Agnosticism is the default type of atheism. Gnostic atheists believe that there is no god, where as agnostic atheists do not believe that there IS a god. The difference is one claims the non existence of something, where as the other simply rejects the claim that somethign DOES exist; a neutral standpoint.
I respect Michael Shermer's opinions and skeptical approach, but he says that an atheist saying "I have no belief in a god" usually entails anti-religion, anti-Christianity, antisemitism, etc.
Based on what? I'm an atheist, because I have no belief in any theistic gods that I've learned about, not because I'm anti-Christian, antisemitic, or anti-religious, any more than I'm anti-witch, anti-leprechaun, or anti-ghost. On other subjects he says "Show me the evidence." As for gods, he tiptoes.
Why is it, for a Christian or Muslim to be "militant", they gotta kill people, but to be a "militant" atheist you have to question and reject religions/gods?
this is so old you can tell its pre new atheist movement cuz hes being so careful not to offend religion and he even almost shames atheists a bit. shermer doesnt talk like that anymore. hes usually the first to crack fun at religion nowadays
@BANGBANGBANGBBANG " tell its pre new atheist movement cuz hes being so careful not to offend religion " because "old aTheist movement" , if they spoke out, found themselves on the rack, or burn't at the stake.! religion can now, in some countries be given the ridicule it deserves.
near death experience? look up "DMT: The Spiritual Molecule" it will answer almost everything. after that documentary, keep doing your homework on DMT or Dimethyltryptamine, it will answer everything.
I disagree with the conclusion that because nde-type experiences can be recreated with drugs means there is nothing nonphysical going on. Same with the "God Helmet" recreation idea. It could be purely physical, but those brain aspects could have evolved as a connection to a real, non-physical realm as well, and we're just fucking with them.
I agree with one of his ideas, trying to prove faith using science is totally against the idea of faith; which is to believe on something that is "not yet" or which is to come or which is intangible. So if you are an Atheist there is really no way you could ever participate in Christianity and the such because faith is just not inherent in you.
For those interested in seeing Shermer having his ass handed to him by the brilliant and far more "Bright" Stephen C. Meyer, check out my profile. Once you see the intellectual beatdown Meyer gives him you'll never look at Shermer the same again.
Not a bad interview, although Shermer's "militant atheist" charge is grating. How dare us atheists demand evidence that can be traced, tracked, measured, tested, corroborated, etc.? What is militant about demanding a good solid reason to believe something? There is no atheist dogma, and he apparently doesn't understand that based on how he defined what atheism was. He decries all sorts of pseudoscientific endeavors, and then leaves his personal door open for all of them to walk in.
You are kidding right? you see, you memorize a mental concept that you call "reality" and take in as much of it as possible. And you call that mental concept that "you" labeled reality your "belief." Why not look at everything as it "is" before labeiing? That is truth.
"He decries all sorts of pseudoscientific endeavors, and then leaves his personal door open for all of them to walk in."
OK, first of all, he "decried" that stuff because it is beyond clear that the people are just ripping others off to make money with a bunch of BS. But since he doesn't "KNOW" all, he can't "claim that he knows all." Therefore he is open to "all." It's called being "open minded," you should try it sometimes.
Check his posts, and you will find this to be true.
More than occasionally."
You are more confused than I thought, but you are still taking quotes out of context as you well know, but what do you expect from a ufologist, anything but the truth. Anyhow is the record stuck, you just seem to be churning out the same old quotes time and time again! Come on show some imagination at least! But you have, imagining ET traveling billions of miles. LOL
the UFO video shermer on Larry King Live, is systematically removing our pro ET-UFO posts, and within minutes 5-10 negative ratings. We are really putting it to the shermer machine, and somebody(guess who) doesn't like it. Just confirms we're getting to him.
*the UFO video shermer on Larry King Live, is systematically removing our pro ET-UFO posts" no he is not as you well know! because the thread owner has to be online and he hasn't for two weeks, look at his profile! dahur has a hidden agenda of some kind, because he has bought into the "UFO" myth lock, stock and barrel! Just look at his other posts elsewhere!
I think he was caught off guard by it, this was clearly recorded several years ago and he may not have known how to answer that question. You must remember how unacceptable Atheism was and of course still is, certainly to the majority American population. I get the impression he wants to change the subject to avoid everything else he says being dismissed by people based on their (not his) ignorance of Atheism.
Since when has the definition of an atheist been one who can *prove* the nonexistence of gods??? An atheist is simply one who does not believe in gods.
And on what basis does Shermer link atheism with antisemitism?
By 'antisemitism' he does not mean prejudice against Jews. I have read a lot of Shermer and I can assure you that is not what he means. He just meant the Jewish equivalent of anti-Christianity Americans say. You're right about the atheist point though. But keep in mind that Shermer is just trying to put on the best public face he thinks he can. He is on our side. He has debated explicitly for the proposition that God is man-made and if that is not atheism I don't know what is.
You have to remember that people like Shermer and Dawkins Aren't atheists. They are 'heavy agnostics'. It's not scientifically valid to say that you're an atheist. They use the term in a more general sense (even in the God Delusion, Dawkins states that he isn't an atheist).
I frankly don't like all this hair-splitting with lables...I don't like how Shermer defines atheism here and I don't care for how Dawkins differentiates b/t atheism and agnosticism in TGD. This is pointless and it makes us look stupid. There is a very simple way to do this: if you don't believe in the existence of any gods then you are an atheist; if you do then you are a theist; Do we really need lables for the different shades of unbelief?
crazykb, the problem with your comments is that different people mean slightly different things by these words. I am familiar with TGD as you are and so I would assume you are aware of how many times Dawkins has refered to himself as an atheist (in other contexts) and has said that what is advocating is "atheism". Also, to flatly contradict you, Shermer says explicitly "I'm an atheist" at the second beyond belief conference. So it is clear that even individuals will mean slightly different...
...things by these words at different times. You are wrong in the same way Shermer is wrong in the clip. Namely, that he is using a definition of 'atheist' that the vast majority of self-identified atheists don't use!!!
...However, they don't claim to KNOW that there is no God. As Dawkins would say: "I'm so close to being an atheists, I might as well state that I am one". Again, you can't state that other atheists use the term differently. It's all about semantics, and the term Atheism DOES MEAN someone who believes that there is no God. Again, the reason for why they play with these terms, is because they want to separate themselves from the absolutists ideologies that they are refuting (religion).
We are all atheists in regards to our disbelief's regarding God(S), however, we can't state that we 'know' that is no God. There could be an intelligence behind the universe, I don't think so, however, you have to be at least open to the possibility. Again, the term atheist, as used by Myself, Dawkins and Shermer is a 'general term', since they are by all accounts atheists, in regards to their beliefs regarding human made Gods...
Dawkins and Shermer (as well as myself) all think as you do, regarding atheism. The reason for why Dawkins rates himself as a 'heavy agnostic' is because he, like Shermer, are scientists. A true atheist knows that there is no God(s). However, that is a scientifically invalid statement, because you can disproof something, that can't be illustrated.
Well, you pretty much restated what crazykb said and appear to have not even read my comments even though you thought you replied to them. What are you talking about "a true atheist knows there is no god"? Do you personally know any self-identified atheist who describe their mind this way? I know many self-identifides and none of them do. Again, you clearly haven't comprehended anything that I wrote because I have already responded to the points you are making...so try reading them again.
I am CRAZYKB. The term atheism means a disbelief in God. That's what the term means (look it up if you want to). However, to state that you believe that there is no god, is the same as saying that you believe that there is one. Both are unsubstantiated statements. Shermer, Dawkins and my self are agnostics. We use the term atheist in regards to the Gods of human made religion, however, not to the concept of God itself, since you can't proof that there isn't one. Understand?
Ok man, you've declared yourself incompetent to conduct a converstation so don't be suprised if this is the last you hear from me. You start off by contradicting yourself, saying that Shermer & Dawkins "aren't atheists" then you say that they are atheists in "a more general sense". Shortly following those remarks I pointed out that there are different usages of the word 'atheist' and that the usage which Shermer gave and the one you seem to like the most, is a bad usage to use and I GAVE MY...
REASONS. Something you seem incapable of doing. Which brings me to my point about the meaning of the word atheism or atheist. What you don't seem to understand is that a dictionary dosen't give definitions, it gives USAGES. But you can't even get your own usages straight. You just said that atheism is "disbelief in god" well, I've got news for you, that is not the same thing as believing that 'there is no god'. And if you really want somthing close to an objective look at what the word...
