Just my thought.

P.S: It just surprises me of Israel’s rankings. Straying away from it’s original purpose in the world =/.

Sarcasm aside, both sides of the Ireland conflict are and were Christian – the idea that Catholics aren’t “true” Christians” or vice-versa is stupid.

I’ve seen Dawkins speak recently and I just don’t think he is as rabid or fanatic as people make him out to be. He isn’t shy in calling creationists “idiots”, but he doesn’t attack the more intellectual religious folks like English Bishops he has interviewed.

You’re right in that the word “God” is so slippery. Because of that can of worms argument over the definitions of “atheism” and “agnostic”, I’ve come to like the term “ignostic”. You can find it on Wikipedia.

Although Japan beats us by a whisker on the “secular-rational values” axis of this one…
http://www.jasonclark.ws/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/valuemap1.gif

Vietnamese, Scandinavians top one night stands.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article633160.ece

Im not religious. Im agnostic. I think many in Japan are like that too. Where as Americans are religious fundamentalistic.

Gosh, you’re right. Fine and factional distinctions in religious and philosophical thought are *exactly* like that.

Do you go around telling Christians they’re actually Jews as well?

The broad definition of theism (like that of atheism), the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities, is what I shall use.

And I don’t disagree that original Gautama Buddhism had no gods or divinities, and was in that sense atheistic – it’s the latter manifestations that I dispute. Not sure if it was a religion, either. However looking into in more detail, it seems there are as many different definitions of religion as there are religions, and that according to some, even Dawkins could be described as religious: “in Lindbeck’s Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in “God” or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”According to this definition, religion refers to one’s primary worldview and how this dictates one’s thoughts and actions.”

So why DO you pray?

What about what they *are”* instead? If it walks like a duck (etc) are we wrong for insisting it is a duck, even if the duck says it is a horse?

However it does seem futile to talk about what Dawkins’ main beef is without some quotes from the Prof. He certainly is no friend to organised religion, but he does not believe, like Gould, in “non-overlapping magisteria” and so when religion intrudes on his turf, he gets angry.

While “one right answer” may not be ideal, it doesn’t mean that all possibilities are equal. There is no evidence whatsoever for any gods, and plenty of evidence that contradicts, for examples, the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.

“I like to go to the root meaning of the term – not necessarily the way it was originally used, but the word as it actually is.”

The problem being, imho, is that there exists no platonic ideal of what a word actually “is” anywhere absent of context and culture. A linguistic dissection of root meaning in a vacuum is of no possible use when it has little to no bearing on usage.

Again, see Christianity. To the non-Christian, the root meaning of the term would be “one relating to, belonging to, or resembling” Christ. Which has little to no impact on the reality of the internecine conflict within.

Telling residents of Ireland 30 years ago “but you’re both Christians!” is worse than useless. Telling those who profess to be agnostic that “but you’re really atheist!” likewise.

Demanding *other* people accede to *your* definition of what they think is just goofy.

[Not you, specifically, that's a general "your" and "they."]

“Dawkins’ main beef is with Creationists”

I disagree. Dawkins is very much opposed to organized religion in general. It’s just the creationists are the dumbest [imho] and most useful to Dawkins’ argument. Like shooting fish in a barrel with them.

To James:

The fact that there doesn’t seem to be evidence, to me, of the type of god some people claim to exist [namely of the Abrahamic tradition] doesn’t change the fact that, you know, I could be wrong.

That’s the whole thing, with either religion or Dawkins or true believers of their own opinion about anything… their inability to admit the possibility that they might be wrong

Sure, if you back Dawkins into a corner he’ll talk of probabilities v possibilities and his “scale” of agnosticism, and then proceed to tell you how he’s right, and others are wrong.

For Dawkins, agnosticism is a sign of a lack of moral courage. For me, laying claim to any kind of truth or “one right answer” is sign of hubris and closed-mindedness.

“In the same sense that one can state, quite definitively, that there is no ghost cat typing Overthinker’s comments, one can also discount the claim that there is a god.”

Again, it would depend on what type of god you’re talking about, I imagine [see below, response to OsakaGuy] or whether god, in whatever context or form, is a scientifically testable phenomenon.

Perhaps I have overstated his case, but it is the impression I’ve had. His dismissal of anything that doesn’t line up with his particular interpretation of things [pantheism, his whole chapter on the Poverty of Agnosticism in the God Delusion] is usually dismissed as some kind of logical failing or lack of moral courage.

“I always wonder why some self-proclaimed agnostics can make the claim that God’s existence is “unknowable”?

