Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

According to my civics teacher, the majority of American citizens are closer to the middle ground.

Is that American middle ground or normal middle ground?
Because American middle ground is probably centre-right at best considering the positions Democrats and Republicans have.

 

[FluffyGryphon]

Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.

Also, it's inevitable that most atheists will seem to be the people who tell you about it all the time, because you won't actually know that the rest are atheists too.

I'd consider myself an eco-socialist if you wanna get into ideologies.

And they don't need to tell me all the time. But yeah, I guess it's kind of a double-edged blade. But as a whole, I tend to equate it with loud Christians that have to mention as much all the time. My favorite Christian is one I don't know is a Christian. ^^

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

The term 'liberal' and 'conservative' in the actual study had absolutely nothing to do with the political leanings of liberals and conservatives.

They explicitly state with in the article that they're not using "liberal" and "conservative" as political terms. Since they're not exclusively political terms.

 

[Autumn]

Is that American middle ground or normal middle ground?
Because American middle ground is probably centre-right at best considering the positions Democrats and Republicans have.

Probably American middle ground actually.

 

[Minish]

Agnostics are atheists. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God [or supernatural deities]; that fairly accurately describes agnostics, too, who also don't believe in God. They might think "I don't knowwwww" or "we can't know", but it is unarguably a lack of belief in a supreme creator being.

[That, and I highly doubt anything is a complete atheist who refuses to even consider for one moment the idea of a supernatural deity. It's extremely unlikely and a ridiculous proposition, of course, but if someone presented me with some cool evidence I might have to change my mind.]

Actually, atheism is defined as disbelief in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.

 

[opaltiger]

Actually, atheism is defined as disbelief in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.

No. No no no. Atheism is lack of belief. Very very few people actively disbelieve in god; that would be silly. Also, you first say an agnostic has a lack of belief in god (what?), then say agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of god is unknowable?

Here is an article I wrote for a school newspaper recently, titled On Atheism and Agnosticism; it's not that short, but this confusion annoys me so much I will post it anyway:

In a recent debate, Richard Dawkins was asked, and I paraphrase, the following question: agnosticism is defined as being unsure of the existence of god, and you say god almost certainly doesn’t exist, so aren’t you an agnostic, not an atheist? This question reveals rather annoying misconceptions about a number of things, which I shall attempt to address here, partly because they are frustratingly widespread and mostly because it is as good a place as any.

The main idea here is that atheism is the position that god definitely doesn’t exist and that anything else is agnosticism. I want to start by looking at the definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is generally used to mean one of two things: first, the position that humans cannot answer the question of god’s existence; and in this sense agnosticism is entirely separate from atheism or theism. The second perspective is that agnosticism is an intermediate point between theism and atheism, or rather, the position of being unsure of god’s existence. Normally, I would argue that this definition is redundant and incorrect and that we should use the first, but let us assume, for the sake of argument, the second.

What, then, is atheism? Atheism is the lack of belief in god (or gods or other deities). This may seem a simple statement, but all too many people view it as disbelief in god (or gods or… ). If you don’t see the difference between these two statements, let me provide an analogy. Suppose all of humanity was standing out in the rain, and for reasons unknown decided to group together under umbrellas according to their religious beliefs. So we would have the Christians under one umbrella (and all the denominations of Christianity under different umbrellas encompassed by the larger umbrella, which is apparently leaky), the Jews under another, and so on. Where would the atheists be? According to the second definition, they would have their own umbrella; but according to the first, they would be the people under no umbrella. Atheism is defined negatively, e.g. as all the people who do not possess something (i.e. belief in god), rather than positively; as all the people who do possess something (i.e. disbelief in god). This is an important distinction because the first definition includes also passive atheism, that is, lack of belief in god by virtue of being unaware of the concept of god.

Let us now consider the question as asked. It rightly points out that the statement “god definitely doesn’t exist” is fallacious, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Indeed, no one I know would agree with this statement, and certainly Dawkins, a scientist, would not; hence his statement (taken from The God Delusion) that god almost certainly doesn’t exist. What the question then assumes, however, is that any position but “god definitely doesn’t exist” is not atheism but agnosticism. The idea is that even acknowledging the tiniest chance that god exists is enough to make you unsure of god’s existence and thus an agnostic. I will make two arguments against this.

First, by this logic virtually everyone is an agnostic, because the statement “god definitely exists” is just as fallacious as the statement “god definitely doesn’t exist”. Any rational person (and I say “virtually everyone” to allow for the utterly irrational members of the population) would acknowledge that god’s existence cannot (as of yet) be unequivocally determined. But if everyone is agnostic, the term becomes useless; I would argue that it follows that there is a problem with the definition of the term.