'really means' you have to take an etymological view. And if you do that you see that the word 'atheism' LITERALLY means "without" (a) "belief in a god" (theism). So why did you make your stupid fucking comment to begin with? What is it you mean to say in the end? Let me see if I can summarize you: Dawkins and Shermer aren't atheists. But they do call themselves atheists and in fact they are atheists in a more general sense. (insert repetitions of this self-contradiction). I don't deny that...
...few self-identified atheists would actually describe themselves that way but that is still what 'atheist' means because I read it in a dictionary.
Now, what is the highest level of education you have obtained? This goes back to my statement about your conversational incompetance. You did not give answers to any of my questions nor did you give reasons for why you said certain things, you simply restated them when challenged. You're a stupid fuck. Goodbye.
"Now, what is the highest level of education you have obtained?" I'll be working towards a Master's in Neurology soon. And you? You're an idiot. Go back to sleep.
Dawkins and Shermer (and my self) call themselves atheists because they don't believe in a God. However, they are using that term colloquially. More strictly speaking, they are agnostics (dawkins even has a rating scale for agnosticism, he places himself at the highest level), because one can't disprove the concept of God. If you can't understand that, well, that's you're problem. I'm not going to wast my time debating semantics, that's boring.
"What you don't seem to understand that a dictionary doesn't give definitions, it gives USAGES." Usages depend on the meanings of a word. LOL! Yikes! That's what semantics is. "You just said that atheism is "disbelief in god" well, I've got news for you, that is not the same thing as believing that 'there is no god'." A disbelief in God is THE SAME thing as believing there is no God. Go back to sleep....
I agree ... I'm not a big fan of the agnostic 'fence sitting' position in the first place. They leave too much room for something (like god) that is so highly improbable and then grant it some sort of credence ... what's the point in that?
That's the one thing i just don't understand because he is in fact denying the non-existence of god in the exact same manner some people deny for example the holocaust. You would think that the complete and utter lack or in fact even reason or logic for god to exist would be enough for one to not belief in god from a scientific perspective, yet he denies that fact, which makes me belief he's just afraid of being labeled an atheist because of its stigma in the USA.
@DoNotBeHighandMighty Agnostic is not a mutually exclusive term. If you believe (or know) God exists then you are a Theist everything else INCLUDING "I don't know" means you are an Atheist, an Atheist is someone who does not believe (or know) there is a God therefore if you don't know if there is a God you cannot possibly believe in a God, you are therefore an Atheist. Agnostic is a separate term altogether. For example you can be an Atheist AND and an Agnostic.
@JolleyEFC God is the highest state of human awareness and experience, it is "oneness." It is "everything." But since it is "everything" it is also "nothing." Hence you could say "God exists or God doesn't exist" and you would be correct either way. It is like saying, "is the glass half empty or half full," it is both. But "talking" about it means nothing, "experiencing" it means everything. And that concept of "God" is what all major spiritual teachings including Jesus's point too.
@JolleyEFC You see, you cannot "label" yourself an "ATHEIST" or "BELIEVER" unless you first ask the question, "does God exist?" in the first place. What happens if you never asked the question? No, you would not even "label" yourself and "ATHEIST" and get a "false sense of self" out of it. You would just "be." And that goes for all concepts that the mind makes up and attaches too and makes a "sense of self" which is ultimately an illusion out of.
@JolleyEFC I will explain further, saying "I don't believe in God" is meaningless. It is just a "thoughtform" in the head. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you continuely "think" this thought and latch onto it, you will get a sense of "me." Of "I am an Atheist." But in REALITY(or God) you are not "an Atheist." That is just a thought in your head. You just "are." And that goes the same way with a "believer." Except a "believer" is on a "path" to this great truth/experience.
@JolleyEFC So eventually the individual realizes that "I am God." There was "nothing but God." But in this "realization" there is the "experience" which brought the realization. An "awakening." An awakening from the illusion of the false sense of self which I have given examples of in my comments below. And the "illusion" can go very deep. And it is what causes all "suffering." Identifying with an illusion. But when you know God(reality) and "live in it" you are "free."
@JolleyEFC So "reality" is _______ . That is what we are. So you can see the "Atheist" and the guy that goes around saying he is a "believer" are both living in an illusion that their minds have created. And then they battle each other out(which shouldn't happen because the believer should turn the other cheek and become the better man.) But serving something "other" than "self" helps dissolve the mind created self over time and one day the person awakens. Or as the Buddhists call it a "satori."
@JolleyEFC That is the purpose of serving Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc... It wouldn't matter if you were serving the "flying spaghetti monster(as the people who label themselves Atheists think they are so cleverly pointing out.) You would still get the "same results." But "faith/belief" is what keeps the person with the attitude of "serving others" and that is what keeps them from adding onto the
@JolleyEFC I will say a little more, Jesus and Krishna both speak of the nature of that "state." The state of "nothingness" which is ultimately "fullness." That is the perspective that they are speaking from in the stories. Whether or not any of them or "literally true" or just a mythology it doesn't matter either way. They point to the highest truth/experience of human awareness and experience which can only be "experienced." How can you "talk/think" about something "greater than the mind?"
@JolleyEFC So you can talk about it, you can point people in the right direction, But that is all "words" ultimately are, signposts. So you can throw these "labels" on me and call me "Atheist, agnostic, believer" but in "reality(where I live)" there is no "labels." The mind has to "think" and "latch onto a label" in order for that "concept" to exist. And as I said earlier, that goes for "all" concepts, not just about God. And that is what "all" spiritual teachings point too. ____________ .
So "as you can see" there is the "truth" and "non-truth(or falsehood.)" Just because you "think" you are "good looking, have a nice car, and are intelligent" doesn't mean somebody will come along and think you are "ugly, a bum, and stupid" and piss you off because you "latch onto thoughts/beliefs/and your own personal paradigm." But "who" is right and who is wrong? Nobody, you both would be wrong for clinging to "ideas(which are nothing more than thoughts.)"
So as you can see from my previous comment that "the false self" doesn't only exist when talking about "God." the "concept" of God is just to get people to "realize truth" over time from experience. And yes, as a signpost, the word God works well when the teachings are "applied."
So the state of Godliness is to see everything as it truly is at all times. To be ________(very quiet mind.) And this emptiness/nothingness is as I said before also everything/fullness. That is why people say, "we are one." Because yes, in that state we are "one." But of course there is no "labels" in that state there is just _________ . And it is what we are. It isn't really a "state" as much as a practice of sticking with "truth."
@JolleyEFC And because of what I just said, the "concept of God" isn't meaningless or useless. It isn't as if we brought it into "existence" just to fear it. If spiritual teachings are actually "applied" the person not only dissolves the "concept of God" but "all other concepts" as well that the mind clings too. And that is when "truth" is found.
"truth(______)" is greater, beyond, before "words/thoughts." Although "words/thoughts" can be signposts to the experience of ______. You cannot both "think" and "experienced ________ " at the same time. Because as soon as a "thought" comes in, it is no longer _________ . So even the thought, "we are ___________ " isn't "___________ the experinence." So you can see the "trap" many people fall into. They "THINK" they know. LOL.
@DoNotBeHighandMighty I don't appreciate 13 different e-mails telling me you have replied to my comment Jesus Christ. I presume you are a believer because I am not going to read through that essay only to get another essay as a reply. All I have to say is we are ALL atheist to something, I presume you do not accept Thore, Allah, Zeus as Gods. I clearly believe in one less God than you do. Believe what you like I have no problem with that but only a fool believes something without logic
Apparently, you have little to no understanding of what I typed. No I am not a "believer, Atheist, or Agnostic." But "you" can "label" me those things. It still won't make me one.
In "your view," in "your mind," you will "cling to the label," and in "your mind" I will be one of those things. But in "reality(where I live,)" I am not any of those things. But you love to cling to that "false sense of self" and "label" yourself an "Atheist." You get a sense of pleasure out of it. Even though it is ultimately an illusion.
The funny thing is, "you THINK" in your mind, that you "have" to be one of those things. You just 'have too." If you are in a state of "no thought" are you any of those things? Let me answer that for you, no you are not. You need to "think" to even "think" up the concept of God or any other concept for that matter.
Including the "concept/idea" of "Atheism." Or "Agnostism." What are they but "labels" you give yourself to give yourself a sense of importance. A sense of
"me(which is an illusion, a thoughtform in the head.)"
So this "logic" that I have came around beat you down, kicked your face in, gave you a paradigm shift, and sent you to the hospital. How about that. Huh?
But if you had the capacity to read for 4 to 5 minutes you would would learn something. But your mind couldn't handle it. it is too braindamaged. You want the best "logic" there is, you cannot argue with what I have stated in my previous comments. Because they are the "truth."
But some people aren't ready to accept the truth(like yourself.) And there is nothing wrong with that. You will one day find it out, because even if you do read my comments, it will "take time" for you to figure out/test them and "know" that it is the truth.
