Do you like Sam Harris?

[Berzerker]

this was never about examples

Why is that? I cant use an example instead of listing every religion with a creator? I chose the best example, the Bible. Its an example of one side of the debate - religious folk who believe the universe was created. The other side rejects the notion of a creator.

oh yea you're right, what atheists believe was actually decided by Jeddediah McAtheist, founder of Nogodsland

Somebody decided it, I sure didn't invent the term or define it.

they aren't atheists if they believe god(s) created the universe

Are you sure? You just told me its up to the atheist if they believe in a creator. You followed a sarcastic complaint about me deciding what atheism means with the definition I just used.

What you are saying makes no sense. By definition agnostics believe in god, ie creator, who is just indifferent.

agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[Berzerker]

you could tell me what I missed

 

[Grendeldef]

As for Harris I quite like him regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him on any given subject. It's always a pleasure to listen to an articulate well-spoken people and in general his conversations with various people rarely if ever turn into shout fests where people speak over each other.

Atheists and religious folk 'know' what is responsible for the universe, so whats the difference?

Individuals may have whatever theories of stuff but atheism has no stance on this issue.

a-theist: without belief in god.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any divine being. It makes no claims whatsoever, except for stating that the person in question doesn't believe in divine beings.

This is core of it and the most useful for everyday purposes though I'm in slight disagreement with the latter part. Atheism is a stance on presented god claims while excluding all possible god entities would be anti-theism or on somewhat famous Dawkins scale a full seven.

religious folk believe a divine being is responsible for the universe

atheists reject that idea, there is no divine being responsible for the universe

Not exactly. Atheists reject the idea that any of presented versions of creator entities made it since those doesn't exist. That doesn't rule out options not presented yet.

A lot of people incorrectly assume that "agnostic" is just a watered down version of "atheist"

The key is understanding that they lie on completely different axes. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, while atheism deals with belief. So you can be an agnostic who is also an atheist.. or an agnostic who isn't an atheist. etc.

This. It also seems to be more common issue in the US where an atheist is roughly as welcomed indentifier as rapist etc though atheist or not itself is a binary option - one either believes in given god claim which makes one a theist otherwise one is an atheist towards that god.

I'm agnostic and I'd lean to the 'divine' origin side... I figure if the universe is infused with life, then life preceded the universe. But maybe not

I thought agnostics claimed to not know while atheists do.

That would make you an agnostic theist.

agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

There you go - it's knowing vs believing hence they're not mutually exclusive. I don't know but I assume that most, many anyway, atheists are agnostic atheists as they don't claim that any given god claim is absolutely untrue - those just haven't met their burden of proof.

 

[Lexicus]

Why is that? I cant use an example instead of listing every religion with a creator? I chose the best example, the Bible. Its an example of one side of the debate - religious folk who believe the universe was created. The other side rejects the notion of a creator.

I don't, the universe is a computer simulation and was probably created by super advanced aliens though

 

[El_Machinae]

I like Harris. He makes a couple mistakes, but we all do. But I find that he's sincere. He has a paradigm, and he tries to analyse the world through it. But again, that always happens.

The one area I think he's weak is his insistence that Islam is such a causal factor in jihadism. But that's an error of intensity, more than anything. I would really like to dismiss the idea that he's Islamophobic in a sense that is 'too much', because his concerns about Islam don't stop his concern and empathy for Muslims. He's all for more refugees, for example. He understands concerns about integration, and recognizes that these concerns slow down the amount of pain we can mitigate. But also that 'integration issues' are a really poor reason to not embrace people who drastically need help.

He tilts back against SJWs, but mostly against those who actually deserve the label's pejorative implications. I see it too, where the Left will use knives on allies and lose the ally rather than be willing to team up against issues. I'm sure the same thing happens on the Right, I just don't get to see it.

Harris tries to be agnostic. And he gets some pretty good guests on his podcast. I forwarded the one with William MacAskill many times but 'effective altruism' is an important topic to me.

 

[EgonSpengler]

By definition agnostics believe in god, ie creator, who is just indifferent.

I think that's Deism, but that's kind of an archaic term. To my memory, nobody really identifies that way today. The country's "Founding Fathers" are sometimes called Deists, and there's a theory that they were really atheist or agnostic but it was so socially unacceptable that they said they believed in God just to get along.

It also seems to be more common issue in the US where an atheist is roughly as welcomed indentifier as rapist etc.

Right. Some people use the term "humanist" or "secularist", in the context of politics, to kind of sidestep the issue. It isn't really a lot more socially acceptable to be atheist or agnostic here than it was in 1776.

Harris tries to be agnostic. And he gets some pretty good guests on his podcast. I forwarded the one with William MacAskill many times but 'effective altruism' is an important topic to me.

I've been looking for new podcasts. I'll give Harris a whirl.

 

[El_Machinae]

I also enjoyed "we're all ****s now"

 

[Bugfatty300]

so atheists believe the universe has a creator too, just not the one in the Bible?

Theists are making a claim about gods existing. The atheists doesn't believe their claim.

I suspect that you're just being purposefully obtuse because I have a hard time believing you're actually stumped by all the answers you've been given here.

 

[warpus]

Theists are making a claim about gods existing. The atheists doesn't believe their claim.

I suspect that you're just being purposefully obtuse because I have a hard time believing you're actually stumped by all the answers you've been given here.

Yeah... Theists make a claim (about God existing). Atheists are simply all the people who do not make such a claim.