But this is a tangential argument. My main point is that acknowledging the possibility that god exists is not the same thing as being unsure of god’s existence. In other words, I think there are two independent scales: the one measuring one’s opinion on the possibility of god’s existence (from “definitely doesn’t exist” to “definitely exists”) and the other measuring one’s opinion on the actual existence of god (from “god doesn’t exist” to “god does exist”, with precious few intermediates). The definition of atheism is relevant to this second scale: if you think god doesn’t exist, you are an atheist, and it doesn’t matter whether you also acknowledge the possibility that god does exist.

To put it another way, I am arguing that the statement “god definitely doesn’t exist” is made up of two opinions, not one: the first being that god doesn’t exist, the second that there is no chance he can exist. Similarly, Dawkins’ statement that “god almost certainly doesn’t exist” is made out of two opinions, the first being that god doesn’t exist, the second that there is a very, very small chance that he does exist. It is the first opinion that makes him an atheist, notwithstanding the second.

Some might argue that I am making a semantic argument, but I wish to point out that the original question is no more semantic than my reply and, if we are being semantic, isn’t it more logical to consider the opinion of a self-identified atheist? After all, a word only has meaning because it is given meaning by us, and millions of atheists all over the world acknowledge the possibility of god’s existence yet remain, in their own opinions, quite firmly atheists.

 

[Minish]

No. No no no. Atheism is lack of belief. Very very few people actively disbelieve in god; that would be silly. Also, you first say an agnostic has a lack of belief in god (what?), then say agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of god is unknowable?

Well... looking at Wikipedia's definition:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

I guess if you're following that 'broader definition', then sure, it's lack of belief, but I wouldn't go as far to say that an agnostic is an atheist.

And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.

 

[Harlequin]

Actually, atheism is defined as disbelief in God/deities. Which is very different from a lack of belief whatsoever -- that's an agnostic. Or at least, one stance. You can't say an agnostic is an atheist, because "there are absolutely no deities" and "we can't possibly have knowledge of deities' existence or lack thereof" just don't mix.

I had something to say in reply but then opal said it first so I'm just posting this to show that yes, I read your response and yes, I did have something to say in reply.

But opal is like a ninja, so.

 

[Harlequin]

And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.

No. Atheists are atheist. It is a lack of belief in God, not being unsure of whether or not God exists. It's like how I "don't believe" in magic or fairies or astrology. If presented with evidence I will change my mind, but until that evidence arrives I do not believe in them.

Atheism is, like opal said, defined negatively. It isn't the position of having something but one of not having something.

 

[Minish]

No. Atheists are atheist. It is a lack of belief in God, not being unsure of whether or not God exists. It's like how I "don't believe" in magic or fairies or astrology. If presented with evidence I will change my mind, but until that evidence arrives I do not believe in them.

Atheism is, like opal said, defined negatively. It isn't the position of having something but one of not having something.

Reading up quickly on atheism, I've discovered there's 'strong atheism' as an explicit disbelief and 'weak atheism', which incorporates agnosticism as a lack of belief. Which is interesting. I actually thought they were different altogether, I've never really looked much into belief classification.

So yeah, thanks. Annoying to know I've always thought atheism was necessarily a strict disbelief.

 

[opaltiger]

And I know very, very few people actively disbelieve in a god, and that that would be silly -- that's why I think most people identifying as atheist are actually agnostics. But then, that's going by what I've always believe an atheist is, so yeah.

I don't mean to be condescending, but doesn't it make more sense to use the definition that self-identifying atheists use, rather than your own?

Also agnosticism does not mean being unsure of god's existence. :( well maybe it does sometimes but then it is really a redundant meaning.

Incidentally, "commonly defined" are the key words in that definition. Sure, atheists will usually say "I don't believe in god", but only because it's shorter than "I have a lack of belief in god" or "I don't believe in god, but there is a small chance he exists".

Did you read my big block of text? I know it's long, but really, this is exactly the kind of situation I wrote it for.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Ugh, the notion of "strong" and "weak" atheism makes my blood simmer on heat for 2-3 minutes. There is no strong/weak atheism, there is atheism.

 

[Minish]

I don't mean to be condescending, but doesn't it make more sense to use the definition that self-identifying atheists use, rather than your own?

Also agnosticism does not mean being unsure of god's existence. :(

Incidentally, "commonly defined" are the key words in that definition. Sure, atheists will usually say "I don't believe in god", but only because it's shorter than "I have a lack of belief in god" or "I don't believe in god, but there is a small chance he exists".