All kidding aside, you "assume" a lot of shit. You first "assumed" that I was a "believer." I don't "assume" anything in what I said. I "know" it is true and I "know" what I said about you being at a low state of mind, "trapped in concepts" is true. Otherwise you wouldn't "assume" that I was either a "believer, agnostic, or Atheist." You would have brought out the one "real" possibility which is none of those. __________ .
@DoNotBeHighandMighty Like I said, I'm not going to read that essay you just wrote, or anything else you're going to write so please waste more time and make an even bigger essay. It's your time you're wasting, not mine. I did read your first comment though, I don't have to label myself as anything, but I DO reject the notion of God therefore I am an Atheist whether I like it or not. Just like I am a citizen of England. Whether I choose to label myself as English or not I AM ENGLISH regardless
Well, if you "think" your an "Atheist(meaningless statement)" then that is what "you become" even though it is ultimately an illusion. Just like all "concepts." The only reason you are a "citizen of England" is because that is the "system" that humans built up. You are only a "citizen" in your mind to "England" if you "think" you are. If you never think of yourself as a citizen of England then you won't be. But it is the way things work. So that is a concept that has meaning.
And if you quiet your mind enough you will realize that in "reality" you are not a citizen of anything. You are not even your mind. You are that which is "aware" of your mind. But if you are identified with thought(because it is too noisy) you will never make this discovery/realize the greater truth.
And yes, you are an "englishman" because that is what they tell you you are from birth. And then you believe it. But it isn't "really" who you are. Or "what" you are. But if you want to continue believing in that thought than that is who you will be. And you will remain at that awareness.
You see, saying you "believe" something is a very strong statement if you truly mean it and aren't full of BS. Because it is a strong "feeling" not a thought. You have a strong "feeling" that something doesn't exist if you "believe" that there is no God. Therefore if there ever was a God you probably would never get in touch with it no matter what the definition of it may be, including "energy" itself.
Cut the guy some slack people - this was in 1997. Maybe you don't remember but it was even harder to get away with atheism in the public arena. He had the responsibility towards the magazine and the Skeptic Society. I think it was fine he washed his hands of the religion topic.
You can watch his more recent debate with Deepac Chopra "Does God have a Future?" where he doesn't have a problem with calling himself atheist :)
@vghy975 He is merely clarifying his position.This clarification is necessary because Atheism, as a label, has been applied to numerous groups throughout history (including monotheists, soft-atheists, hard-atheists, pantheists, etc.). There are certainly self-described atheists who assert that God does not exist. The choice of self-describing as Agnostic shows a desire for precision. Don't take it personally and don't assume that your preferred definition of a word is the only one used.
He says hes agnostic here, I just watched a video 5 minutes ago where he says hes atheist. Either he changed his mind somewhere along the line, or he doesnt think theres a big difference between the two terms.
I would have liked to see Michael be a little less apologetic about his views here, wether they be atheist or agnostic. Say what you really think Mike!
Nearly everyone is agnostic about everything to some small degree. Nothing is ever absolutely certain. Agnostic/Gnostic relates to KNOWLEDGE, Atheist/Theist relates to BELIEF. The terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be labeled a Gnostic Atheist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist...
Shermer is an Agnostic Atheist. Skepticism and requests for evidence should be the default position of ANY incredible claim. The other choice is some level of naive gullibility.
I don't think it's a straw man. I think he's simply drawing a distinction between agnostics and atheists. (In that one does not believe in God, while the other believes that there is NOT a God.)
You're both wrong. An agnostic is one who literally claims to have "no knowledge" of God; that it is actually impossible to know whether there is a God or not.
Being agnostic or gnostic is not the same as being a theist or atheist. For example, an agnostic Christian is someone who believes despite having no evidence (ie current Xianity). It's also possible to be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist (gnosis being greek for knowing).
Now if someone is truly agnostic (ie I dont know), they should accept atheism as the default position, given the infinitude of possible Gods. Or as Sam Harris would say, an atheist is an agnostic whos thought about it;)
Bluebeard2, you said, "For example, an agnostic Christian is someone who believes despite having no evidence (ie current Xianity)."
Current Christianity? Agnostic theist--believes but admits there is no way the existence of a god can be known. Gnostic theist--believes and is 100% sure.
Why would current Christianity be of the agnostic typology and can you substantiate the claim that it is? Citing a study would be good. (Not to be a prick, I'm genuinely curious)
Faith only makes sense within an agnostic belief system. A gnostic system wouldn't publicly require faith; it would instead rely on direct divine revelation (the only way you could really 'know', in the gnostic sense). A gnosis of this type would substantially reduce the amount of faith required (and the 'long dark nights of the soul', of the kind that Mother Theresa felt, would be neither common, necessary or virtuous).
Okay, I misunderstood you. What makes sense and what is put into practice are different though. In my experience most of the faithful I have met are of the gnostic type -- they are certain sure there is a god, they are certain there are ways of knowing a god.
Right, just like two people who are familiar with the claims of astrology, one of which doesn't believe that astrology is real while the other believes that astrology is NOT real.
I like shermer, but he's using a strawman atheist in this interview. I personally don't know a single atheist who would say they KNOW god doesn't exists. Most, even the so called "militant atheists" are like myself agnostic atheists. They don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence one exists. You're either a theist or you're not a theist (atheist).
Believing something is equiprobable is fine when contemplating ordinary claims such as "do I have 1000 dollars in my pocket?", but it makes no sense when dealing with extraordinary ones, as Russell's teapot illustrates.
It somewhat comes down to a matter of Semantics. At least in my opinion, one can be an Atheist (I Don't believe) AND an Agnostic (I don't know). I would have to say I am an Atheist for every personal god, but an agnostic toward any deist or as yet unidentified god (or gods). Shermer I think, has to align himself a-politically as much as possible. It seems like fence straddling, but I think is a good strategy. Still, I am much less polite to theists.
Well hey... trust me, I do know many proclaimed atheists who say flat out THERE IS NO GOD. One of the reasons I'm an agnostic myself... you can't prove a negative, and that kind of annoys me... it's too reactionary, and not logical.
I totally agree with you. This is why I love Michael Shermer so much. He is Skeptic, like me, yet he repects the need for faith, morality, and spiritual. We need more people like this in the world.
Shermer's little comment on religion and whatnot smacks of political correctness. He has said in other interviews that he is atheist. He also debunks all sorts of religious nonsense in his books-- as well as debates the existence of God, creationism, etc.
excellent interview. Shermer's a double edged sword for me. very erudite and intelligent of a man, but at the same time ambivalent and lackluster in his colloquy. needs more atheism!
The point I'm trying to make is that in your original post, you exhibit Christian-like behavior in blindly criticizing people who don't have the same belief system you do. It appears as though you simply replaced your Christianity with atheism and have not stopped being narrow minded.
well i don't know- it easy to athiest as it pertains to the g/God(s) of religion. that is a human invention and agnostics reject that.
agnosticism allows that there COULD be a higher form of life beyond our perception- but one that is irrelevant to religion and one we cannot understand as yet.
Mr. Nawitus, the debate or clarification of words (exp. atheist, agnostic) within our language is of the utmost importance. While it is true that words can never be the things that they are a symbol for, we must strive to make our symbols (words) as accurate as possible. This will allow us to better communicate with each other and avoid redundant conflict over miscommunication.
Mr. Nawitus, the debate or clarification of words (exp. atheist, agnostic) within our language is of the utmost importance. While it is true that words can never be the things that they are a symbol for, we must strive to make our symbols (words) as acuarate as possible. This will allow us to better communicate with eachother and avoid redundant conflict over miscommunication.
Faith-based belief systems need no proof in their beliefs. But skeptics challenge those claims that eschew science in favor of a more "mystical" explanation for how the "world works". Skeptics want critical thinking to balance faith-based systems, IMO.
>Faith-based belief systems need no proof in their beliefs.
Why? Why exempt people who say "this is what i believe, due to faith"? That's doubletalk. Faith eschews science BTW. Faith in something without evidence is the antithesis of science.
If people have faith in something, what's the point in attempting to hold them to an explanation of their feelings? It's when faith relies on dogma and emotional majority in place of critical thinking that a skeptic will step in and challenge, and in that case I would not exempt them. Example: group ESP, UFO sightings, synchronicity, etc.
Well, you're right. I should have included supernatural creator, God, and the like. In my haste I went off on a tangent and didn't return full circle to finish my distinction. If I may indulge myself here: I have had personal beefs with noted evangelicals and it has spurred my interest in skepticism (clear seeing) ever since. It's a lifelong endeavor. So I thank you for your time and patience.