Fundamentally, and briefly, because imho everything you know, or think you know, has been filtered through your individual cultural and neurological grid. Throughout history, people show a truly staggering ability to “ignore” certain kinds of information — that which does not “fit” their neurological/imprinted/conditioned grid.

I just find it incredibly hubristic to think, that after eons and eons of human history, with varying degrees of belief, nonbelief, philosophy… thousands upon thousands of ideas and belief systems and varieties of human experience, to say “Aha! Now I have the truth! And I can prove it!” Inevitably, people who make that claim turn out to be wrong.

Belief systems, as such, and people who “know” beyond a shadow of a doubt that their way is the one, true, right way are generally responsible for the largest c&ck-ups in history. Religion is generally the most obvious example, but you’ve also got idiots like Stalin and Pol Pot, whose one “true” way was communism [or power itself, depending on which historian you agree with.]

And that’s without even getting into the distinctions of scientific, mathematical, legal, personal, universal or logical truths and proofs.

“How do you know for sure?”

Exactly.

“If a god does exist, he should have the power to prove his existence.”

Depends on what kind of ‘god’ your talking about, I imagine. And it would depend on whether he/she/it would care to prove his existence, I’d also imagine. Certainly the mythological/traditional Christian god should/would be able to [and some believe he has.] But would the god of Spinoza? Or a trickster god? Or a malevolent god? Or a non-interventionist god?

Or if there is any kind of ‘proof’ that, in hindsight, couldn’t be rationalized or alternatively explained.

Sorry, but they are, check your dictionary:

the·ism

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Main Entry: athe·ism

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2. a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Buddhism would fall under 2b. There is no deity involved.

“The belief in divine intervention in human affairs, and prayer to allow this, is sufficient.”

As pointed out above, the definitions of the words themselves would negate your argument – prayer alone does not equal theism.

We pray, but not to any deity. Without a deity, there can be no “divine intervention”. If good happens to you, it is because of who you are and what you have done, not because some imaginary being decided to brighten your day. And if something bad happens, well guess who’s fault that is?

I stand by my original statement: Buddhists are ahteists and religious. The two are not exclusive except from a Western viewpoint that posits “religion” as meaning “belief in a supreme being” ipso facto not believing in a supreme being means one is not religious.

“Dawkins, for example, goes beyond saying ‘There’s no evidence for god, so I don’t believe’ to ‘I know absolutely you are wrong for believing in god.’ [paraphrasing, obviously.]”

Have you read The God Delusion? I’ve read much of Dawkins stuff, especially his recent writings on God. He posts frequently on his web site. I think you paraphrase too much since Dawkins has never made such a claim, UNLESS your “God” is the bearded man who literally created Adam from dust and flooded the world a few thousand years ago. In fact one of the chapters in his book is called “Why There Almost Certainly is No God”. As James said Dawkins has emphasized that he is technically an agnostic in general (a number 6 on his scale of unbelief from 1 to 7.) Dawkins is mostly criticizing the classic monotheistic Omnimax god. He doesn’t have much against pantheism (“sexed up atheism” he says, haha) or ideas of evolved gods. (But why call them gods?)

Besides that, I always wonder why some self-proclaimed agnostics can make the claim that God’s existence is “unknowable”? How do you know for sure? If a god does exist, he should have the power to prove his existence.

I would disagree with your apparent opinion of Buddhists believing in deities/supernatural beings equaling theistic belief. Perhaps Tibetan Buddhists go there, but there is no god running the show and handing out salvation to those who believe in him in any Buddhist sect I know of. Amida Buddhists come closest, but even they don’t believe Amida Buddha is going to get them into heaven/enlightenment. They just believe he will get them reborn somewhere where they can learn the true teaching that will lead them to enlightenment (this world being too defiled for people to learn it here).

Local preexisting gods and spirits have been incorporated into Buddhism in the same way as their festivals and powers were incorporated into Christian saints/holy days in the old days of the Catholic church, true, but they are not the central belief, merely decorations.

Dawkins believes that atheism is the logical extension of understanding evolution. Therefore anyone who isn’t an atheist is illogical, irrational and damaged. And has stated, quite definitively, that there is no god. [The God Delusion.] Whether he allows any other definiton of atheism a pass, I couldn’t say, though I’d doubt it. In multiple books and interviews I’ve read and seen of him, I find him erudite, but extremely dismissive and condescending.

I’ve read a few of Dawkins’ books, and I got the impression that he views most agnostics as people who aren’t brave enough to admit they don’t believe in god/gods. While such people go about claiming to absolutely not believe ridiculous claims unsupported by evidence (example: “The entity leaving comments on this site under the name ‘Overthinker’ is actually the ghost of my aunt’s dead cat.”), they refuse to apply the same standard to beliefs religious people claim (example: “a god-like being exists and created us”). In the same sense that one can state, quite definitively, that there is no ghost cat typing Overthinker’s comments, one can also discount the claim that there is a god.

