt to explain.

It goes back to what I said about the foundational position. To Robbie, there is a three state position – disbelief, unknowable, belief. The fundamental position is that any knowledge about God’s existence is unprovable – logically, perceivably, inherently unprovable. It is not just that the evidence is incomplete, it is that we can never collect evidence to answer the question.

Given that state, to make any statement as to a conclusion (yes or no) cannot be based upon evidence. And what do we call answers not based upon evidence? Faith. Ergo, what Robbie is saying is that to call yourself an Atheist is to state that God does not exist (or to state you don’t believe God does exist, which is logically equivalent). But that answer cannot be based upon evidence, so it is faith-based every bit as much as the faith-based answer that God does exist.

Ergo, it is a religious position – a position taken from faith rather than from evidence.

Does that make it a religion? Depends on how you define the word. If you take the word to mean any faith-based belief about the nature of the afterlife, deities, etc, then yes, by definition, atheism is a religion. Of course, that abuses the word “religion” and is contingent upon the assertion that to not believe in something is fundamentally different that to remain undecided to believe in something.

If it makes it any easier to grasp, Robbie, don’t call it a religion, call it a “faith-based opinion”. It more accurately represents what you’re trying to say.

I guess he’s more of a Chick Tract fan. Yick!

Personally I think I will call myself an A-unicornist now. Oh, and icanhascheezburger rocks.

>>>”And Darth Robo doesn’t get it.”

Feel free to explain.

I think we’re just agreeing with each other now though it might not appear that way. And Darth Robo doesn’t get it.

> My answer to this problem is a question, which is just great. If there cannot be evidence why have an opinion at all?

>This may confuse the matter, but if you were to ask an agnostic if he believed in God he would probably say “I don’t know if there’s a God or not.” That doesn’t specifically answer the question as I see it though. The answer to the question is no. If you then ask the counter question, “Do you disbelieve in God?” his answer would have to be no as well.

Again, it is the fundamental understanding. To believe in the existence of something is an active step. You have to do something to believe. To not believe is passive, the default state. If you don’t believe it exists, then you believe it does not exist. There is no middle position. The switch is either on or off. The bit is either a 1 or a 0. The coin cannot land on it’s edge. You call it having an opinion, I call it not believing. The opposite, the only other position, from believing is not believing.

>>>”Darth Robo, didn’t I disagree that not collecting stamps is a hobby in the very bit you quoted?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn and its existence lies outside the realm of science. To believe or disbelieve in it would require religious faith then.”

So NOT collecting stamps is NOT a hobby, but NOT believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn IS a religous belief. But not only that, by the same standards you hold to atheism, it is a religion itself.

Got it.

Irishman: “But by position 1, the faith position is to believe in existence. Not believing is simply an empty state. It is the state opposite of believing true.”

My answer to this problem is a question, which is just great. If there cannot be evidence why have an opinion at all?

This is just dealing with the matter of a God not a specific religion. Maybe that’s where people get confused.

This may confuse the matter, but if you were to ask an agnostic if he believed in God he would probably say “I don’t know if there’s a God or not.” That doesn’t specifically answer the question as I see it though. The answer to the question is no. If you then ask the counter question, “Do you disbelieve in God?” his answer would have to be no as well.

1. Some people see it as yes/no. Either I believe it exists, or I do not.

2. Some people see it as yes/undecided/no. Undecided is a neutral state between believing yes and believing no. If I don’t know one way or the other, then the neutral undecided is different than the faith position of believing yes without evidence or believing no without evidence.

I think that Robbie and John Steele Gordon hold the second position. I think that most of us others hold the first position.

I can either believe in something or not believe in it. The undecided position is part of the don’t believe in it. It might be “don’t believe in it yet“, it might be “can’t call it impossible”, but it is still not “I believe in it”. Ergo, it is disbelief.

I also think there’s another element to Robbie’s thinking inherent to that position. I think you are equating belief with faith.

I don’t accept that equality. Believe is the word for “think to be true”. The basis for that belief is not specified. It can be evidence, or it can be faith. Many people use the word belief as synonymous for faith and then use know for evidence-based conclusions, but that distinction is fairly recent and arose specifically to avoid the semantic confusion we are discussing. To summarize, a belief can either be evidence-based or faith-based.

In position 2, a decided position is a faith statement because it cannot be with evidence, since the evidence cannot be conclusive either way. (Important point is that is cannot, as in beyond human capability, as opposed to merely is not, as in the evidence we have collected so far is incomplete and inconclusive.) For me to state I do not believe God exists, that is equivalent to saying I believe God does not exist, and since that is a positive statement, a conclusion, it must be by faith. But by position 1, the faith position is to believe in existence. Not believing is simply an empty state. It is the state opposite of believing true.

The real problem is that I don’t know of a way to get agreement on which position is “true”.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn and its existence lies outside the realm of science. To believe or disbelieve in it would require religious faith then.

And I have no clue what a Creo-Fundie is.

>>>”Shane, the difference is that not believing in God requires something, ie – a disbelief in God. Not collecting stamps requires nothing, while collecting them does. Key distinction.”

So you agree then, that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby?

You also believe that probably nearly everyone in the world is a part of the religion of NOT believing in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Apart from those who believe in her, of course.

BEHOLD, ladies and gentlemen, Creo-Fundie “LOGIC”.

Incredible.

Uh. Yeah. So what’s your point in your post?

Now change the stamps to gods and you have “Not believing in gods requires nothing, while believing in them does.”

Winner.

You’d have us believe that everything is a religion including, by extension, not collecting stamps. My argument above is a little facetious but it is no sillier than the whole atheism is just another religion argument.

*Yeah, I know. You can raise a very convincing argument that stamps actually exist. You can’t for gods.