Hitchens definition of athiesm makes me ask - what is the difference between an agnostic and an athiest? I suppose a dictionary should cover that but it seems like it might mean different things to different people.

Aren't we all born atheists??? We only become theists when we are programmed so by our religious parents or guardians, luckily many of us start to think for ourselves and denounce the craziness and absurdity that is theism.

"to believe or deny the existence of god."

i am getting f*ing SICK of the gods' damned wording on your american television.

deny? deny?! DENY?! to "deny" implies there's TRUTH to the concept of deification.

i'm not an atheist, i'll openly state that, but to say that an atheist DENIES a god is not true. they don't deny god, they REFUTE HIM!

grrrrrRRRRRRRRAWR!!!! shatters keyboard in frustration

I think there really is little, if any, difference between an atheist or an agnostic.

Back when I considered myself to be an agnostic, I thought atheists considered themselves to be sure about the non-existence of god. Now I think Hitchens' definition is pretty spot on.

Is there much point distinguishing between the nuanced ways in which one can not be a theist?

I think there is a bit of a difference between an agnostic and an atheist, to the extent that the two can be considered mutually exclusive, which they cannot.

The key distinction is that agnosticism is an epistemological position. If we break the word into its parts, we see that the prefix a- means "without" and gnostic means "knowledge." Thus, an agnostic is merely one without knowledge, which need not apply only to questions of theistic belief. By contrast, when we break atheist into its parts, we see that the prefix a- means "without" and theist means "believer in God." Thus, an atheist is one who does not believe in God.

Through this exercise, it should be clear that it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist, as I consider myself to be. Agnosticism refers to one's professed level of knowledge, atheism to one's belief regarding the existence of God. Of course, an agnostic can also be a theist. Most deeply religious people will be unwilling to admit that they are agnostic about the existence of God, but upon further questioning, will admit that they do not have nor cannot have such knowledge. I don't know too many atheists who will declare outright that they know that there is no God, which is not to say that such atheists don't exist. Most atheists, including Richard Dawkins, will concede that they don't know whether God exists, but they live their lives as though he does not and see no reason for them to change their minds.

That said, the natural state of man is, indeed, atheism. But that is no argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is only an acknowledgment that ideas are social constructions.

This piece is a perfect example of incompetent reporting.

The reporter presents snipets of the atheists then has a touchy-feely theology professor critique the atheists statements as well as add his own fallacies regarding atheism. For example, he trotted out the old argument that Stalin's crimes are attributed to atheism.

The religion 'expert' even said that a believer does not need evidence to believe. Then why in the hell do they need the Bible and why do they analyze the thing to death. Just have faith that any thought that pops into their mind is true. No alleged evidence, such as the Bible, is needed.

The reporter presented no counter point to the religion 'expert' (yet she allowed religion a counter point to atheism). So she either did virtually no research on the atheists she interviewed nor on atheism in general or she left the atheists' counterpoints on the cutting room floor.

Hitchens has decisively debunked the myth that atheism is responsible for the worst atrocities of the 20th century. And all of the atheist authors who have been in the media recently have shown belief without evidence is dangerous. The reporter did not mention any of this. Instead her piece argued that the good works of religion outweigh the bad. Also, her saccharine demeanor destroyed any intellectualism she pretended to have.

In the end, this piece's liberal religionist perspective enables extremist religionists.

Hitchens seems so subdued in this! No booing audience for him to flick off, I suppose. Really though, the man's sort of a twit. And he supports the Iraq war...there's a rational freethinker for you.

And no, I'm not calling out atheists. Just expressing my distaste for that particular one.

Well of course, atheism doesn't prevent people from owning other intransigent beliefs. Given that he was once a strong leftist when he was much younger I suspect that the failure of the Iraq war has caused Hitchens some embarrassment and has forced him to privately rethink his position. However, because of his battle with his brother (who disagrees with Christopher's position on war) he probably can't admit his error for emotional (and other) reasons. Hitchens does hold grudges and only time will tell if he admits his mistakes.

Atheism and Agnosticism talk about two different things and are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, while Agnosticism is the fact that we can;t ever know that a god like being exists, so I am an agnostic atheist. I don't think we can ever know if one exists, but I lack a belief in one.

Hmmm... if you BELIEVE in god whether one exists or not is one of life's most important questions but... frankly, if you don't the mystery ranks right up those other cosmic questions 'does Thor's Hammer exist?' 'how does Santa know who's naughty and who's nice' and 'who have I been in a past life'.

wow, wasn't it at 55%? Looks like a 2 percent increase in the polls

That said, the natural state of man is, indeed, atheism. But that is no argument against the existence of God. Rather, it is only an acknowledgment that ideas are social constructions.

