Where is the Bible Belt exactly?

[alvarezg]

Atheism strikes me as being just a negative: "I don't believe what they believe". It begs the question: What then are your convictions? The answer should be much more interesting than just hearing the negative stand.

Some people profess to be secular humanists, which seems to be a reasonable alternative to ethics by fear of the supernatural. For some reason, those seem to be few and far between.

 

[FUEGO]

Some people profess to be secular humanists, which seems to be a reasonable alternative to ethics by fear of the supernatural. For some reason, those seem to be few and far between.

Objectively, you would call me a secular humanist. I don't really feel the need to resort to labels personally though. Maybe some day.

From the Council for Secular Humanism:

What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Note that liberal Christian churches would largely agree with most tenets of secular humanism (excepting faith in a higher power and denomination specific dogmas of course). Much as many secular humanists would agree with the tenets of many liberal churches, excepting the faith and religious dogmas, of course.

 

[kumquat]

So what's the scoop in Canada?

I had to go digging for this. I think it defines Canada's beliefs.

The United Church of Canada is the largest protestant denomination in Canada and it may have more members than the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting what its leader thinks.

 

[haha]

I'm not making the assertion that no atheist has ever asserted that god does not exist without a doubt. I'm sure some have.

In regards to Mr. Dawkins book that you referenced, he actually outlines in the book the continuum of belief in god on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being completely a faithful believer and 7 being a complete atheist (or I may have the 7 and 1 reversed). Mr. Dawkins says in this book that he is technically an agnostic (something like a 6.99), since one can never truly conclusively know for 100% certain that god does not exist. He allows the possibility, with strong enough evidence, that god exists. Basically the same beliefs that I have. With incredible claims should come irrefutable evidence.

The God Delusion was actually a great, well written book. Very interesting if you are into theology, religion, or apologetics (and on either side of the debate). This particular book was a good, easy, quick read, unlike some of Mr. Dawkins' other works focused more on evolutionary biology that were pretty heavy on the science and info (yet interesting and rewarding once read). It comes highly recommended regardless of religious affiliation. But you probably won't agree with everything he says (I don't either).


If someone told me they were an agnostic, I would assume that their mind is not made up whether they believe in god. They are unsure. They have reviewed the evidence in support of the existence of god and cannot come to a conclusion as to whether to believe or disbelieve. Contrast that with the atheist that does not express a belief in god. I'm sure many claim agnosticism out of convenience. It doesn't sound as harsh as "atheist". They can always say to the evangelist "well, you might be right".

From my point of view, god either exists or he doesn't exist. My (or your or anyone's) subjective belief in god doesn't alter the reality of his existence or nonexistence.

And arguing about the existence or nonexistence of god does not address the question of whether good things can come from religion.

Back to your statement from an earlier post: "[Atheists] positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god."

I think the response there is that the atheist sees no proof in favor of the hypothesis that there is a god (clearly great minds have disagreed over this point). And in the absence of any evidence to believe that there is a god, one must logically reject the hypothesis that there is a god based on the evidence. The rejection of the hypothesis of god could always be reexamined in light of new evidence, which is why I think all intelligent atheists are technically agnostic, if ever so slightly.

Yours is a very well written piece, Fuego. I actually like Dawkins' evolutionary work. I tend to have a practical mind that more or less stays away from what might be called speculative philosophy.

I do think that if what you say about atheism is correct, atheist should throw out the term atheism and call it what it would then be- agnosticism.

Ha

 

[Martha]

IMO atheists are on indefensible ground. They positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god.

If an atheist were to to live eternally and experience every possibility that the universe might offer, he would still be wrong to make this assertion; as how would he know that god was not just around the corner?

Ha

Science is a journey. It builds on itself. Once in a while it is wrong and the theories are modified. Most often it is just incomplete. For example, Newtonian physics isn't wrong, it was just incomplete. Atheists look at the theories in support of a claim of a God and then show that those theories are inconsistent with scientific evidence. They also look at what a god would have to be like to be consistent with what we know about the world, the universe, and people. At that point they draw the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that there is a god. I suggest reading Quantum Gods, which not only goes through the Christian philosophies (as he did in more detail in a prior book) but also the more eastern and other god philosophies that are currently popular.