"The purpose of religion is faith"? What does that even mean? Sounds like doubletalk to me that means "I have to mind PR 101 and not piss off the religious majority".
Interesting posts here. The construction of the word a-theist simply means non-theist. But many think "atheist" means a person who says "there absolutely cannot be any god".
I hold that the default state is non-belief. A sane person doesn't hold something to be true without evidence. Hence i reject premises that go like "They believe there's no God". No, I don't believe in god. There's a difference.
Put it another way: I'm a militant agnostic- I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU. ;-)
The debate about the terms atheist or agnostic is just silly and wastes time. I don't believe in any god just like I don't believe that unicorns or superman exists. I only believe in things that have some evidence (and I assign a probability for such truths..)
I can not speak for Mr. Shermer regarding your red-winged, purple-eyed pixie that lives in your microwave and is telling you the numbers that will come up in the lottery the following week. I do believe that you believe in this pixie. And I would suggest do to its extraordinary ability to predict winning lottery numbers that you do not use your microwave any time soon.
Further more Mr. yankur If a person had a 1% part of themselves that thought god existed and the remaining 99% of this person did not believe god existed, this person would be in a state of conflict. Or this person could reconcile their beliefs by discarding faith(belief in the absence of evidence)and decide that they do no know the answer...thus becoming an agnostic.
Mr. Yankur. the definition of an atheist, according to websters is "one who believes that there is no deity". This does not leave room for belief in a diety thus a true atheist thinks "There is absolutely 100% no God".
Well, I think psychics safeguard most of their "secrets", meaning things they actually know would defame them. Then again I'd like to see a game show for psychics only, much like Dana Carvey's bit on SNL years ago.
So Mr.Shermer is above all the "Militant atheists", then I am above all the "Militant Skeptics" like himself.
Tell me Mr.Shermer, how many atheists do you know who would say that "There is absolutely 100% no God."? And next question, are you also so strictly agnostic about existence of red-winged, purple-eyed pixie that lives in my microwave and is telling me the numbers that will come up in the lottery next week?
Yeah, I love Shermer but he of all people should be a bigger supporter of "militant atheism." I mean, we're not talking about violence in the name of atheism here, just blunt, unapologetic dismissals of BS claims, which he himself seems to do, except that he backs off a little by making statements like not supporting militant atheism. If Shermer isn't the definition of a militant atheist, I don't know who is?
Shermer's a skeptic. That means he doesn't just dismiss BS claims. He examines evidence and draws a conclusion, forms a PROVISIONAL opinion which he will change if new evidence demands it. That doesn't sound miiltant to me.
I don't particuarly care for the term "militant atheist"; it's clearly designed to be derogatory, but I don't see how what Shermer does is any different from what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al do, yet they're frequently called "militant atheists" in the media. Many people are likely to read his comments here as attacks on guys like Dawkins, even though I don't think that's what he intended.
I don't think they're militant either. But I can see where religious people would. Dawkins said raising children in any religion is tantamount to child abuse. And that's light compared to some of Hitchens' diatribes. Shermer says things like nonsense and bologna. It's the difference in language that makes people react to them differently.
Penn and Teller perhaps? Yea, I admire Shermer but sometimes he says things a little shy of the mark. I also recommend Lionel's radio show for more critical ventings.
I did just meet Shermer on Thursday at The Great American God-Out. I didn't ask him about this particular point but he made it clear that he embraces the term "atheist" and agreed that the term "bright" was rather silly or stupid. Don't remember which.
That's great! Who came up with the term "bright" anyway? Please excuse the Penn and Teller response, that text somehow shows up up there. With what little time I have to scope the web, I cannot wholeheartedly blog skeptically; I feel like an absentee skeptic: you all have my mental support. My creative endeavors far exceed the interesting arena of blogging skeptically, so let me say that perhaps someday I will develop my skepticism in a future forum later, perhaps art-related.
I've always enjoyed Dr. Shermer's work (indeed, I'm a big fan), but I still can't agree about religion. Yes, we need to treat religious people with respect, of course, but we don't need to respect the beliefs. Quite frankly I resent the idea that I can't say "I'm an atheist, there is no god" without being labeled as dogmatic.
And if my lack of belief in any god means I must label myself agnostic rather than atheist, then I must be an agnostic where the easter bunny and santa are concerned, in fact where any fantastical invention you want to throw at me is concerned. I can't prove that you don't have a magic dinosaur in your pocket so I'm an agnostic about that. Nope. I'm an atheist.
This has been flagged as spam show
@vghy975 If the definition you claim is one of someones belief then why does atheism seek to dibunk the belief of a god?
Because it [belief of a god] kills people. Please, do learn to read before attempting to use Internet again.
carneyfex 6 months ago
Agnosticism is the default type of atheism. Gnostic atheists believe that there is no god, where as agnostic atheists do not believe that there IS a god. The difference is one claims the non existence of something, where as the other simply rejects the claim that somethign DOES exist; a neutral standpoint.
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
Is it just me or is Shermer more of an atheist now?
IntrovertedLuddite2 6 months ago
I respect Michael Shermer's opinions and skeptical approach, but he says that an atheist saying "I have no belief in a god" usually entails anti-religion, anti-Christianity, antisemitism, etc.
Based on what? I'm an atheist, because I have no belief in any theistic gods that I've learned about, not because I'm anti-Christian, antisemitic, or anti-religious, any more than I'm anti-witch, anti-leprechaun, or anti-ghost. On other subjects he says "Show me the evidence." As for gods, he tiptoes.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
'How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously’ - A.C. Grayling
=)
bayman90 8 months ago 4
Did he say "militant" atheist?
Why is it, for a Christian or Muslim to be "militant", they gotta kill people, but to be a "militant" atheist you have to question and reject religions/gods?
DesiFreethinkers 9 months ago 6
when was this interview? Shermer refers to Gould as though he were alive and Gould died in 2002.
Prolific85 9 months ago
@Prolific85 This interview is at least 10 years old. Probably 98 or 99.
ScottBrown666 8 months ago
this is so old you can tell its pre new atheist movement cuz hes being so careful not to offend religion and he even almost shames atheists a bit. shermer doesnt talk like that anymore. hes usually the first to crack fun at religion nowadays
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 10 months ago
@BANGBANGBANGBBANG " tell its pre new atheist movement cuz hes being so careful not to offend religion " because "old aTheist movement" , if they spoke out, found themselves on the rack, or burn't at the stake.! religion can now, in some countries be given the ridicule it deserves.
SOAS007 8 months ago
@SOAS007 i woulda been racked like a thousand times for the shit iv said
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 8 months ago
near death experience? look up "DMT: The Spiritual Molecule" it will answer almost everything. after that documentary, keep doing your homework on DMT or Dimethyltryptamine, it will answer everything.
dreadedhalo 1 year ago
I disagree with the conclusion that because nde-type experiences can be recreated with drugs means there is nothing nonphysical going on. Same with the "God Helmet" recreation idea. It could be purely physical, but those brain aspects could have evolved as a connection to a real, non-physical realm as well, and we're just fucking with them.
InnerSmile72 1 year ago
I agree with one of his ideas, trying to prove faith using science is totally against the idea of faith; which is to believe on something that is "not yet" or which is to come or which is intangible. So if you are an Atheist there is really no way you could ever participate in Christianity and the such because faith is just not inherent in you.
GerryLand2010 1 year ago
In a nutshell!...
biologicalbubble 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For those interested in seeing Shermer having his ass handed to him by the brilliant and far more "Bright" Stephen C. Meyer, check out my profile. Once you see the intellectual beatdown Meyer gives him you'll never look at Shermer the same again.
Thanks
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Not a bad interview, although Shermer's "militant atheist" charge is grating. How dare us atheists demand evidence that can be traced, tracked, measured, tested, corroborated, etc.? What is militant about demanding a good solid reason to believe something? There is no atheist dogma, and he apparently doesn't understand that based on how he defined what atheism was. He decries all sorts of pseudoscientific endeavors, and then leaves his personal door open for all of them to walk in.
SurelyYewJest 2 years ago 9
Yeah, the militant atheist thing was grating, but this was, what 1997?
oraclecrank 2 years ago
@SurelyYewJest - I applaued your comment! I was disappointed by Shermer here.
TeabagTore 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty - its okay to be "open minded". But no so open that your brain falls out. No, I couldnt learn anything from your comment.
TeabagTore 1 year ago
@TeabagTore
You are kidding right? you see, you memorize a mental concept that you call "reality" and take in as much of it as possible. And you call that mental concept that "you" labeled reality your "belief." Why not look at everything as it "is" before labeiing? That is truth.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@SurelyYewJest
"He decries all sorts of pseudoscientific endeavors, and then leaves his personal door open for all of them to walk in."
