Arrowman

That is correct. FWIW, my personal position is that I am a strong atheist with regard to all deities; not just the Judeo-Christian God. My concern in responding to your post was to point out the fallacy of believing that any discovered or revealed "god" would perforce turn out to be the J-C God. It is quite possible for the J-C God to be entirely a myth constructed by humans, and for other god(s) to exist.

I do agree with Pascal's Wafer when he said as you quoted "I do not believe in God, but I also admit that there could be a deity in a supernatural realm out there somewhere."

As an atheist, I can admit to the possibility that I might be wrong - with respect to the J-C god or any other god. I ask only that Christians be equally open by admitting to the possibility not only that they might be wrong (there is no god / there are no gods) but that there might in fact be god(s), just not the one they believe in. That was the main point of my post.

Now - how can I reconcile that with what I claim to be my "strong" atheism? That is, not only do I not believe in any gods, I further believe that such gods do not exist.

Only because one can never be 100% sure of anything; even the law of gravity. But I believe it is not feasible to act in a way which constantly acknowledges even remote possibilities of error or alternatives; that way lies madness. So one must draw a line in such cases - ie, where one is 99.99999% sure of a proposition, then act as though one is 100% sure.

There is no evidence that they exist and none has ever revealed themself to us. Combined with the fact that human beings have a propensity to invent gods, and this leads me to the conclusion that for all practical purpose, gods do not exist.

In the particular case of the J-C god:
- that god bears all the hallmarks of a human invention (warlike, violent and retributive against the enemies of the "chosen people" who invented the god, etc)
- its construction is bizarre and internally contradictory (because the concept has been modified over time to suit the contemporary beliefs and social mores of the believers)
- it has never revealed itself to contemporary humans in any measurable manner
- overall, it matches in these attributes every other god that people have invented

therefore the overwhelming balance of probabilities is that the J-C god does not exist.

(Not trying to start a debate here, just explaining my position.)

abe smith

What do you want to be an atheist FOR, Solomon? If you don't feel, or think, any internal impulse to "atheism", why not take up Chess or the clarinet, or learn Swahili? "Atheism" (Whutevah dat is) isn't some kind of upper-class/insider club...

raindropple

Do you think there are some thing/s out there some where that might have some made part/s of this universe and had some input into the making of life?

Mad Kally

After he finally made his way to the payphone outside, he stuck his finger on an HIV infected needle. Then, on the way to the hospital he flashed his headlights at a car and was promptly shot as a part of a gang initiation.

Clarice

Arrowman

"Some things"? Whatever they are... that's very, very vague. But I'll try to answer anyway. I do not believe that because I have no reason (evidence) to believe that. However I do acknowledge the possibility.

However - the human descriptions of those "things" (eg the Judeo-Christian God) have no credibility, for reasons I have given before. The only reason we might have to suppose that there might be "things" out there is that, as evidenced by our need to invent religions, we want them to be. The fact that there are hundreds of different gods believed in by humans, is not evidence that there is some sort of god out there - it is evidence that humans like to invent gods.

In the meantime, every further step we take into the knowledge of our universe fails to uncover any evidence of gods.

raindropple

This statement indicates that you are not sure of some things( do not have all the answers ), thus would agnostic not fit you better?

sighhswolf

Hello Solomon,

I classify myself as a non-believer.
Being an ex-christian and an ex- mormon priesthood holder I have many issues with judeo-christian beliefs.

One of the most glaring contradictions of this form of worship to me is the fact that each and every sect of christianity claims to be the "one
true church" of this divine being, the true gospel of jesus restored on earth, and are awaiting his return to rule his earthly kingdom.
More than 20,000 variants of this form of monotheism exist worldwide.
If christians themselves cannot agree on a standard doctrine, then which one IS the correct
version?
The disclaimer is "We all worship the same god, just in different ways".
If this god is/was so concerned about his creations here on this planet, it would seem that he would have at some point in time handed out a standard doctrine, so all christendom is speaking
the same language. Christians themselves will quickly espouse that god never contradicts himself
and is incapable of deception and/or misdirection
so where do all these sects actually come from?
They are developed by MEN, and history proves time and time again that when power wealth and status is involved mankind cannot be trusted to be objective, and suffers from selective memory.