Evidence would seem to point in the other direction, i.e. that it is more likely that humans are "wired to believe" in the supernatural.

In any case, it would be difficult to prove one way or the other.

If it were natural to not believe in God, it would seem to me that the word "atheism" wouldn't have been invented.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here a bit...

I have to agree with that stupid guy. Religious people have also made great thing, even secular society is an invention of religious people. I see atheism as the natural evolution of thinking but that doesn't mean I have to diminish the past or the good work of religious people.

I think really everbody is agnostic, whether they admit it or not, because god is something unprovable either way, due to the fact you cant prove a negative. Any anybody who is rational about it is an atheist. and dani what is the start of secular society? not saying your wrong just asking when it was started.

If you take the literal definition of the 2 words from it greek/latin roots.

Atheist means to live with out god.

Do I know for sure there no god no. Do I go about every day life as if there no god? YES. Therefore am atheist.

Agnostic means it not cable of being known. Or you are ignorance on the subject.

You can be atheist and agnostic but an agnostic don’t have to be atheist and vs versus.

You can say I don’t know if there a god but am going believe in him just in case.

Or you can say I don’t know if there a god but am going to live as if there is no god.

Both could be consider agnostic point of views but only one an atheist point of view.

@DaniR:

Religious people have also made great thing, even secular society is an invention of religious people. I see atheism as the natural evolution of thinking but that doesn't mean I have to diminish the past or the good work of religious people.

I still agree with Hitchens point on this, which is, which of these things could not have been done by a non-religious person?

In this day and age, religion seems to be an anti-society, anti-progress, anti-sexuality force, which causes more problems than it fixes, telling people to overpopulate a strained planet, not using birth control, or saying that protection from aids is evil. Female genetal mutilation, male genetal mutilation, discrimination of other people because their beliefs are different, suidice bombers, fatwas, censorship, misappropriation of tax funds, damnation of babies, THE END OF THE WORLD BROUGHT FORTH BY THE BATTLE FOR THE "HOLY LAND", which i believe will be where the focal point of the next world war possibly will be.

Wow, all the good religion has done lately, why can't we focus on the good things it used to do, like charge a fee to get into heaven.

Wow, all the good religion has done lately, why can't we focus on the good things it used to do, like charge a fee to get into heaven.

willey, just wanted you to know there's somebody out here who appreciates your use of heavy, which is not to say heavyhanded irony. well said.

:P

And Willey, may I be the one to say...you had it coming.

Hitchens definition of athiesm makes me ask - what is the difference between an agnostic and an athiest? I suppose a dictionary should cover that but it seems like it might mean different things to different people.

Atheists are skeptics to theistical claims and agnostics can fall on either side. One could be an agnostic theist! Many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can't know things about the supernatural.

You shouldn't also rely on dictionary definitions in this case. Dictionaries exist to provide all the popular definitions that exist for a word, meaning that some of the definitions may not be suited to a particular usage in a particular context. If people use the word 'atheist' to mean 'satanic' or 'evil', then a dictionary might list that meaning. Dictionaries might even list the actual meaning of the 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed.

"Hitchens has decisively debunked the myth that atheism is responsible for the worst atrocities of the 20th century."

how so, when he embodies the very same? his support for bush's war of terror stems from the same wellspring that stalin's war against the religious did--that religion tends toward radicalism (hardly, or we would be facing 9-11s everday) and should be exterminated by force of arms. how credible then is his "debunking" when his opinions are no different than lenin/mao/stalin's regarding the methodology of dealing with the religious?

This religious person insists that it is unfair to criticize religion for the wrongs it is responsible for, unless you praise it for the good it has done.

Which is like a pedophile complaining that you need to consider the fact that he generously gave the kid candy, prior to the rape.

Except of course, the religious person won't complain, or plead, or beg -- he'll wag his finger in your eye, and DEMAND your sympathy, and/or respect. Just like any criminal.

I do not consider Hitchens as the same monster as Bush because he does not have the ambition to become a political leader. The worst atrocities of the 20th century weren't caused by a single man but by the masses willing to do the leader's bidding. That's what makes dogma poisonous. It leaves a mass of people ready to be domniated by fear and belief. The individuals who argue for war do not do so so through independent thinking; rather they do it through beliefs spread by culture. Moreover, individuals who argue for war do so with a vast number of people who believe them. An individual cannot do so without others who believe as he or she does. Religious people who condone war do so by cherry picking their scriptures that allow war. Hitchens, although an atheist, does not seem to recognize that by condoning war, he practices an ancient and unworkable religious belief system.

