Thanks again to maladaptive....

[conuly]

Here's the question. I know I'm probably a bit biased when it comes to religion because I'm not religious. At all. And then you see these fundies, and even though you *know* the vast majority of religious people are perfectly reasonable people... you end up twisting your views a little to see all religious people as potentially creepy and illogical and, well... insane. In a bad way. After all, they all believe in weird things that can't be proven, right? Right? It's all fascinating, but... different.

But I'm told that many religious people have the same views about non-religious people. And I know full well that most people on either side don't recognize their own bias when they walk right into it.

So, here's my question: Are there any atheist/agnostic fundies out there I haven't encountered before? Because I'd like to see, just for my own edification. I'm not sure if my belief that there aren't any is because, well, there aren't any, or if it's because I just don't see them as much/clearly.

(Oh, and click the scary link. Thanks)

Comments

[furiosity.livejournal.com]

Are there any atheist/agnostic fundies out there I haven't encountered before?
I don't think I've encountered any online, but really, anything can be taken to the extreme. Agnosticism not so much since it's the ultimate in fence-sitting (and I love it up here on the fence!), but I can easily imagine an atheist who becomes zealous about convincing everyone that there is no God.

[conuly]

Well, there are two forms of agnosticism, aren't there?

There's the fence-sitting form: Maybe God exists, and maybe he doesn't. I sure don't know.

And then there's hard agnosticism: It's not possible for anybody to know if God does or doesn't exist (unless they happen to be God, of course). Y'all are all wrong!!!!! Nyah!

[furiosity.livejournal.com]

Well, see, I don't consider the second kind agnostics; I think they're lackadaisical atheists. Because I think you have to be able to accept that it's possible that you're wrong before you call yourself an agnostic And the minute a person realises that everything they think/know/feel might be wrong, they're -- at least in my experience -- are far less likely to tell others they're wrong. *shrugs*

[conuly]

And yet, hard agnosticism is what the term originally meant.

[l33tminion]

And both of those come in atheistic and theistic varieties. Even if hard agnosticism is true, hard agnostics either believe in God or they don't (for a given value of "God"). Same goes for the fence-sitters.

(I know of some agnostics who will dispute that tooth and nail, but I think "Do you believe in X" is a yes or no question as long as X is clearly defined.)

[leora.livejournal.com]

But when one is discussing deities, X is almost never clearly defined. I still haven't met a theist who can define what s/he believes in. And saying "The Bible" does not count as: a) I believe the Bible exists too. b) The Bible is contradictory in some places and c) they never actually know 100% of the Bible, and "The Bible" is still an awkwardly defined term anyhow.

I do not believe it is possible for someone to believe in something yet not know what it is they believe in.

I believe it is possible for someone to believe in something and not be able to explain it or ever put it into words. But I believe that when you fall into that category, you should not try to convince others, as you cannot communicate to others what they should believe and so it's rather pointless.

That said, I've known some obnoxious evangelical atheists. And I used to be one. Now I try to only be one with some theist pisses me off.

[l33tminion]

I do not believe it is possible for someone to believe in something yet not know what it is they believe in.

Are you positing that people have perfect knowledge of their own beliefs? I'd have to disagree with you there, but, then again, I've been reading too much Dennett lately.

(Drat, I can't keep track of which journal I'm logged in as. *grmbl*)

[leora.livejournal.com]

No, and I'm about to run into tricky wording issues here, so I hope you'll try to bear with me. If I can't make my opinion clear, well, so be it.

I don't believe it's possible to have a belief without knowing what it is on any level. For example, I was once talking to a girl who said to me, You know, you're going to go to Hell for being an atheist? And I replied commenting, I thought you were Jewish. And she said she was. I said, I thought Jews didn't believe in Hell? And she said, oh well, then you won't.

I asked her whether or not she believed in Hell, and she said she believed in whatever Judaism says happens.

I do not consider this true belief. I do believe she believes "whatever Judaism says is what happens". But I don't believe she has beliefs in the afterlife. And I do believe she did believe in Hell until then, despite the potentially contradictory belief (Judiasm doesn't really rule out Hell, but it doesn't give you reason to believe in it either, so most Jews don't). If someone says "I believe in the Bible", but they haven't read the Bible and don't know anything about what it says, then I don't consider their belief in the Bible to be meaningful.

I do think it's possible to have beliefs you don't realize you have, like that your girlfriend understood your plans for the day and there's no need to clarify them, even though if you consciously thought about it enough to state it, you'd realize it's not something you would believe after a moment's thought.

I also don't give much value to religious beliefs that have not been thought about at all. But yes, someone can have beliefs they don't think about and don't realize they have. And to some extent, everyone has to have many of them. I can't constantly be thinking about every assumption I make. But I meant to be discussing within the field of what should be more conscious thought.

[l33tminion]

Okay, that makes a lot more sense.