OK, first of all, he "decried" that stuff because it is beyond clear that the people are just ripping others off to make money with a bunch of BS. But since he doesn't "KNOW" all, he can't "claim that he knows all." Therefore he is open to "all." It's called being "open minded," you should try it sometimes.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
Intelligent and very reasonable guy.
Bionuker 2 years ago 38
This comment has received too many negative votes show
blackadder says:
"on occasion I am wrong"
On that he is right.
dahur 2 years ago
"blackadder says:
"On? occasion, I am wrong"
Check his posts, and you will find this to be true.
More than occasionally."
You are more confused than I thought, but you are still taking quotes out of context as you well know, but what do you expect from a ufologist, anything but the truth. Anyhow is the record stuck, you just seem to be churning out the same old quotes time and time again! Come on show some imagination at least! But you have, imagining ET traveling billions of miles. LOL
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the UFO video shermer on Larry King Live, is systematically removing our pro ET-UFO posts, and within minutes 5-10 negative ratings. We are really putting it to the shermer machine, and somebody(guess who) doesn't like it. Just confirms we're getting to him.
dahur 2 years ago
*the UFO video shermer on Larry King Live, is systematically removing our pro ET-UFO posts" no he is not as you well know! because the thread owner has to be online and he hasn't for two weeks, look at his profile! dahur has a hidden agenda of some kind, because he has bought into the "UFO" myth lock, stock and barrel! Just look at his other posts elsewhere!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago 2
I hope he's revised his views on atheism since this recording, because his response is remarkably ignorant of what atheism means here.
lordlacolith 2 years ago 5
I think he was caught off guard by it, this was clearly recorded several years ago and he may not have known how to answer that question. You must remember how unacceptable Atheism was and of course still is, certainly to the majority American population. I get the impression he wants to change the subject to avoid everything else he says being dismissed by people based on their (not his) ignorance of Atheism.
mikejohncooper 2 years ago
Yes, I hope that is indeed the case, but you never know. Even atheists have been known to misunderstand atheism.
lordlacolith 2 years ago 7
I applaud Michael Shermer efforts to help us gain a better understanding of our world thru science.
And I share his rejection towards psychics, mind readers, miraculous healers and so.
alexQw33 2 years ago 13
I bought that book years ago. It's a good read.
catricola 2 years ago 7
He certainly has dropped a lot of the militant atheist talk today.
Mojofilter17 2 years ago
Michael Shermer is playing the safe route here, he is not as PC nowadays.
BABABABA5555 2 years ago 3
Mike is being way too PC here. He's opened up a lot more over the years.
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
How disappointing.
Since when has the definition of an atheist been one who can *prove* the nonexistence of gods??? An atheist is simply one who does not believe in gods.
And on what basis does Shermer link atheism with antisemitism?
vghy975 3 years ago 62
By 'antisemitism' he does not mean prejudice against Jews. I have read a lot of Shermer and I can assure you that is not what he means. He just meant the Jewish equivalent of anti-Christianity Americans say. You're right about the atheist point though. But keep in mind that Shermer is just trying to put on the best public face he thinks he can. He is on our side. He has debated explicitly for the proposition that God is man-made and if that is not atheism I don't know what is.
bcn533 3 years ago 4
You have to remember that people like Shermer and Dawkins Aren't atheists. They are 'heavy agnostics'. It's not scientifically valid to say that you're an atheist. They use the term in a more general sense (even in the God Delusion, Dawkins states that he isn't an atheist).
crazykb 2 years ago
I frankly don't like all this hair-splitting with lables...I don't like how Shermer defines atheism here and I don't care for how Dawkins differentiates b/t atheism and agnosticism in TGD. This is pointless and it makes us look stupid. There is a very simple way to do this: if you don't believe in the existence of any gods then you are an atheist; if you do then you are a theist; Do we really need lables for the different shades of unbelief?
bcn533 2 years ago
crazykb, the problem with your comments is that different people mean slightly different things by these words. I am familiar with TGD as you are and so I would assume you are aware of how many times Dawkins has refered to himself as an atheist (in other contexts) and has said that what is advocating is "atheism". Also, to flatly contradict you, Shermer says explicitly "I'm an atheist" at the second beyond belief conference. So it is clear that even individuals will mean slightly different...
bcn533 2 years ago
...things by these words at different times. You are wrong in the same way Shermer is wrong in the clip. Namely, that he is using a definition of 'atheist' that the vast majority of self-identified atheists don't use!!!
bcn533 2 years ago
...However, they don't claim to KNOW that there is no God. As Dawkins would say: "I'm so close to being an atheists, I might as well state that I am one". Again, you can't state that other atheists use the term differently. It's all about semantics, and the term Atheism DOES MEAN someone who believes that there is no God. Again, the reason for why they play with these terms, is because they want to separate themselves from the absolutists ideologies that they are refuting (religion).
Ihateprats 2 years ago
We are all atheists in regards to our disbelief's regarding God(S), however, we can't state that we 'know' that is no God. There could be an intelligence behind the universe, I don't think so, however, you have to be at least open to the possibility. Again, the term atheist, as used by Myself, Dawkins and Shermer is a 'general term', since they are by all accounts atheists, in regards to their beliefs regarding human made Gods...
Ihateprats 2 years ago
Dawkins and Shermer (as well as myself) all think as you do, regarding atheism. The reason for why Dawkins rates himself as a 'heavy agnostic' is because he, like Shermer, are scientists. A true atheist knows that there is no God(s). However, that is a scientifically invalid statement, because you can disproof something, that can't be illustrated.
Ihateprats 2 years ago
Well, you pretty much restated what crazykb said and appear to have not even read my comments even though you thought you replied to them. What are you talking about "a true atheist knows there is no god"? Do you personally know any self-identified atheist who describe their mind this way? I know many self-identifides and none of them do. Again, you clearly haven't comprehended anything that I wrote because I have already responded to the points you are making...so try reading them again.
bcn533 2 years ago
I am CRAZYKB. The term atheism means a disbelief in God. That's what the term means (look it up if you want to). However, to state that you believe that there is no god, is the same as saying that you believe that there is one. Both are unsubstantiated statements. Shermer, Dawkins and my self are agnostics. We use the term atheist in regards to the Gods of human made religion, however, not to the concept of God itself, since you can't proof that there isn't one. Understand?
crazykb 2 years ago
Ok man, you've declared yourself incompetent to conduct a converstation so don't be suprised if this is the last you hear from me. You start off by contradicting yourself, saying that Shermer & Dawkins "aren't atheists" then you say that they are atheists in "a more general sense". Shortly following those remarks I pointed out that there are different usages of the word 'atheist' and that the usage which Shermer gave and the one you seem to like the most, is a bad usage to use and I GAVE MY...
bcn533 2 years ago
REASONS. Something you seem incapable of doing. Which brings me to my point about the meaning of the word atheism or atheist. What you don't seem to understand is that a dictionary dosen't give definitions, it gives USAGES. But you can't even get your own usages straight. You just said that atheism is "disbelief in god" well, I've got news for you, that is not the same thing as believing that 'there is no god'. And if you really want somthing close to an objective look at what the word...
bcn533 2 years ago
'really means' you have to take an etymological view. And if you do that you see that the word 'atheism' LITERALLY means "without" (a) "belief in a god" (theism). So why did you make your stupid fucking comment to begin with? What is it you mean to say in the end? Let me see if I can summarize you: Dawkins and Shermer aren't atheists. But they do call themselves atheists and in fact they are atheists in a more general sense. (insert repetitions of this self-contradiction). I don't deny that...
bcn533 2 years ago
...few self-identified atheists would actually describe themselves that way but that is still what 'atheist' means because I read it in a dictionary.
Now, what is the highest level of education you have obtained? This goes back to my statement about your conversational incompetance. You did not give answers to any of my questions nor did you give reasons for why you said certain things, you simply restated them when challenged. You're a stupid fuck. Goodbye.
bcn533 2 years ago
"Now, what is the highest level of education you have obtained?" I'll be working towards a Master's in Neurology soon. And you? You're an idiot. Go back to sleep.
crazykb 2 years ago
Dawkins and Shermer (and my self) call themselves atheists because they don't believe in a God. However, they are using that term colloquially. More strictly speaking, they are agnostics (dawkins even has a rating scale for agnosticism, he places himself at the highest level), because one can't disprove the concept of God. If you can't understand that, well, that's you're problem. I'm not going to wast my time debating semantics, that's boring.
crazykb 2 years ago
"What you don't seem to understand that a dictionary doesn't give definitions, it gives USAGES." Usages depend on the meanings of a word. LOL! Yikes! That's what semantics is. "You just said that atheism is "disbelief in god" well, I've got news for you, that is not the same thing as believing that 'there is no god'." A disbelief in God is THE SAME thing as believing there is no God. Go back to sleep....
crazykb 2 years ago
I agree ... I'm not a big fan of the agnostic 'fence sitting' position in the first place. They leave too much room for something (like god) that is so highly improbable and then grant it some sort of credence ... what's the point in that?