Religion only serves to help carry the virus. Belief sits at the foundation of all unworkable ideologies whether religious or not. Blaming individual behavior does not work any more than blaming an individual for the cold virus he carries.

hmm.... ok, i guess no one else sees the issue...

or is it just apathy to things like setting up bias?

Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" so that he could avoid being pigeonholed into atheism or avoid antagonism of monotheistic peers in the early 20th century. Agnosticism is not explicit atheism or strong; however, agnosticism is compatible with atheism.

Agnosticism is the the admittance of lack of possible knowledge (strong agnosticism) or the only current lack of knowledge (weak agnosticism) of God or gods. However, it has to presuppose the hypothetical truth of these assertions just to claim that it knows nothing about them. This is why some will say, "Well, there are no agnostics to Zeus." Agnosticism is epistemologically flawed and furthermore completely invalid.

Most people try to pass off agnosticism as skepticism, which already exists in philosophical, scientific and general forms. We don't need a new term just to clutter our vocabularies with confusion and misrepresentation. Or, they try to pass it off as apathy. Agnosticism, although false, is a system of thought; apathy is not. People claiming to be agnostic should not do so if they merely wish to be left alone. If they do, then they have a whole mess of agnostic philosophical thought that they themselves could be held accountable for knowing and defending. Agnosticism is not apathy.

Atheism is the denial or lacking acceptance of the truth value of a particular belief. Denial, or refutation through philosophy and arguments produces strong atheism. Either the evidence is lacking or the arguments for theisms are too weak or illogical. Atheism highlights these features and declares their truth value as false. Lacking acceptance is implicit atheism, which we are born into. We cannot accept the truth value of that which we do not know or have come to experience through communication. And it does not follow that uncivilised pagan societies are merely "worshiping the ultimate good." This sort of language is unintelligible, just as "God" is unintelligible. What is good? What is "ultimate" anything? Explain this first, then you may have a chance at encompassing some societies under the banner of your religion. Otherwise, you're just making vocal noises that lack any substance whatsoever.

Agnosticism is compatible with atheism and just about anything because its conclusions do not follow from its arguments. It's the new Deism.

Boringgggggg! Can't Norm post something besides this beaten-to-death issue of atheism? Anybody that reads or watches this boring shit is already atheist, so what is the point? Or is it that atheists have to be constantly indoctrinated to believe they have no beliefs? I am naturally a non- believer and I don't need a bunch of shit to prove my position is the best. You guys and Norm just seem contentious and bitter. People are always going to be religious so just chill and do your own thing. All we have is this life to live so why not enjoy it? Anyway, let's have more fun and interesting stuff - like chess. - umm wait that's even more boring. Man, if Norm didn't have video clips he ripped off then this would be the most boring website in the world.

Boringgggggg! Can't Norm post something besides this beaten-to-death issue of atheism? Anybody that reads or watches this boring shit is already atheist, so what is the point? Or is it that atheists have to be constantly indoctrinated to believe they have no beliefs? I am naturally a non- believer and I don't need a bunch of shit to prove my position is the best. You guys and Norm just seem contentious and bitter. People are always going to be religious so just chill and do your own thing. All we have is this life to live so why not enjoy it? Anyway, let's have more fun and interesting stuff - like chess. - umm wait that's even more boring. Man, if Norm didn't have video clips he ripped off then this would be the most boring website in the world.

Boringgggggg!

Don't like it then go away. No one is going to miss your contributions or lack of them, reason/Chris/whatever-you-are.

Can't Norm post something besides this beaten-to-death issue of atheism?

I guess he should stop posting the beaten-to-death politics, given that things like the Iraq war have been discussed for years now. Troops dying? BOOORRRRIIIING!

People are always going to be religious so just chill and do your own thing.

Fallacy of Argumentum ad inevitabilis vitam (courtesy, me). Good thing I made this up, because frankly it needs repeating: Arguing from inevitable living.

Man, if Norm didn't have video clips he ripped off then this would be the most boring website in the world.

Go here. I think that site is better suited for your age group. Oh and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" so that he could avoid being pigeonholed into atheism or avoid antagonism of monotheistic peers in the early 20th century. -Aaron

Thomas Huxley was an atheist who had his word hijacked by popular culture. Agnosticism is much more broadly defined now than in the days of Huxley or Russel.

...This is why some will say, "Well, there are no agnostics to Zeus."

No, but there are agnostics to some form of panentheism or view that there is a "higher power". In other words, the God of Abraham doesn't exist, but maybe something else does.