Atheists are sounding more like evangelical Christians.

[Requia ☣]

Nice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

One of the key findings of the Asch experiment is that the people who conformed were not actually aware that they were conforming, they didn't know they gave the wrong answers, or weren't sure what the right answer was.

[Thurnez Isa]

I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

Huxley agnostic?

Given that he made the word up, wouldn't Huxley agnostic be the default form of agnostic?

Not so much anymore.
To be honest I haven't heard the word used like that, expect in older writings.

But if you think of it, you could not deny the existence, but still have no belief, which by definition still puts you in the atheist terminology, since it really just lack of belief in a God. One of the reasons why in many world religion classes will admit by strict definitions many Buddhists are Atheists because many don't believe in a God. Raelists are also Atheists cause they don't have a God, despite the fact they are UFO cult.
In other words it's a single position on a single question. Just as Gnosticism could also be looked upon like that, even in Huxleys terms. They can be mutually exclusive, but they may not also be.

I know it's all getting really confusing. But we live in a religiously steeped world, and one thing religions love is categorizing people. It goes into that Us and Them mentality.

I remember having a discussion with my old room mate months ago, where he asked what religion I follow.
I told him I don't believe any God, I'm atheistic.
Then he immediately accused me of saying there is no God. Which I never said. I said I don't believe in any, not that I believe there is none. There's a slight difference. Though to be honest I'm closed to the point were Im ready to make a leap of faith, so to say, and say until further evidence is given I believe there is none.

[Requia ☣]

 

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

[Thurnez Isa]

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

[Thurnez Isa]

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

[Thurnez Isa]

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

I swear, being agnostic is so much more fun than theist or atheist... and I've tried both. As an agnostic you can play the devil's advocate for either side, or just make fun of the fact that adults are arguing over the existence or nonexistence of something they both agree that they can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

Atheists would get a lot more traction, IMO, if their argument was "I don't know, you don't know, so STFU" rather than the "NO YUO HAZ TO PROOF IT!" argument that prevails today.

[Thurnez Isa]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?
You don't get to be a jury and after hearing both sides stand up and say "I'm agnostic over the whole thing."

Besides I hate Buddha too...
middle ground up my ass!

[Captain Utopia]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

[Thurnez Isa]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?
You don't get to be a jury and after hearing both sides stand up and say "I'm agnostic over the whole thing."

A jury is asked, "Is there evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?" rather than "Is this person the murderer?"

If we said "Do you believe in God beyond a reasonable doubt?" I would say No. If you ask "Is there a God?" I'd say "I dunno, define God and I might have an opinion about that particular definition."

[Requia ☣]

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

That's not being agnostic about abiogenesis.  Agnostic about abiogenisis would be 'I don't know, and there's no way to find evidence, so I'm not going to bother with the question'.

[Kurt Christ]

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

What is your opinion on the worship of Mothra?