I'm disappointed in Shermer on this one too.
klank67 3 years ago
I'd like to hear how he responds to the Russell's teapot argument.
vysehrad 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty
That's the one thing i just don't understand because he is in fact denying the non-existence of god in the exact same manner some people deny for example the holocaust. You would think that the complete and utter lack or in fact even reason or logic for god to exist would be enough for one to not belief in god from a scientific perspective, yet he denies that fact, which makes me belief he's just afraid of being labeled an atheist because of its stigma in the USA.
Doppe1ganger 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty Agnostic is not a mutually exclusive term. If you believe (or know) God exists then you are a Theist everything else INCLUDING "I don't know" means you are an Atheist, an Atheist is someone who does not believe (or know) there is a God therefore if you don't know if there is a God you cannot possibly believe in a God, you are therefore an Atheist. Agnostic is a separate term altogether. For example you can be an Atheist AND and an Agnostic.
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC God is the highest state of human awareness and experience, it is "oneness." It is "everything." But since it is "everything" it is also "nothing." Hence you could say "God exists or God doesn't exist" and you would be correct either way. It is like saying, "is the glass half empty or half full," it is both. But "talking" about it means nothing, "experiencing" it means everything. And that concept of "God" is what all major spiritual teachings including Jesus's point too.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC You see, you cannot "label" yourself an "ATHEIST" or "BELIEVER" unless you first ask the question, "does God exist?" in the first place. What happens if you never asked the question? No, you would not even "label" yourself and "ATHEIST" and get a "false sense of self" out of it. You would just "be." And that goes for all concepts that the mind makes up and attaches too and makes a "sense of self" which is ultimately an illusion out of.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC I will explain further, saying "I don't believe in God" is meaningless. It is just a "thoughtform" in the head. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you continuely "think" this thought and latch onto it, you will get a sense of "me." Of "I am an Atheist." But in REALITY(or God) you are not "an Atheist." That is just a thought in your head. You just "are." And that goes the same way with a "believer." Except a "believer" is on a "path" to this great truth/experience.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC So eventually the individual realizes that "I am God." There was "nothing but God." But in this "realization" there is the "experience" which brought the realization. An "awakening." An awakening from the illusion of the false sense of self which I have given examples of in my comments below. And the "illusion" can go very deep. And it is what causes all "suffering." Identifying with an illusion. But when you know God(reality) and "live in it" you are "free."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC So "reality" is _______ . That is what we are. So you can see the "Atheist" and the guy that goes around saying he is a "believer" are both living in an illusion that their minds have created. And then they battle each other out(which shouldn't happen because the believer should turn the other cheek and become the better man.) But serving something "other" than "self" helps dissolve the mind created self over time and one day the person awakens. Or as the Buddhists call it a "satori."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC That is the purpose of serving Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc... It wouldn't matter if you were serving the "flying spaghetti monster(as the people who label themselves Atheists think they are so cleverly pointing out.) You would still get the "same results." But "faith/belief" is what keeps the person with the attitude of "serving others" and that is what keeps them from adding onto the
"self(which would ultimately be an illusion.)"
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
Theres the truth of "religion and God" in a nutshell."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC I will say a little more, Jesus and Krishna both speak of the nature of that "state." The state of "nothingness" which is ultimately "fullness." That is the perspective that they are speaking from in the stories. Whether or not any of them or "literally true" or just a mythology it doesn't matter either way. They point to the highest truth/experience of human awareness and experience which can only be "experienced." How can you "talk/think" about something "greater than the mind?"
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC So you can talk about it, you can point people in the right direction, But that is all "words" ultimately are, signposts. So you can throw these "labels" on me and call me "Atheist, agnostic, believer" but in "reality(where I live)" there is no "labels." The mind has to "think" and "latch onto a label" in order for that "concept" to exist. And as I said earlier, that goes for "all" concepts, not just about God. And that is what "all" spiritual teachings point too. ____________ .
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
So "as you can see" there is the "truth" and "non-truth(or falsehood.)" Just because you "think" you are "good looking, have a nice car, and are intelligent" doesn't mean somebody will come along and think you are "ugly, a bum, and stupid" and piss you off because you "latch onto thoughts/beliefs/and your own personal paradigm." But "who" is right and who is wrong? Nobody, you both would be wrong for clinging to "ideas(which are nothing more than thoughts.)"
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
So as you can see from my previous comment that "the false self" doesn't only exist when talking about "God." the "concept" of God is just to get people to "realize truth" over time from experience. And yes, as a signpost, the word God works well when the teachings are "applied."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
So the state of Godliness is to see everything as it truly is at all times. To be ________(very quiet mind.) And this emptiness/nothingness is as I said before also everything/fullness. That is why people say, "we are one." Because yes, in that state we are "one." But of course there is no "labels" in that state there is just _________ . And it is what we are. It isn't really a "state" as much as a practice of sticking with "truth."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC And because of what I just said, the "concept of God" isn't meaningless or useless. It isn't as if we brought it into "existence" just to fear it. If spiritual teachings are actually "applied" the person not only dissolves the "concept of God" but "all other concepts" as well that the mind clings too. And that is when "truth" is found.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
"truth(______)" is greater, beyond, before "words/thoughts." Although "words/thoughts" can be signposts to the experience of ______. You cannot both "think" and "experienced ________ " at the same time. Because as soon as a "thought" comes in, it is no longer _________ . So even the thought, "we are ___________ " isn't "___________ the experinence." So you can see the "trap" many people fall into. They "THINK" they know. LOL.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty I don't appreciate 13 different e-mails telling me you have replied to my comment Jesus Christ. I presume you are a believer because I am not going to read through that essay only to get another essay as a reply. All I have to say is we are ALL atheist to something, I presume you do not accept Thore, Allah, Zeus as Gods. I clearly believe in one less God than you do. Believe what you like I have no problem with that but only a fool believes something without logic
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
Apparently, you have little to no understanding of what I typed. No I am not a "believer, Atheist, or Agnostic." But "you" can "label" me those things. It still won't make me one.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
In "your view," in "your mind," you will "cling to the label," and in "your mind" I will be one of those things. But in "reality(where I live,)" I am not any of those things. But you love to cling to that "false sense of self" and "label" yourself an "Atheist." You get a sense of pleasure out of it. Even though it is ultimately an illusion.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
The funny thing is, "you THINK" in your mind, that you "have" to be one of those things. You just 'have too." If you are in a state of "no thought" are you any of those things? Let me answer that for you, no you are not. You need to "think" to even "think" up the concept of God or any other concept for that matter.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
Including the "concept/idea" of "Atheism." Or "Agnostism." What are they but "labels" you give yourself to give yourself a sense of importance. A sense of
"me(which is an illusion, a thoughtform in the head.)"
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
LOL.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
So this "logic" that I have came around beat you down, kicked your face in, gave you a paradigm shift, and sent you to the hospital. How about that. Huh?
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
But if you had the capacity to read for 4 to 5 minutes you would would learn something. But your mind couldn't handle it. it is too braindamaged. You want the best "logic" there is, you cannot argue with what I have stated in my previous comments. Because they are the "truth."
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
But some people aren't ready to accept the truth(like yourself.) And there is nothing wrong with that. You will one day find it out, because even if you do read my comments, it will "take time" for you to figure out/test them and "know" that it is the truth.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
Your idiocy offends me. Your low mindedness, is an insult to humanity.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
All kidding aside, you "assume" a lot of shit. You first "assumed" that I was a "believer." I don't "assume" anything in what I said. I "know" it is true and I "know" what I said about you being at a low state of mind, "trapped in concepts" is true. Otherwise you wouldn't "assume" that I was either a "believer, agnostic, or Atheist." You would have brought out the one "real" possibility which is none of those. __________ .