————-

After writing the above comment, I found this Dawkins quote from a Google search:

“That you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things.”

and

“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Dawkins’ main beef is with Creationists, and the harsher side of religious intolerance in general. Which is probably why he comes off as dismissive, since Creationists are considered the lunatic fringe even by many Christians.

I would take issue with the compilers of this survey who seem to think “atheist” equals “non-religious”. I am religious, and I am also atheist. There is no contradiction, as I am Buddhist and there is no “god” in Buddhism. Linking “atheist” to “non-religious” shows a bias bred of a social pre-programming through following one of the Abrahamic religions.

The problem being is that debates between atheistic communities as to what constitutes authentic atheism devolves into the same kind of nonsense as arguments between, say, Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses as to what constitutes authentic Christianity.

Yes, obviously, the original meaning and context of the word is as you describe. However meaning and language evolves. I’ve no desire to dictate to anyone else how they should label themselves anymore than I want someone telling me what I “am.”

A Hindu, for example, would meet the original Catholic definition of atheism in every sense of the word, but they would in fact actually believe in many gods of a different culture/pantheon. So is that person an atheist?

It eventually becomes a retarded semantic argument with each side demanding the other validate their language and ideas in lieu of their own.

Like religion, in general.

And where would Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia be on this list? Where’s India, for that matter? They could poll Kyrgyzstan but not India?

Religions is a can of worms, no? Such a contentious and difficult subject to discuss, no matter who’s involved. There is no way to look at if objectively from anybody’s perspective, but we can all agree to tease Tom Cruise, I think.

hehehehehehe!

You’re one of THEM!

Mostly I was just curious as to what they meant by “non-religious” in the context of the survey…

Since atheism can mean, according to atheists themselves, anything from an assertion of being without belief, to a belief in nonexistence, to nontheism, to a rejection of theism, irreligion, strong v weak atheism, implicit v explicit, etc…

Agnosticism is without belief, obviously. For me, personally, I simply think the existence or non-existence is an unknowable question. That is, of course, by the original Catholic definition, atheism, but wouldn’t me the criterion of many atheists.

So if you were to ask me if I were religious, I honestly wouldn’t have a clue how to answer. (Buddhist? Agnost? Atheist? All of the above?)

Similar to agnostic really. Since “atheist” simply means “without deity/belief” then an agnostic, who doesn’t know for sure each way, is also an atheist as if they actually did believe then they wouldn’t be agnostic. Some people like to try and use “atheist” to mean those who actually and firmly not only do not believe but believe that God does not exist (ie an active belief in non-existence rather than a passive disbelief in existence) but that seems a little hair-splitting to me.

Probably in the Japanese view, the three would be like this:

A “religious” person would be one identifying themselves as belonging to one of the major monotheistic religions, or lives strictly according to the teachings of the polytheistic belief systems. They would invoke the name of God during everyday conversations, have some idiosyncratic behaviors (cannot eat specific foods, for instance), and believe morals come from the word of God. They would also try to convert you (albeit politely most of the time) since they believe their belief is THE right one.

A “non-religious” person would not believe there is an omniscient, omnipotent God and a need to live by His (Her?) teachings, but would still believe in the supernatural. Maybe there IS some entity who listens to you when you go pray at the temple and gives our feeble student brains a little extra push, and maybe there IS a spirit that lives on after corporeal death, but they are there to be bargained and pleaded with and is an extension of everyday life. Pascal’s Wager, anyone?

The “atheist” would say all that is bullshit. You die when you die and religion is nothing but a delusion that poisons rational judgment and makes you give money to people and groups claiming to speak for figments of imagination. They follow pertaining customs and ceremonies mostly out of tradition and social expectations.

When put that way, I think it’s sort of understandable that people would identify themselves as the “non-religious”.

I’d vote ‘agnostic’ in your survey, but I’m not sure where there would go. Religious discussions are always tricksy.

I have found though that when I talk to a Japanese person or a non-Japanese person who is connected to Japan in some way and they tell me very emphatically that they are “Buddhist”, 9 times out of 10 they are Soka Gakkai. If you haven’t heard of it, I won’t say anything more to prevent the inevitable flame war, but you can find everything on both sides through Google. “Regular” Buddhists don’t spit the word “Buddhist” at you like it’s some kind of challenge.

As for me, I’m like good ol’ Paul Carus: “an atheist who loved God.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Carus