Some atheists do make the opposite claim - that God definitely does not exist. But not all atheists.

 

[caketastydelish]

One problem I have with the 'Sam Harris is the devil Islamphobe racist' people is they are the same people saying this is Islamaphobic and racist. These people are very hard to take seriously. If you want to call people like David Duke or Nick Griffin an Islamphobe, that's one thing. If you want to call an intellectual who is only interested in the truth, and is fair in assessing and criticizing all faiths and cultures rather than one, you are pathetic.

Tom Holland literally convinced Tommy Robinson to quit the English Defense League and convinced him that the English Defense League is racist (which it is). Part of how he did it was by saying it is possible to criticize Islam just like its possible to criticize all the other religions, but that does not make it appropriate to discriminate against people based on faith.

 

[warpus]

I thought agnostics claimed to not know while atheists do.

Yes, agnostics are defined by their stance on the knowledge of the existence of God. This differs from atheists who are defined by a lack of a belief instead. Knowledge and belief are related but different concepts, so atheists and agnostics lie on completely different axes as a result.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most Christians (at least in the west) are white. Is Sam Harris racist against whites?

Most of them, probably. The New Atheists tend to have an attitude towards Catholic and Orthodox Europe that was lifted directly out of the 1880s.

One problem I have with the 'Sam Harris is the devil Islamphobe racist' people is they are the same people saying this is Islamaphobic and racist.

Who is saying that Holland is Islamophobic and racist?

 

[caketastydelish]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Holland_(author)

"In August 2012, he produced a documentary for Channel 4 television entitled Islam: The Untold Story,[8] which provoked what Holland described as "a firestorm of death threats" against him.[9] Contributors included Professor Patricia Crone. The programme generated more than 1,000 complaints received by Ofcom and Channel 4.[10][11] A planned screening of Islam: The Untold Story before an audience of historians was cancelled, due to security concerns raised from threats received by Holland as a result of the documentary. Iranian State media called it an insult to Islam and the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) accused Holland of making “baseless assumptions” and engaging in “selective scholarship”.[12][13]"

Among other things.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's confusing. You said that the people who call Harris an Islamophobe also called Holland an Islamophobe, but what you're citing suggests that the people calling Holland an Islamophobe were employees of the Iranian government. Are you suggesting that the Iranian government is paying CFC posters to defame Harris?

 

[caketastydelish]

Not everyone making death threats were from the Iranian government, let alone citizens of Iran. It mentioned the Iranian government, but it didn't say they were the only ones making threats.

edit: But there's plenty of evidence besides that. Here you go.

 

[Traitorfish]

Who was making the death threats?

 

[caketastydelish]

He couldn't even have an event in his own country. I doubt the Iranian government can threaten him much there.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't ask you who wasn't making the death threats.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, you made it appear that the only people making the death threats were the Iranian government. Then I said that isn't true. I don't know all the specific people that made death threats. Perhaps some of them were anonymous. Perhaps Holland decided not to publicly disclose all the names. Perhaps some of the names are already publicly available and I'm too lazy to dig them up.

When the man can't even have an event in his own country and gets attacked for something very reasonable like this, there is definitely a problem.

 

[Berzerker]

Individuals may have whatever theories of stuff but atheism has no stance on this issue.

Atheists take the stance no creator is responsible for the universe, agnostics dont know but allow for the possibility. Agnostics sound deist-lite to me, and I am one more or less.

Atheism is a stance on presented god claims while excluding all possible god entities would be anti-theism or on somewhat famous Dawkins scale a full seven.

Agnosticism = without knowledge, atheism = without god... Most people on the planet believe in their own god(s) and not the other guys. If atheism is merely the same position then whats the big deal? How does the atheist say 'all of your creators are fictitious but mine is not'?

That would make you an agnostic theist.

Eh...but theists "know", I dont. I believe in the possibility or even likelihood of a creator... Agnosticism has a caveat, nothing is known about God beyond material phenomenon. That suggests future observations might "prove" the existence of a creator and inform us of its nature.

The one area I think he's weak is his insistence that Islam is such a causal factor in jihadism. But that's an error of intensity, more than anything.

Jihadism is a combination of the religion and Arab culture... Everyone brings their baggage to the religion, but the Arabs were the conquerors and other Muslims were the conquered and converted. If 'honor killings' were rare in your society before Islam, then Islam probably wont increase honor killings. But maybe the Koran endorses the practice, I dont know. But it sure didn't originate it.

Theists are making a claim about gods existing. The atheists doesn't believe their claim.

I suspect that you're just being purposefully obtuse because I have a hard time believing you're actually stumped by all the answers you've been given here.

Theists claim the universe has a creator. Do atheists reject that claim? I'm getting different answers.

Yeah... Theists make a claim (about God existing). Atheists are simply all the people who do not make such a claim.

Some atheists do make the opposite claim - that God definitely does not exist. But not all atheists.

Agnostics make no claim about God, the theists and the atheists do. The agnostic doesn't know but concedes the possibility of a creator, the gnostic does claim to know. You were right (was that you?) about the different axes, the theist and atheist form their own. I was under the impression atheists believe existence was happenstance, or 'natural', with no creator or prime mover. I dont have a problem with either option, both have their pros and cons. No creator, no afterlife and no 'hell'. My sins are only relevant in this life. But with a creator, will I be held to account or will my creator take the blame for my imperfections?