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty Like I said, I'm not going to read that essay you just wrote, or anything else you're going to write so please waste more time and make an even bigger essay. It's your time you're wasting, not mine. I did read your first comment though, I don't have to label myself as anything, but I DO reject the notion of God therefore I am an Atheist whether I like it or not. Just like I am a citizen of England. Whether I choose to label myself as English or not I AM ENGLISH regardless
JolleyEFC 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
Well, if you "think" your an "Atheist(meaningless statement)" then that is what "you become" even though it is ultimately an illusion. Just like all "concepts." The only reason you are a "citizen of England" is because that is the "system" that humans built up. You are only a "citizen" in your mind to "England" if you "think" you are. If you never think of yourself as a citizen of England then you won't be. But it is the way things work. So that is a concept that has meaning.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
And you are not going to have an "argument" with somebody on whether you are a "citizen" of England or not.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
And if you quiet your mind enough you will realize that in "reality" you are not a citizen of anything. You are not even your mind. You are that which is "aware" of your mind. But if you are identified with thought(because it is too noisy) you will never make this discovery/realize the greater truth.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@JolleyEFC
And yes, you are an "englishman" because that is what they tell you you are from birth. And then you believe it. But it isn't "really" who you are. Or "what" you are. But if you want to continue believing in that thought than that is who you will be. And you will remain at that awareness.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@vghy975
You see, saying you "believe" something is a very strong statement if you truly mean it and aren't full of BS. Because it is a strong "feeling" not a thought. You have a strong "feeling" that something doesn't exist if you "believe" that there is no God. Therefore if there ever was a God you probably would never get in touch with it no matter what the definition of it may be, including "energy" itself.
DoNotBeHighandMighty 1 year ago
@vghy975
Cut the guy some slack people - this was in 1997. Maybe you don't remember but it was even harder to get away with atheism in the public arena. He had the responsibility towards the magazine and the Skeptic Society. I think it was fine he washed his hands of the religion topic.
You can watch his more recent debate with Deepac Chopra "Does God have a Future?" where he doesn't have a problem with calling himself atheist :)
ninanotturna 1 year ago 3
@vghy975 If the definition you claim is one of someones belief then why does atheism seek to dibunk the belief of a god?
giveme5mins 1 year ago
@giveme5mins Because it kills people.
carneyfex 10 months ago
@carneyfex Atheism kills people?, Huh? How and why?
giveme5mins 6 months ago
@vghy975 He is merely clarifying his position.This clarification is necessary because Atheism, as a label, has been applied to numerous groups throughout history (including monotheists, soft-atheists, hard-atheists, pantheists, etc.). There are certainly self-described atheists who assert that God does not exist. The choice of self-describing as Agnostic shows a desire for precision. Don't take it personally and don't assume that your preferred definition of a word is the only one used.
PashaAntipov 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If the Georgian bigfoot body turns out to be real, he needs to apologize for his overzealous attack of cryptozoology.
History will note that Shermer hindered the pursuit of evidence and damaged science in this area.
An apology specifically to professor Jeff Meldrum will definitely in order.
He is a guardian of clear thought but wrong
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
the host looks like hes about o fall asleep...
SUNIVAG 3 years ago
He says hes agnostic here, I just watched a video 5 minutes ago where he says hes atheist. Either he changed his mind somewhere along the line, or he doesnt think theres a big difference between the two terms.
I would have liked to see Michael be a little less apologetic about his views here, wether they be atheist or agnostic. Say what you really think Mike!
mccote 3 years ago
Nearly everyone is agnostic about everything to some small degree. Nothing is ever absolutely certain. Agnostic/Gnostic relates to KNOWLEDGE, Atheist/Theist relates to BELIEF. The terms are not mutually exclusive. One can be labeled a Gnostic Atheist, Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist...
Shermer is an Agnostic Atheist. Skepticism and requests for evidence should be the default position of ANY incredible claim. The other choice is some level of naive gullibility.
BrimStone1st 3 years ago 5
I just had to comment on how commical the host's expression was whenever Shermer was talking.. XD
sonkie103 4 years ago
I don't think it's a straw man. I think he's simply drawing a distinction between agnostics and atheists. (In that one does not believe in God, while the other believes that there is NOT a God.)
nxzo2 4 years ago
An agnostic is not someone who doesn't believe in God. An agnostic is someone who DOES NOT KNOW whether there is a God and has not formed an opinion.
emptywig 4 years ago
You're both wrong. An agnostic is one who literally claims to have "no knowledge" of God; that it is actually impossible to know whether there is a God or not.
An atheist is literally one "without belief."
anonymoar 4 years ago 2
I'm sorry, but that is also incorrect.
Agnostic: "I do not have the information to believe or disbelieve conclusively."
Atheist: "I have no God(s)."
An atheist agnostic can exist, because one who neither believes or disbelieves is inherently not eg Christian.
It seems that people are confusing atheism for antitheism or irreligion.
DrMojoPhD 3 years ago
It's all semantics. Semantics and self-confidance.
bandgeek5804 3 years ago
Being agnostic or gnostic is not the same as being a theist or atheist. For example, an agnostic Christian is someone who believes despite having no evidence (ie current Xianity). It's also possible to be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist (gnosis being greek for knowing).
Now if someone is truly agnostic (ie I dont know), they should accept atheism as the default position, given the infinitude of possible Gods. Or as Sam Harris would say, an atheist is an agnostic whos thought about it;)
bluebeard2 3 years ago
Bluebeard2, you said, "For example, an agnostic Christian is someone who believes despite having no evidence (ie current Xianity)."
Current Christianity? Agnostic theist--believes but admits there is no way the existence of a god can be known. Gnostic theist--believes and is 100% sure.
Why would current Christianity be of the agnostic typology and can you substantiate the claim that it is? Citing a study would be good. (Not to be a prick, I'm genuinely curious)
metaltermite 3 years ago
Well, I won't cite a study :o)
Faith only makes sense within an agnostic belief system. A gnostic system wouldn't publicly require faith; it would instead rely on direct divine revelation (the only way you could really 'know', in the gnostic sense). A gnosis of this type would substantially reduce the amount of faith required (and the 'long dark nights of the soul', of the kind that Mother Theresa felt, would be neither common, necessary or virtuous).
bluebeard2 3 years ago
Okay, I misunderstood you. What makes sense and what is put into practice are different though. In my experience most of the faithful I have met are of the gnostic type -- they are certain sure there is a god, they are certain there are ways of knowing a god.
metaltermite 3 years ago
Right, just like two people who are familiar with the claims of astrology, one of which doesn't believe that astrology is real while the other believes that astrology is NOT real.
bcn533 2 years ago
Oh, this is Crazykb. I'm using my other account. Sorry.
Ihateprats 2 years ago
I like shermer, but he's using a strawman atheist in this interview. I personally don't know a single atheist who would say they KNOW god doesn't exists. Most, even the so called "militant atheists" are like myself agnostic atheists. They don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence one exists. You're either a theist or you're not a theist (atheist).
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago 3
Believing that the existance and non-existance of god are equally probable (agnostic) is the irrational claim in the absense of evidence.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago 4
Believing something is equiprobable is fine when contemplating ordinary claims such as "do I have 1000 dollars in my pocket?", but it makes no sense when dealing with extraordinary ones, as Russell's teapot illustrates.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
It somewhat comes down to a matter of Semantics. At least in my opinion, one can be an Atheist (I Don't believe) AND an Agnostic (I don't know). I would have to say I am an Atheist for every personal god, but an agnostic toward any deist or as yet unidentified god (or gods). Shermer I think, has to align himself a-politically as much as possible. It seems like fence straddling, but I think is a good strategy. Still, I am much less polite to theists.
kev3d 4 years ago 2
Well hey... trust me, I do know many proclaimed atheists who say flat out THERE IS NO GOD. One of the reasons I'm an agnostic myself... you can't prove a negative, and that kind of annoys me... it's too reactionary, and not logical.
LeeTheAgent 3 years ago
There is no god.
There, now you've heard one.
Dawkins makes a great argument for this in "The God Delusion".
You might be better to ask believers to define what they mean by God,because I've rarely heard any two make the same definition.
Based on the evidence, I believe there is no god. But I'll happily change my mind when evidence is presented.
johnycannuk 3 years ago 5
I totally agree with you. This is why I love Michael Shermer so much. He is Skeptic, like me, yet he repects the need for faith, morality, and spiritual. We need more people like this in the world.
brian8793 3 years ago
"One of the reasons I'm an agnostic myself... you can't prove a negative, and that kind of annoys me... it's too reactionary, and not logical."
So are you also agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
c6gunner 3 years ago 6
This guy seems really clued up
flaze3 4 years ago
This host is pretty boring. And expressionless.
lostn65 4 years ago
Science is the only method we have, it is not perfect yet it is the ONLY useful one.
mosesxiaomin 4 years ago 2
Shermer's little comment on religion and whatnot smacks of political correctness. He has said in other interviews that he is atheist. He also debunks all sorts of religious nonsense in his books-- as well as debates the existence of God, creationism, etc.
zakiechan 4 years ago 4
well, yes, he is a gentleman and doesn't want to be abrasive.
sometimes we get so exasperated with religion that we want agnostics/athiests to be angrier.
we will getfurther with a less caustic approach.
