Have we had a thread about the Richard Dawkins atheist summer camps for kids yet?

[policywonk]

here

Though #1: Dawkins is a loon.

Thought #2 (following very closely on the heels of Thought #1): DS1 (6) - who is alone (in his class of 30) in having been taught about the Big Bang rather than the creation story - might well get a lot out of something like this. At the moment, he's beginning to suspect that his father and I are cult leaders.

Fennel, I take atheism simply as the statement or belief 'there is no god'.

It has the slightly parasitic status of 'denial' only because a negative existential claim really only gains point where there has been a prior positive claim. We don't tend to go around making negative existential claims ad lib.

Naturally it is hedged, as you say, by reference to our current state of knowledge, evidence, argument -- "to the best of our current knowledge...', etc.

But since all of our reasonable beliefs are so hedged it seems unnecessary to make the caveat explicit in just this case. I mention that because sometimes the necessity of that hedging/caveat is used as a weasley way of badgering atheism into agnosticism. My belief that smoking causes cancer is similarly hedged, but I am not agnostic on the relationship of smoking and cancer.

I am an atheist in relation to any of the trad pictures of god. I just like to explore some other possibilities. I think Unstrung made a good point recently about a transition from discussing god to discussing divinity or the divine. It is some concept of the divine that I ponder about.

My huge apologies for 'weasley way of badgering'.

Too much wildlife in one sentence.

I think it is important to make the point that it is "to the best of our current knowledge", because this is often thrown at atheists as if it somehow undermines atheism. On the contrary, it just shows the logical consistency of it - that we are not demanding "a proof that cannot, by definition, be given", but are, instead, working on available evidence.

I'm happy for other people to call me an atheist because I don't recognise a "god" in any of the senses in which any current religion or religious believer would do so.

If anybody wants to present a new definition, I'm happy to hear it - but it had better be consistent, coherent and supported by evidence.

I seem to be misunderstanding some general terms. I understood atheism to say "there is no god (or divinity)" and agnosticism to mean "there is no way to know if there is a god (or divinity.)" With those understandings, any hedging on the part of atheists makes them agnostics instead, no?

"Denial" is a loaded word. It is most often used to imply "in the face of evidence". or "dishonestly".

e.g. Peter's Denial of Christ. Climate Change Deniers.

For years I called myself, technically, an agnostic, because I know that of course we can't know FOR CERTAIN if there is a god or not, so agnosticism seemed the logically appropriate position. But that seems too hedged, when actually I think there is quite good evidence to base my atheist position on. Just as we can adhere to current Physics models of the universe, rather than saying "well, it's all theories, how are we to know which is better?" which implies that all the theories have equal amounts of evidence and inconclusivity attached.

I like "weaselly badgering".

I understand your distinction, Fennel. Agnosticism does imply a no-position type stance. I suppose the varying degrees of hedging with regards to an atheist stance may be mirrored by varying degrees of hedging in theist stances.

But then what kinds of statements can we make these days, as rational and intelligent beings, that aren't hedged? How about "I love my dc." Any others?

What about Pascal's Wager?

I'm always saying I don't like any of the current terms for atheism because none quite fits. It's a lack of a belief so in a way it shouldn't even have a word for it. Perhaps empty quotes "" best covers it.

Nothing for it being true. Nothing against it being true. No reason to consider whether it might be true.

At this point I usually come up with an analogy, but to make the analogy work I have to compare it to something that no one could possibly believe in which always comes out disparaging.

Pascal's Wager is clever/amusing but assumes there is no downside to believing in something and basing your life on it that later turns out to be total nonsense.

And if we thought that way we'd have to believe in ^everything$ to be on the safe side. From god to ghosts to pixies to intelligent baked beans. That cows might be angels, that the way to heaven might be to kill as many people as possible or maybe wear the right type of hat at the right time of day.

With no evidence we have no place to start

how do you like ^everything$ for emphasis? much more effective than making it italic

Its a shame that the terms 'naturalist' and 'naturist' have both been bagged for other purposes

Pascal's wager is merely cynical.

Pascal's Wager is thoroughly discredited, surely?

It's not the lack of a belief, though admittedly the word "atheist" doesn't help there. It's a belief system. A belief in how the world is, based (I am getting a bit repetitive here) on a best-fit judgement of the available evidence. It just SEEMS a lack of a belief, if you happen to come from a theist position. It's a positive belief system.

As for Pascale's wager. Weaselly. Intellectually dishonest. You can't fake a belief just to be on the safe side.
And what sort of God could a "belief" like that possibly convince? And if a fake weaselly (word of the day) belief did convince a god, what sort of stupid god would that be?

Onager, you are right. Mark's gospel was written in around 70CE with the other accounts 10 or 20 years later. The Apostels are believed to have recounted their experiences to close friends and this evidence, along with other stories from people around at the time, are said to make up the gospels.

Peter's letters are interesting, with scholars divided on their authenticity. Paul's letters are not debated as much. He was in close contact with the Apostles and offers other interesting perspectives.

I've spoken on the other God thread about the other non-Biblical references to Jesus.

The events the Apostles write about, the important people at that time (Pontius Pilate etc) are all based on fact. The gospels are all historically accurate. Therefore you need to decide if you believe in the rest of it too.

The fact that Pontius Pilate was the judge at Jesus's trial is confirmed in other, non-Biblical sources.

I think the best way to go about the Gospels is to start with the history - where the important people around at the time the Gospels say they were? Did the historical events happen at the times they say they happened? Can we find other evidence that the people they mention, are real? Do they match other writings at the same time? If you find that many of the answer are yes, then you have to wonder if you will go so far as to presume that the rest of it is also true. Because without travelling back in time, we can't actually produce hard evidence can we?

Where's Doctor Who when you need him?

I think the lack of belief position would be best described by the term agnostic.

Ah, we did that too. The term agnostic means different things to different people.

My dh would describe himself as agnostic, yet he believes in God, just not sure if he accepts Jesus.

'Cept when he's drunk!

rhubarb..you make me laugh

Well it's good we can laugh. It's far too hot already to go around burning heretics and heathens

True. We could just drown them I suppose.

I'm with UQD on roving definitions make for an unsatisfying discussion.

Even if they're Irish?

It's challenging to be precise in your arguments without precise language. I suppose I'm too much of a scientist. Could we translate these arguments into mathematics?