:up:

I think the Atheist has specific reasons for disbelieving in god. — Pantagruel

Not being brainwashed as a child, usually.

Not being brainwashed as a child, usually. — Kenosha Kid

I had absolutely zero religious training and I'm not even slightly inclined to atheism. My sense of incredulity at the magnificent complexity of the universe only reduces that further.

I had absolutely zero religious training and I'm not even slightly inclined to atheism. My sense of incredulity at the magnificent complexity of the universe only reduces that further. — Pantagruel

"usually", not "you, silly".

So, I am a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist and the whole realism/anti-realism debate really doesn't apply.

If you can couch your dilemma outside of those terms I can comment, but as it stands I can't say anything meaningful about it. :confused:

I'm not sure what the problem is your having. It says (A) realism corresponds to true/not true (i.e. propositional) and (B) non-realism corresponds to not true/not true (i.e. not propositional). Pure Peirce-Dewey. Don't sweat it if that's not clear enough for you.

The idea of putting the conflict between realist and antirealist approaches to science aside is also a recurring theme in some accounts of pragmatism, and quietism. Regarding the first, Peirce ([1992] 1998, in “How to Make Our Ideas Clear”, for instance, originally published in 1878) holds that the content of a proposition should be understood in terms of (among other things) its “practical consequences” for human experience, such as implications for observation or problem-solving. For James ([1907] 1979), positive utility measured in these terms is the very marker of truth (where truth is whatever will be agreed in the ideal limit of scientific inquiry).Many of the points disputed by realists and antirealists—differences in epistemic commitment to scientific entities based on observability, for example—are effectively non-issues on this view

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PragQuieDialPara

This.

You've lost the plot (or I've buried the lead). Nevermind.

It’s far worse. Agnosticism rests itself on the possibility that god exists, which seems to me a crummy assumption.

Hardly. You are trying to figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

Like I said, if you define god as "the most advanced sentient being in the universe" then god it is an absolute fact that god exists. That's a pragmatic solution. I don't buy into the whole realism/anti-realism argument. Not everyone does. If you are trying to say it's just me then you are the one who is out of touch with reality.

No idea what you're talking about. Pax.

The counter is that for practical purposes agnosticism and atheism have the same outcome. — Banno

Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists.

For some, like Kant, lack of knowledge leaves room for faith. The problem here is that some mistake faith for knowledge. — Fooloso4

Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me.

Probably some deep psychological trauma where they feel they were let down and abandoned. — Pantagruel

Isn't that just an old apologist's canard? I'm sure it is not intended this way by you but it has a patronizing tone to it. Atheism equals disfunction or disruption, rather than a genuine expression of freethought. My own experience of atheism here in Australia is that it's often the product of socialization. A secular non-religious culture breeds a secular, non-religious people. Despite this, I grew up in a religious context and was sent to a religious school. I never believed in God mainly because the idea never resonated with me. I never had any use for it. I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.

Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists. — Janus

Not in my experience. I have met many agnostics who debate Christians fiercely, not on the basis of God's existence but on the basis of how a believer can possibly know and why the Christian version not Islam, etc. Most agnostics I have known have found Abrahamic faiths absurd. They are more inclined to have a soft spot for deism.

The term 'atheist' seems to indicate indifference to or simply lack of theism, as 'asexual' indicates indifference to or simply lack of sexuality. That position would seem to be pretty much indistinguishable from agnosticism. (Interestingly 'agnosticism' could be understood as either indifference or antithesis to gnosticism}. Many, if not most avowed atheists though would be better characterized as antitheists. Are you an antitheist or merely one who is indifferent to theism?

What puzzles me is why people are so concerned about the metaphysical or religious beliefs of others. I think it must stem from insecurity.