 

[samclem]

Objectively, you would call me a secular humanist. I don't really feel the need to resort to labels personally though. Maybe some day.

Yes. The label "secular humanist" has the big advantage of being an affirmative tag ("this is what I believe") rather than being framed as "what I do not believe." This is worth highlighting. I also think the term "rationalist" is useful, highlighting a preference for reasoning and evidence over that of faith.

Still, the most significant difference between my world view and that of most Americans is my non-belief in god. For quick shorthand in informal discussions with others, "agnostic" or "atheist" gets the point across (at the expense of precision).

Regarding "atheism" vs "agnosticism," here was Isaac Asimov's reasoning, which i think makes sense: (link)

Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist?
Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.


Kurtz: But the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists. You don't believe in Santa Claus, but you can't disprove his existence. The burden of proof is upon those who maintain the claim.
Asimov: Yes. In any case, I am an atheist.

 

[FUEGO]

I do think that if what you say about atheism is correct, atheist should throw out the term atheism and call it what it would then be- agnosticism.

I think labels can be misleading as they don't go deeper than a general idea. In this case, agnostic means a certain thing and atheist means a certain thing. But there is a wide diversity of thought that falls under each of those labels. Broadly speaking, an agnostic has not reached or cannot reach a conclusion whether god exists and an atheist expresses no belief in god.

Atheism is also commonly defined from a theist-centric point of view. The non-belief in god is not what forms and defines the moral and ethical being of an atheist.

 

[Kronk]

If I needed any more proof that I wouldn't enjoy living in a large chunk of the South, this thread would have convinced me.

must ... control ... comments ... on ... religion

Whew! Successful this time!

 

[REWahoo]

must ... control ... comments ... on ... religion

Whew! Successful this time!

Thank you.

While the majority of posts on this thread haven't been a problem, a few have skirted with the rules. We appreciate your self-restraint.

 

[haha]

Broadly speaking, an agnostic has not reached or cannot reach a conclusion whether god exists and an atheist expresses no belief in god.

Atheism is also commonly defined from a theist-centric point of view. The non-belief in god is not what forms and defines the moral and ethical being of an atheist.

I think this is inconsistent with what has been said above. It seems to me that the atheist, for example Asimov in the interview above, does not just express no belief in god. He expresses a belief in no god.

Ha

 

[Dudester]

In your paradigm, how is an atheist different from an agnostic?

The Wikipedia has an interesting definition of agnoticism (see URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic):

"... the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief."

Under this definition, it is quite possible to both believe in God (be a theist) but have no evidence (knowledge) that God exists (or doesn't exist). Or to put it differently, it is quite possible for some people to be agnostic theists while some others are agnostic atheists.

 

[ziggy29]

The Wikipedia has an interesting definition of agnoticism (see URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic):

"... the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief."

Under this definition, it is quite possible to both believe in God (be a theist) but have no evidence (knowledge) that God exists (or doesn't exist). Or to put it differently, it is quite possible for some people to be agnostic theists while some others are agnostic atheists.

I think this definition is a little odd. The fact that something can't be proven (as we know under scientifically accepted definitions of "proof") would mean (by definition) that we would ALL be agnostics, or else someone would have either solid proof (or disproof) of the existence of supreme being(s). And as far as I know, no one has any proof about the existence (or lack of existence) of God.

Nobody *knows* to a provable extent that God (or any manifestation of supreme being) does exist or does not exist. So I would think the Wiki definition as quoted above is useless. I prefer what was stated earlier: an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of God; they are neither firmly convinced God exists nor firmly convinced God doesn't exist. Theists and atheists both have convictions that God exists or doesn't exist (respectively), but neither can prove their beliefs. And yes, I consider atheism a belief (unlike agnosticism).

Interesting discussion. Hope we can keep it civil and respectful, since discussion of religion can turn volatile in a hurry.