Did you read my big block of text? I know it's long, but really, this is exactly the kind of situation I wrote it for.

It's not just a definition I plucked out of thin air. It's what I've come to think atheism is, as a result of what self-identifying atheists have told me.

I thought agnosticism was the belief that knowledge of deities is unknowable? :/ I pretty much get my definitions from reputable word-of-mouth of Wikipedia, so... it makes sense if I'm wrong about all this, but it does seem that self-identfying atheists don't exactly have as universal a definition as it would seem.

And yeah, I did read it, and it was interesting. But it's only something I can agree with if I share the same view/definition of atheism and agnosticism, so yeah.

Ugh, the notion of "strong" and "weak" atheism makes my blood simmer on heat for 2-3 minutes. There is no strong/weak atheism, there is atheism.

But why? If agnosticism is a type of atheism, surely it makes sense to differentiate between the two views? If all atheism is strong atheism, then I'm not an atheist, but opaltiger and Harlequin say agnosticism is atheism.

 

[opaltiger]

I thought agnosticism was the belief that knowledge of deities is unknowable? :/ I pretty much get my definitions from reputable word-of-mouth of Wikipedia, so... it makes sense if I'm wrong about all this, but it does seem that self-identfying atheists don't exactly have as universal a definition as it would seem.

It is, yes. I was under the impression you were using a different meaning. As such agnosticism is not atheism, of course - though atheists can be agnostics, and theists can be agnostics too.

If you take agnosticism to mean being unsure about god's existence, then agnosticism is atheism.

The problem is that people give undue weight to the possibility of god's existence. If it were any other absurd belief - unicorns! fairies! teapots! - no one would care if I said "this doesn't exist", even if strictly speaking I should be saying "this almost certainly doesn't exist". But as soon as you start talking about god things get more complicated.

Like I said, very few people are actually strong atheists - but once you get right down to it, it just gets tiresome if you have to always stipulate that yes, there is that small chance god exists. Which is why most atheists will probably say "I don't believe in god". (as Dawkins put it, he is a de facto atheist)

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

But why? If agnosticism is a type of atheism, surely it makes sense to differentiate between the two views? If all atheism is strong atheism, then I'm not an atheist, but opaltiger and Harlequin say agnosticism is atheism.

Belief that the answer to the question of the existence of deities is unknowable = agnostic
Lack of belief in a deity or deities = atheism
Active disbelief in a deity or deities = antitheism

And before anyone Wikipedias anything, the word "antitheism" carries multiple definitions, depending on context. In this context, "active disbelief in a deity or deities" is the appropriate definition.

 

[opaltiger]

Belief that the answer to the question of the existence of deities is unknowable = agnostic
Lack of belief in a deity or deities = atheism
Active disbelief in a deity or deities = antitheism

And before anyone Wikipedias anything, the word "antitheism" carries multiple definitions, depending on context. In this context, "active disbelief in a deity or deities" is the appropriate definition.

I would very much disagree with you, but either way the point is irrelevant. You're just renaming things. Antitheism by your definition is still atheism, merely a subset of it, much like strong atheism is a subset of atheism.

 

[#1 bro]

yeah the majority of americans are in the middle and a depressing amount of people seem to believe in that one fallacy (fallacy of compromise or something) where people believe that the answer always lies in the middle of two extremes.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I would very much disagree with you, but either way the point is irrelevant. You're just renaming things. Antitheism by your definition is still atheism, merely a subset of it, much like strong atheism is a subset of atheism.

I don't think of antitheism as a subset of atheism because while neither believes in a deity or deities of any kind, one says that they definitely don't exist, whereas one says that there's a possibility that they do, which are mutually exclusive claims.

EDIT: Apparently, opaltiger hasn't read this thread o_O

 

[opaltiger]

I don't think of antitheism as a subset of atheism because while neither believes in a deity or deities of any kind, one says that they definitely don't exist, whereas one says that there's a possibility that they do, which are mutually exclusive claims.

EDIT: Apparently, opaltiger hasn't read this thread o_O

That's not how you defined them, though. You said atheism was lack of belief. If you disbelieve in god, you by definition lack a belief in god.

A better way of putting it would be to say "probability" instead of "possibility"; in this case, they are not mutually exclusive, because that probability can be 0.

(I am always invisible)

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

That's not how you defined them, though. You said atheism was lack of belief. If you disbelieve in god, you by definition lack a belief in god.

A better way of putting it would be to say "probability" instead of "possibility"; in this case, they are not mutually exclusive, because that probability can be 0.

(I am always invisible)

Fair enough, I get your point.

Schopenhauer would be ashamed by my surrender.