Not in my experience. I have met many agnostics who debate Christians fiercely, not on the basis of God's existence but on the basis of how a believer can possibly know and why the Christian version not Islam, etc. Most agnostics I have known have found Abrahamic faiths absurd. They are more inclined to have a soft spot for deism. — Tom Storm

They must be pretty stupid agnostics then since religious faith is based, as the term indicates, on faith not on knowledge. Or else, if they are smart they are arguing, not against theism, but against any claim to know that theism is true.

What puzzles me is why people are so concerned about the metaphysical or religious beliefs of others. I think it must stem from insecurity. — Janus

But is that because you are projecting or you have a need to denigrate what you don't understand? It just sounds like trash talk.

You're missing something. The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. This is not cool. This is the key issue not private beliefs.

hey must be pretty stupid agnostics then since religious faith is based — Janus

No, you are missing something here too. An agnostic is agnostic about the notion of a deity. That does not mean they accept the claims of any given religion about their God. Agnosticism isn't quietism.

No, I'm not "projecting"; it sounds more like you are projecting your own idea of projection onto me.

If people argue against the incursion of religious ideas into the political realm they are arguing for separation of church from state, which has been the official reality since the Enlightenment in the West at least, and they are not (necessarily) arguing against theism as such.

No, you are missing something which is that professions of faith are not claims unless we are talking about fundamentalism. In the case of fundamentalism it is the adherents themselves who mistake faith for knowledge, and that mistake indeed ought to be argued against.

If people argue against the incursion of religious ideas into the political realm they are arguing for separation of church from state, which has been the official reality since the Enlightenment in the West at least, and they are not (necessarily) arguing against theism as such. — Janus

Some Atheists operate on the basis that harmful ideas harm human beings. All myths of the Enlightenment aside, the reality is right now laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power.

I have no interest in getting into a ceaseless slanging match on this and wish you well. Maybe just be open to considering that atheism is not necessarily the dysfunctional reaction you seem to think it is. And there's no need to call an agnostic stupid if they don't conform to your definition of the term. Feel free to have the last word. :pray:

Yep.

Isn't that just an old apologist's canard? I'm sure it is not intended this way by you but it has a patronizing tone to it. Atheism equals disfunction or disruption, rather than a genuine expression of freethought — Tom Storm

I've have never yet encountered an atheist who did not treat atheism like a substitute religion, which is the ultimate irony, as I said. Yes, my comment was tongue in cheek. There may well be philosophically sincere atheists, and, if so, they probably do get drowned out by the noisy and offensive ones. If that's you, then I sincerely apologize. As I mentioned, I do think this tends to be more of a social than a philosophical issue.

What if God is the devil?

The whole concept of the devil is another thing altogether. However elsewhere I've discussed how the universe seems to be propelled by the dynamism of the tension of opposites, so it isn't an absurd premise that there could be a counterbalancing.

However I'm not sure how that applies to your question.

I've have never yet encountered an atheist who did not treat atheism like a substitute religion, which is the ultimate irony, as I said. Yes, my comment was tongue in cheek. There may well be philosophically sincere atheists, and, if so, they probably do get drowned out by the noisy and offensive ones. If that's you, then I sincerely apologize. As I mentioned, I do think this tends to be more of a social than a philosophical issue.

This comment of yours @Pantagruel should framed on the front of the website!

How do overzealous atheists not see their dawkinsism is just a secular religious substitute!?

How do overzealous atheists not see their dawkinsism is just a secular religious substitute!? — Protagoras

The do say "love is blind".....

I don't think it is ironic that atheism is treated like a substitute religion by some freethinkers. Religion's chief strength is community and shared worldviews, and atheism - mainly through secular humanism - has sometimes worked hard to provide alternatives to religious community and preaching. Why not? I also think it makes sense for atheists to become like religious apologists to try to spread the ideas of secular humanism. Why would they not? People have freedoms to allow the expression of a wide range of ideas in culture.

I personally don't do any of this because I live in a secular society. I am more likely to call out atheists for dogmatism.

@Pantagruel
Lol!
The psychologist in me says it's "hate that is blind"!

I hear you. But I still think that there should be freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.