 

[FIREd]

To me, atheists and theists are both faithfuls. They both believe in something that cannot be proven, which is the basis for faith. Unlike the faithfuls, the agnostics make room for doubts.

 

[FUEGO]

I think this is inconsistent with what has been said above. It seems to me that the atheist, for example Asimov in the interview above, does not just express no belief in god. He expresses a belief in no god.

Asimov says "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." He also says he's an atheist, and I believe him. But the quoted language seems to leave open the slight possibility that god could exist and that he does not have sufficient evidence to conclusively prove non-existence.

Maybe it is semantics whether one labels him atheist or agnostic?

 

[Dudester]

I think this definition is a little odd. The fact that something can't be proven (as we know under scientifically accepted definitions of "proof") would mean (by definition) that we would ALL be agnostics, or else someone would have either solid proof (or disproof) of the existence of supreme being(s). And as far as I know, no one has any proof about the existence (or lack of existence) of God.

Nobody *knows* to a provable extent that God (or any manifestation of supreme being) does exist or does not exist. So I would think the Wiki definition as quoted above is useless. I prefer what was stated earlier: an agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of God; they are neither firmly convinced God exists nor firmly convinced God doesn't exist. Theists and atheists both have convictions that God exists or doesn't exist (respectively), but neither can prove their beliefs. And yes, I consider atheism a belief (unlike agnosticism).

Supposedly, Thomas Huxley coined the term *agnosticism*, which is derived from the Greek and, as I understand, it means roughly "not knowledgeable" in the Greek. Thus, it's quite reasonable to argue that agnosticism is somehow about "knowledge." As I also understand it, the term agnosticism originally referred to someone who believed that it was impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God NOT someone who was undecided about the existence of God.

Huxley is believed to have been influenced by the Victorian-era English philosopher Herbert Spencer, whose reputation among the Victorians, according to the Wikipedia, owed a great deal to his agnosticism, the claim that it is impossible for us to have certain knowledge of God.

Now it seems to me to be quite plausible to suppose that there are those who are undecided about the existence (or non-existence) of God, but nevertheless believe that such proof might be found in the future. But according to the Huxelian definition given above, the undecided must also believe that no proof is possible to be agnostics. Thus, indecision by itself does not an agnostic make.

 

[FUEGO]

To me, atheists and theists are both faithfuls. They both believe in something that cannot be proven, which is the basis for faith. Unlike the faithfuls, the agnostics make room for doubts.

I thought atheists DON'T believe in something that cannot be proven. It is a negative assertion. Is that an example of faith?

 

[FIREd]

I thought atheists DON'T believe in something that cannot be proven. It is a negative assertion. Is that an example of faith?

Well, this is MY definition of atheists. Atheists might want NOT to believe in things that cannot be proven, but they certainly believe in a lot of things that haven't been proven yet and possibly cannot ever be proven (no life after death? how would they know?). Merely believing in something doesn't make it a fact.

 

[FUEGO]

This quote from Bertrand Russell may provide a little insight:

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

Therein lies the rub. Are we talking the strict logic and specificity of philosophy between philosophers? Or the laymen's meaning of terms?

When someone tells me they are agnostic, from a layman's perspective I think they are undecided as to what to believe in. If they told me they were an atheist, I would think they did not profess a belief in god and for all intents and purposes, that they hold the belief that god does not exist. Maybe atheism is an act of faith if one doesn't really look into the pro and con arguments regarding the existence of god?

As to the question of "what does agnosticism mean?" - there are different types of agnosticism. This article on agnosticism briefly describes some of the different types or groups of agnosticism or agnostic thought. Part of the confusion here is the fact that agnosticism has different meanings depending on which type you are talking about, yet we are discussing it as if it was one unified, internally consistent idea.

 

[FIREd]

When someone tells me they are agnostic, from a layman's perspective I think they are undecided as to what to believe in. If they told me they were an atheist, I would think they did not profess a belief in god and for all intents and purposes, that they hold the belief that god does not exist. Maybe atheism is an act of faith if one doesn't really look into the pro and con arguments regarding the existence of god?