JorL5150 4 years ago
excellent interview. Shermer's a double edged sword for me. very erudite and intelligent of a man, but at the same time ambivalent and lackluster in his colloquy. needs more atheism!
JagArKrig 4 years ago 3
Agonostic! come on! get off the fence already! Good old Carl was a full blooded atheist. This guy is unsure of his cause.
vinbuik 4 years ago
You'd make a great Christian.
FogLight2 4 years ago
been there, done that.
vinbuik 4 years ago
based on your original comment, it sounds like you're still there and still doing it
FogLight2 4 years ago
To clear up any misunderstanding, I am an atheist, Carl Sagan was an atheist, this Shermer is an agnostic. Agnostics are full of shit!
vinbuik 4 years ago
The point I'm trying to make is that in your original post, you exhibit Christian-like behavior in blindly criticizing people who don't have the same belief system you do. It appears as though you simply replaced your Christianity with atheism and have not stopped being narrow minded.
FogLight2 4 years ago
well i don't know- it easy to athiest as it pertains to the g/God(s) of religion. that is a human invention and agnostics reject that.
agnosticism allows that there COULD be a higher form of life beyond our perception- but one that is irrelevant to religion and one we cannot understand as yet.
JorL5150 4 years ago
don't be so sure about Carl.
bangmycoconut 3 years ago
when was this interview conducted? The music/logo smacks of mid-late 90's. Doesn't change the interview, of course....just curious.
steveisgood 4 years ago
Mr. Nawitus, the debate or clarification of words (exp. atheist, agnostic) within our language is of the utmost importance. While it is true that words can never be the things that they are a symbol for, we must strive to make our symbols (words) as accurate as possible. This will allow us to better communicate with each other and avoid redundant conflict over miscommunication.
Wmcgarry 4 years ago
Mr. Nawitus, the debate or clarification of words (exp. atheist, agnostic) within our language is of the utmost importance. While it is true that words can never be the things that they are a symbol for, we must strive to make our symbols (words) as acuarate as possible. This will allow us to better communicate with eachother and avoid redundant conflict over miscommunication.
Wmcgarry 4 years ago
Exactly. Well said.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
One problem that skeptics have is militant skeptcism which dismisses (for example) future technology with false claims.
nawitus 4 years ago
Faith-based belief systems need no proof in their beliefs. But skeptics challenge those claims that eschew science in favor of a more "mystical" explanation for how the "world works". Skeptics want critical thinking to balance faith-based systems, IMO.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
>Faith-based belief systems need no proof in their beliefs.
Why? Why exempt people who say "this is what i believe, due to faith"? That's doubletalk. Faith eschews science BTW. Faith in something without evidence is the antithesis of science.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
If people have faith in something, what's the point in attempting to hold them to an explanation of their feelings? It's when faith relies on dogma and emotional majority in place of critical thinking that a skeptic will step in and challenge, and in that case I would not exempt them. Example: group ESP, UFO sightings, synchronicity, etc.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
I don't see how you can possibly imply that ESP, UFO's, etc. are any different than people who believe in some supernatural creator, like a God.
Yours is a distinction without a difference.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
Well, you're right. I should have included supernatural creator, God, and the like. In my haste I went off on a tangent and didn't return full circle to finish my distinction. If I may indulge myself here: I have had personal beefs with noted evangelicals and it has spurred my interest in skepticism (clear seeing) ever since. It's a lifelong endeavor. So I thank you for your time and patience.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
Part 1:
"The purpose of religion is faith"? What does that even mean? Sounds like doubletalk to me that means "I have to mind PR 101 and not piss off the religious majority".
Interesting posts here. The construction of the word a-theist simply means non-theist. But many think "atheist" means a person who says "there absolutely cannot be any god".
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
Part 2:
I hold that the default state is non-belief. A sane person doesn't hold something to be true without evidence. Hence i reject premises that go like "They believe there's no God". No, I don't believe in god. There's a difference.
Put it another way: I'm a militant agnostic- I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU. ;-)
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
The debate about the terms atheist or agnostic is just silly and wastes time. I don't believe in any god just like I don't believe that unicorns or superman exists. I only believe in things that have some evidence (and I assign a probability for such truths..)
nawitus 4 years ago
Sounds good to me.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago
I can not speak for Mr. Shermer regarding your red-winged, purple-eyed pixie that lives in your microwave and is telling you the numbers that will come up in the lottery the following week. I do believe that you believe in this pixie. And I would suggest do to its extraordinary ability to predict winning lottery numbers that you do not use your microwave any time soon.
Wmcgarry 4 years ago
Further more Mr. yankur If a person had a 1% part of themselves that thought god existed and the remaining 99% of this person did not believe god existed, this person would be in a state of conflict. Or this person could reconcile their beliefs by discarding faith(belief in the absence of evidence)and decide that they do no know the answer...thus becoming an agnostic.
Wmcgarry 4 years ago
Mr. Yankur. the definition of an atheist, according to websters is "one who believes that there is no deity". This does not leave room for belief in a diety thus a true atheist thinks "There is absolutely 100% no God".
Wmcgarry 4 years ago
Well, I think psychics safeguard most of their "secrets", meaning things they actually know would defame them. Then again I'd like to see a game show for psychics only, much like Dana Carvey's bit on SNL years ago.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
So Mr.Shermer is above all the "Militant atheists", then I am above all the "Militant Skeptics" like himself.
Tell me Mr.Shermer, how many atheists do you know who would say that "There is absolutely 100% no God."? And next question, are you also so strictly agnostic about existence of red-winged, purple-eyed pixie that lives in my microwave and is telling me the numbers that will come up in the lottery next week?
yancur 4 years ago
Shermer is awesome.
IShitOnYourGod 4 years ago
Yeah, I love Shermer but he of all people should be a bigger supporter of "militant atheism." I mean, we're not talking about violence in the name of atheism here, just blunt, unapologetic dismissals of BS claims, which he himself seems to do, except that he backs off a little by making statements like not supporting militant atheism. If Shermer isn't the definition of a militant atheist, I don't know who is?
mjr256 4 years ago
Shermer's a skeptic. That means he doesn't just dismiss BS claims. He examines evidence and draws a conclusion, forms a PROVISIONAL opinion which he will change if new evidence demands it. That doesn't sound miiltant to me.
dangerics 4 years ago
I don't particuarly care for the term "militant atheist"; it's clearly designed to be derogatory, but I don't see how what Shermer does is any different from what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al do, yet they're frequently called "militant atheists" in the media. Many people are likely to read his comments here as attacks on guys like Dawkins, even though I don't think that's what he intended.
mjr256 4 years ago
I don't think they're militant either. But I can see where religious people would. Dawkins said raising children in any religion is tantamount to child abuse. And that's light compared to some of Hitchens' diatribes. Shermer says things like nonsense and bologna. It's the difference in language that makes people react to them differently.
dangerics 4 years ago
No. He's friends with Dawkins.
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
Sorry, I hit the thumbs down button accidentally. I actually like your comment.
dangerics 4 years ago
Penn and Teller perhaps? Yea, I admire Shermer but sometimes he says things a little shy of the mark. I also recommend Lionel's radio show for more critical ventings.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
I did just meet Shermer on Thursday at The Great American God-Out. I didn't ask him about this particular point but he made it clear that he embraces the term "atheist" and agreed that the term "bright" was rather silly or stupid. Don't remember which.
mjr256 4 years ago
That's great! Who came up with the term "bright" anyway? Please excuse the Penn and Teller response, that text somehow shows up up there. With what little time I have to scope the web, I cannot wholeheartedly blog skeptically; I feel like an absentee skeptic: you all have my mental support. My creative endeavors far exceed the interesting arena of blogging skeptically, so let me say that perhaps someday I will develop my skepticism in a future forum later, perhaps art-related.
cricket000cricket 4 years ago
I've always enjoyed Dr. Shermer's work (indeed, I'm a big fan), but I still can't agree about religion. Yes, we need to treat religious people with respect, of course, but we don't need to respect the beliefs. Quite frankly I resent the idea that I can't say "I'm an atheist, there is no god" without being labeled as dogmatic.
RobertlewisIR 4 years ago 5
And if my lack of belief in any god means I must label myself agnostic rather than atheist, then I must be an agnostic where the easter bunny and santa are concerned, in fact where any fantastical invention you want to throw at me is concerned. I can't prove that you don't have a magic dinosaur in your pocket so I'm an agnostic about that. Nope. I'm an atheist.
dangerics 4 years ago 2
Excellent points.
SardonicusRexx 4 years ago