The christian god has been assigned over twenty
attributes by the CE., and one of those attributes is "inconceivability".
I find it rather strange that a god is inconceivable, that mankind will never understand
the ways of this god, yet they assign this being real and understandable attributes and characteristics so that the average human has a point of reference to worship and relate to.
This indicates to me that those who are supposedly
gods representatives on earth have at some point in history decided to assign this being recognizable traits.
And if those qualities/attributes/characteristics
were designed by clergy and holy people, to help their followers grasp the concept of a divine being and this beings plan for the universe, what else have they taken the liberty to "tinker" with?
It is to me a perfect example of editorializing
by those who were responsible for the birth and rise of christianity.
The mere assignment of attributes to this so-called creator removes it from the realm of the "supernatural" and places it squarely in the middle of the known natural universe.
So to define anything, in any way, removes it from the supernatural, and places natural limitations on it's existance and scope.
But to complicate things even more, the clergy recognized the problem with assigned characteristics and attributes, so they attempted to correct this inconsistancy by the concept of "unlimited attributes" that serves as a backup when questioned about the scope and power of this being.
In the immortal words of Judge Judy, "Dont piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

The bible and more specifically the New Testament
supposedly contains eyewitness accounts of the life and times of jesus, and his ministry.
Yet it is rapidly becoming an accepted fact in the religious world as well as the secular world, that those NT writers never met this person whom they are attempting to package and sell as god.
It was estimated by the jesus seminars that fully 85% of the words of jesus as recorded in the NT, were not consistant with Jewish traditions of the time period, and stronger, he never said those things. (not necessarily my opinion, just a statement from J.S.)

There is no way for me to verify the truthfulness
of the bible, no way for me to identify what is fact vs. fiction and word of mouth embellishment.
We are sure that most of the stories and situations in biblical text reached their present form through word of mouth storytelling.
And if there is one sure fact, it is that human beings are natural storytellers, and natural liars.
What was a Jump over a creek yesterday, becomes a rocket powered leap over the grand canyon today.

The bible in my own opinion is a "romance" a "greek tragedy" a book of "myths", an adventure novel laced with sex and violence, with a little tiny bit of historical data of an ancient time and an ancient people/civilization.
Used in that context it presents a running narrative of the hardness of life in ancient times and a "snapshot" of social interactions between ancient people.

There are many more areas I have questions about about, but this is just my opinion.
Remembering that since there are no known original manuscripts from which we could pull
concrete information and or actually verify the validity of the works, every word in the text of the holy book is SOMEONES opinion or interpretation, and since they cannot be verified
by objective sources, that is ALL they will remain.
I like the quote from Buddha.
"Believe nothing no matter where you read it,or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense."

Wolf





[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]</p>

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Yes, this deity in the supernatural realm would be a god, though not necessarily the Judeo-Christian deity.

None. I don't believe in either of them. I was merely stating that it may be possible for such a being to exist. I think the probability of this deity existing is roughly the same as the probability of orange giphnoodles from the planet zorphnon stealing my car keys. Both just might be right, but since there is no evidence supporting either of them I don't believe.

I didn't redefine the term "god". If the Christian god exists, he would be that deity in the supernatural realm I was talking about. I tend to use "god" and "supernatural deity" interchangeably at times. It gets boring to use the same term over and over.

I never said I believed in a personal supernatural deity that's different from the Christian god. I said it may be possible for such a being to exist, but I never said I believed. It's also possible for the giphnoodles to exist, but I don't believe in them either.

-Nick

Arrowman

A good question, and one which I have had to answer for myself in recent times. And I have written (and saved!) on this in the past. So let me give you a little essay to explain.

A couple of years ago I would have called myself an agnostic, for the very reason you propose. Then I got into an internet conversation with an atheist, and it went something like this:

Him: Would you say that you positively do not believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, or Odin?

Me: Yes. I am an atheist with regard to those entities.
(OK, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not "gods" but the same principle applies.)