I do believe that atheists perform an act of faith by rejecting the existence of God because, objectively, the non-existence of God is as unproven as His existence (unless I missed something). The agnostic decides to remain open to both possibilities. To the question "Does God Exist?", theists will answer "yes", atheists "no" and agnostics "maybe". That's how I see things but I am no philosopher...

 

[FUEGO]

I do believe that atheists perform an act of faith by rejecting the existence of God because, objectively, the non-existence of God is as unproven as His existence (unless I missed something). The agnostic decides to remain open to both possibilities.

Like I said, most atheists that have given significant thought to the matter would probably profess themselves technically agnostic in a very limited technical sense. They are open to the possibility that god exists, just regard it as a highly unlikely event due to lack of evidence. But in practice, to the layman, they deny a belief in god (without really getting into specifics and laying out their whole philosophical position). Sometimes it is easier to say "I'm an atheist and I don't believe in god" than to be specific about exactly what you believe.

Now suppose an atheist said "I know for 100% sure, without any possibility of doubt that god does not exist, and no amount or degree of evidence could ever possibly change my position, no matter how strong or convincing." And suppose further that they actually felt this way. Yeah, sure, then I'd say they are taking things on faith.


At some point you have to consider epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. This branch of philosophy seeks to answer questions such as "what do we know?" and "how do we know what we know?". There is some absolute truth out there, and we all do the best we can as human beings to ascertain that truth. Some look to evidence, some look to faith, some look to a mix of both. One important distinction is the difference between belief and truth. Belief is subjective and personal for someone, yet truth is objective and independent of anyone's own beliefs.

 

[FUEGO]

Could an omnipotent god create questions regarding his own existence so intractable to which not even He could provide an answer?

 

[haha]

There is some absolute truth out there, and we all do the best we can as human beings to ascertain that truth. Some look to evidence, some look to faith, some look to a mix of both. One important distinction is the difference between belief and truth. Belief is subjective and personal for someone, yet truth is objective and independent of anyone's own beliefs.

The bold bit is also a belief.

Ha

 

[FUEGO]

The bold bit is also a belief.

I have faith that it is true.

 

[Leonidas]

To me, atheists and theists are both faithfuls. They both believe in something that cannot be proven, which is the basis for faith.

That's a good analysis. There are a lot of similarities in how the faith of each is practiced. Especially how some of them are intolerant toward members of the other "side". At the fringes it gets nasty.

The Bible Belt promoted what amounted to a State mandated religion and marginalized non-believers in matters secular and social and religion dominated public life. But now we frequently see attempts to create a State mandated non-religion that marginalizes believers and seeks to obliterate all things religious from public life. Despite all of the arguments to prop up their views, ultimately those are just crutches to prop up the fervor of the faithful. Does anyone else see the irony here?

Which is less intolerant and not reliant mostly on faith: A religious person labeling the non-religious as Godless sinners, or the non-religious calling the religious dimwitted clods?

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I think the map provided by Leonidas is probably the closest you'll find defining the bible belt. My wife reviewed this and agreed except she thought almost all of WV should be considered. Her father was a minister in The Church of God of Prophecy. When she was a kid she wasn't allowed to chew gum, drink Coke, wear lipstick, go to movies, or dances. She never developed any friends because they moved almost every year to a different town. She told me that many times they just lived out of their car. When they had a place to stay, they made holy pictures at night and sold them on the street the next day. Her mom played guitar, her dad the mandolin and my wife sang with them as a trio. Much of the time people didn't have any money so they paid them with eggs, cheese, cooked veggies, cornbread or anything they had of value. Of course they settled every year somewhere so the kids could go to school. Her dad was also a certified welder and they spent many years in Norfolk, Va. during the war where he worked in ship building. She reviewed the map with me and said she spent time in every area except Texas.

She lead such a sheltered life but her parents were the salt of the earth. Regardless of what she has now , she thinks she living like a king. She'll get her big reward in heaven.