Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MassAtheist · 05-09-2002, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cau:
One thing I was unwittingly after was how "agnostic" and "atheist" are used. Not so much because I think one definition is more correct than another, but because I want to use these words in the same way that the majority uses them.

I think the way these words are used depends largely (if not entirely) on where you are and who, specifically, you are communicating with. In the US (and perhaps elsewhere), atheist has a very negative connotation. There was a poll recently that indicated people were more accepting of "non-religious" people than "atheists". Some dictionaries even define atheist as "immoral".

I have chosen to use "atheist" anyway and explain what it really means. But if you're looking for an easy way to describe yourself without causing trouble, you can use "humanist", "agnostic", or "freethinker" among many other terms. I think it's best to find a word you are comfortable with and use whatever that word is. Just be prepared that you may have to defend the term you have chosen in certain situations.

James Still · 05-09-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

There was a poll recently that indicated people were more accepting of "non-religious" people than "atheists". Some dictionaries even define atheist as "immoral".

This is precisely why I describe myself as an atheist to others when it comes up. In the U.S. it has a certain shock value to it and some people will visibly recoil (or at best just look confused). But that shock is an opportunity to build awareness for your position. With patience and dialogue those with whom we interact come to understand that atheists are normal people just like them.

There will be people from time to time who want to argue with you about it. If you don't feel like arguing (yet don't want to hide your identity) just say "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of God. It's really that simple and I don't need to justify my belief to you." Predictably the tactless ones will press the point anyway and start to present reasons for why you should believe that God exists. You can politely ignore them or shred their arguments to pieces, whichever you feel comfortable doing. But at that point they are the ones who are on the spot not you. You are not the one advancing a proposition, they are, therefore you have shifted the burden of proof to them and taken the focus off of your own position. In rhetoric (as in war) never fight on any battlefield that is not of your own choosing.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]

free12thinker · 05-10-2002, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Still:


Hello cau,

There is no contradiction if you consider that most of our beliefs do not require certainty. We believe that a sturdy-looking chair in the dentist's office will hold our weight but we can't be certain that it will until we sit down. Must we remain agnostic about the chair's sturdiness until we can verify that it will hold our weight? Certainly not. You would be justified in believing that it is sturdy without first testing it. Likewise, you can consider yourself an atheist simply because you don't believe that there exists one or more gods. At the same time you know that one or more gods might exist (it is logically possible). But why should you take the epistemological weight of the world on your shoulders and form beliefs only if you are totally certain that there is not a fact out there in the cosmos somewhere that might contradict that belief? Wouldn't that be like standing through life because you can't test every chair in every dentist's office?

I second this post, especially in the first sentence. When you are considering your beliefs, in anything really, they are never absolute, as nothing is absolute. But if the level of probability that you are willing to entertain leans a certain direction, than so will your belief. You don't have to be 100% absolutely, all-knowingly sure, you just have to be sure enough to answer with confidence. And if you're wrong, or i'm wrong, or every atheist is wrong, at least our answers we're well thought out.

I'll tell you right now that I could be wrong. I am an atheist, but I could be wrong. I'm very confident that I am not, but just becuase I believe I could be wrong, doesn't equate to agnosticism.

Agnosticism comes about when someone is torn between the two idea of theism and atheism. You sound pretty sure, and that little miniscule linger of possibility doesn't sway you to agnosticism.

ChrisJ · 05-10-2002, 12:04 PM

Hello, Cau.

Yup, I'm one too. And although I've read the article above, and have been buffeted by repeated attempts from Grand Nubian and Franc28 (shoot, is that this board?) to tell me I am an atheist, I hold on to my Agnostic title. I believe there is something out there, something which holds to a certain order or pattern in this universe. As I've learned from some of the Physics discussions, even chaos can be ordered, if we pull back our perspective far enough into the Macrocosm. I don't know if this is the conscious actions of a "Supreme Deity", or perhaps just the continuation of a pattern begun billions of years ago and forgotten, but I think that there is some supreme hand. Do I think that the Theists have it right? <a href="http://www.spark-online.com/july00/esociety/jenkins.htm" target="_blank">Certainly not.</a> I am a subjectivist of sorts, I suppose, but I think that there is a reason that mankind throughout history has reached out for something more. Perhaps it is merely our inablity to understand everything, or perhaps it is some sort of (genetic?) memory of being part of that floating all. Either way, I just can't accept the title of atheist.

At least, not yet.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2002, 12:04 PM	#14
ChrisJ Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Fleuriduh Posts: 43	Hello, Cau. Yup, I'm one too. And although I've read the article above, and have been buffeted by repeated attempts from Grand Nubian and Franc28 (shoot, is that this board?) to tell me I am an atheist, I hold on to my Agnostic title. I believe there is something out there, something which holds to a certain order or pattern in this universe. As I've learned from some of the Physics discussions, even chaos can be ordered, if we pull back our perspective far enough into the Macrocosm. I don't know if this is the conscious actions of a "Supreme Deity", or perhaps just the continuation of a pattern begun billions of years ago and forgotten, but I think that there is some supreme hand. Do I think that the Theists have it right? <a href="http://www.spark-online.com/july00/esociety/jenkins.htm" target="_blank">Certainly not.</a> I am a subjectivist of sorts, I suppose, but I think that there is a reason that mankind throughout history has reached out for something more. Perhaps it is merely our inablity to understand everything, or perhaps it is some sort of (genetic?) memory of being part of that floating all. Either way, I just can't accept the title of atheist. At least, not yet.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.