Him: So - why do you apply a different standard to the Judeo-Christian God? There is no more evidence for the existence of that god, than for any of the other entities.

Me (scales falling from eyes): Yes, indeed. I do (subconsciously) apply a different standard to the J-C God, because I have been brought up in a predominantly Christian society. Good God, I'm an Atheist!

Note that at this stage my core belief really had not changed - I just realised I was being inconsistent in the way I labelled that belief for different gods.

I always acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong, to be technically correct. In the same vein, I would also acknowledge that
- the law of gravity might not be constant, and I might fly off the earth tomorrow.
- the sun might not rise tomorrow - the earth might dislodge from its orbit tonight, and plunge into the sun.
- psychic powers might be real.
- Douglas Adams was right - the earth is an experiment conducted by mice.
- Life is an illusion and "The Matrix" is real.
- etc, etc - there is an infinite number of "possibilities" - some of which have been formalised into beliefs by humans, others which are not so widely held (eg "there is an invisible Unicorn in orbit around Jupiter").

But it serves no purpose to live my life as though any or all of these things might actually happen / be real - that way lies confusion and madness. For practical purposes, to be consistent and because they make no difference to my life, I live and act as though none of them are true. That way lies sanity.

For me, there is no practical difference between saying "I am an agnostic" and saying "I give credence to the idea that astrology works". Technically I must acknowledge both possibilities, because I am not omniscient, but that does not mean I treat them seriously.

To put this another way - one of the key Skeptical questions when confronted with a proposition is "how would the world be different if this proposition were true?" What we see around us, is a world that is exactly as you would expect it if there were no God. And a world that is exactly as you would expect it if astrology was bunk and clairvoyant powers don't exist.

As a Christian, you would be an atheist in relation to all other gods than your own - you might technically acknowledge the possibility that they exist, but you do not give that possibility any real credence. The only difference between you and me, is that I am an atheist with regard to your god also - I apply the same standard to your god as I do to all others.

The interesting thing for me, is the way people are selective about their beliefs in things for which there is no evidence - selective in a way which has no logic behind it. This is the way people cope with holding one unsupported belief without opening their minds to all (and going mad). I believe that people select their beliefs because
1. The belief in question gives them some comfort;
2. Other people believe it and have described it.

So for example, a person might believe in astrology, because it gives them some comfort, and because it has been historically documented so "there must/might be something to it". And yet, that same person might scoff at von Daniken's notion that aliens built the pyramids. Why? There is no difference between the two in terms of evidence or "reason to believe". I think that is inconsistent.

Some people, I am sure, are capable of believing in, say, astrology and clairvoyance while rejecting the idea that crystals have special powers. They might believe that crop circles are signs from aliens, while rejecting the idea that Uri Geller can bend spoons. I think this is takes a very special kind of cognitive dissonance!

By the same token, I might propose to the astrologer that there is an invisible Unicorn circling Jupiter - and further, that that Unicorn can grant wishes if those wishes are presented in the appropriate form. They would likely reject this. Why? They would say "because there is no evidence". And yet, there is no evidence for astrology either. What they are really saying is, "that belief has not been documented and is not shared by others".

This documentation and sharing of a belief is why, in Western/Christian society, people are so ready to accept the idea of the J-C God as at least being a "possibility" while at the same time comfortably rejecting outright the "possibility" of other gods being real.

(Side note: I once challenged a Christian with the question "Do you believe in Zeus?!" and to my surprise he answered not "No", but "Maybe". ! You see, he believed that Zeus and other ancient gods might have been - I can't recall the Biblical reference, but some particular group of angels or somesuch referred to in the Bible. So my attempt to get him to acknowledge his own atheism in relation to those gods fell flat!)

Of course, some people apply no critical standards at all to their beliefs; they absorb every whacky book or TV program, rub their chins and say "you never know; it might be true." These are the truly gullible. They are consistent in their gullibility, I suppose, but I'd rather try to talk sense with a Christian, or an astrologer, any day than someone who just says "well it might be true" to every whacky idea they hear.

And that is why I am an atheist and not an agnostic.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>