Carlos

I started coming by II about a year ago, but only in the last few days did I start reading the boards. I thought this post best suited to this forum but if another one is more appropriate then please point me in the proper direction; this is my first post.

I'm having a little trouble deciding which label suits me best - am I an atheist or an agnostic (or perhaps something else)? In part this is due to different degrees of disbelief; in some cases I have a feeling my beliefs may be contradictory.

The traditional monotheistic god (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, "personal god", ...) is one I can readily dismiss. If I were asked if I believed in such a god, I could honestly say no; furthermore, I would state that this god does not exist. If I were asked if it was possible that such a god could exist, I would also say no. In my mind, there is enough "proof" that such a god does not exist. With respect to the Christian god (and others that bear similarities), then, I can call myself an atheist and not have any doubts.

If we consider other types of gods, though, I am not as certain. For the sake of argument, suppose the god in question is an omnipotent, omniscient scientist of sorts. This god brought the universe into existence (big bang or otherwise) just to observe what happens; it is an experiment in which he was only active at creation. I feel there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of this god. If I were asked if it was possible that such a god could exist, I would grudgingly have to say yes. If I were asked if I believed in such a god, I would say no; I would also say that this god does not exist. In view of my earlier admission (that it might be possible for this god to exist), though, I guess my answer should be "I do not know". With respect to this god, I suppose I am an agnostic.

Part of the dilemma is reconciling my atheism towards some gods (e.g. the Christian god) with my agnosticism towards other gods (e.g. the scientist god I mentioned earlier). The other part deals only with this latter group of gods - I don't believe they exist, but at the same time I acknowledge that they may exist. This seems contradictory and dishonest, forcing me into an agnostic position ("I don't know") wrt this subset of gods rather than an atheistic one.

My suspicion is that when people call themselves atheists they mean different things. Some folks are atheists because they do not believe in the god they were brought up with or are most familiar with (in these forums, usually the Christian god); disbelief in one god is enough to be called atheist. Others lack belief in many gods (the Christian god, the Jewish god, the Muslim god, the Hindi gods, ...); disbelief in all of the popular gods is required.

As for me, "god" includes not only those gods of established religions we are well aware of, but also any superior being that might fit some definition of god. I get the feeling that this is farther than most people take it.

Anyway, I've been rambling long enough. Given the beliefs I stated earlier, what would you call me (besides long-winded )?

MassAtheist

I went through a similar struggle recently. Then I read <a href="http://www.thehappyheretic.com/06-01.htm" target="_blank">this article</a> written by Judith Hayes (aka, The Happy Heretic). Here's a brief excerpt:

Hope this is helpful.

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?

Mackjoy

I'm having a little trouble deciding which label suits me best - am I an atheist or an agnostic (or perhaps something else)? In part this is due to different degrees of disbelief; in some cases I have a feeling my beliefs may be contradictory.

Hi cau
I don't know why you think you need a label, but if you really want one I would call you atheist because you choose not to believe.


If we consider other types of gods, though, I am not as certain. For the sake of argument, suppose the god in question is an omnipotent, omniscient scientist of sorts. This god brought the universe into existence (big bang or otherwise) just to observe what happens; it is an experiment in which he was only active at creation. I feel there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of this god

I don't think this scientist creator could be called a god. But you could still worship him as a god I suppose. You must believe in him for him to be a god

The word "believe" is not needed to trust or to have confidence that a chair will hold you.

Mack

Straight Hate

Cau, my 'world view' is much the same as yours. Have you considered an agnostic form of deism or some sort of naturalistic pantheism?

guyver2199

i like kathall have asimilar world view however i have an idea of a diety that i think may be probable i it is much like your scientist god apprach but brings got closer. i reject the idea of god being a stand alone entity. if there is a god then everything is him. at least in the sense that a cell in your body is you. the greek zeus, a god? no more than i am to my dog. attempting a seperate god is no more than an attempt to place blame somewhere other where it belongs. as to an omnibenevolent god, well look around you.

Jan Michael

Hi! This is a pretty common question because unlike Theists we don't have a specific book, church, or billboard to tell us how to label ourselves.

I consider myself a Secular Humanist/Atheist who came to that place because of Agnosticism. As to Deistic "gawds" I really don't see a reason to even consider them. A "god" who creates but does nothing? Or wound stuff up with the BB just to watch it for 16 Billion years? Sounds pretty dull to me.

But two of my favorites Voltaire and Paine could have both been considered Deists (which has always puzzled me) but they had their own good reasons I'm sure.

But even Deists aren't really Theists so Atheist/Agnostic, or if you want structure Secular Humanism, I would just stick with the Non-Believer labels.

But what do I know? Not a whole hell of alot.

See ya',

Michael

The Other Michael

Hello Jan Michael,

My impression is that in pre-Darwin days Deism was the choice of atheist-leaning intellectuals because they didn't have a mechanism to show how things worked without a first cause creator.

Cau, I don't see any problem with using different labels for the different concepts. Consider food - you might like chocolate, be indifferent to beef, and hate spinach. They are all foods, but you have different ways of reacting to the subsets. It seems to me that there is no reason you can't do the same type of thing with god-concepts.

cheers,
Michael

Carlos

Thank you all for replying. Judith Hayes's article as well as your replies tell me I had been too strict in my use of the word "atheism" (requiring some sort of personal proof). Instead, I have learned that for most people "atheism" means (dis)belief without requiring proof. Not everyone is in agreement, though - as Jan Michael points out, there is no definitive authority on the meaning of these words. The replies Hayes received to her article indicate as much.

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. While I don't think I need a label, having one makes things easier. When I speak/write I will be able to use one word instead of dozens. Similarly, when I listen/read I will be able to interpret these words more accurately.

I see now that I had been holding my religious "beliefs" to a higher standard (requiring some sort of proof). We often profess belief/trust/confidence without proof. Theists, after all, believe without (anything I would consider) proof.

When I first started questioning the god and religion I had been brought up with (Catholicism), I started rejecting things in parts. I stopped believing in specific rituals or doctrines. Eventually I had rejected so much that my beliefs were very watered down - I still believed in a god and some of the tenets, but I could no longer call myself a Catholic. I suspect that at this point I was a deist. The rejection did not stop there, though; today I no longer believe in a god and find that those tenets which I still believe (how one should act towards others) do not require a god.

Skepticwithachainsaw

Hi Cau, I'm in pretty much the same position, while I don't believe in God(s), I am also aware that I simply don't know whether God (whatever

I don't believe in the Xian personal “loving”/violent God but I think this may be more of a simple lack of belief rather than active disbelief. I suppose in theory it could exist but but I don’t believe it does.

Scientist-God… Yeah, I would say that I simply don’t know whether such an entity exists, its outside of the universe and therefore totally outside of my realm of experience.
However such an inhuman, inactive entity would have no bearing on our lives, indeed it’s “intelligence” (if it has any) will probably be completely different from ours and may not even consider us anything different from a rock or tree (well we’re all just arrangements of quarks and leptons…). Belief or disbelief in this sort of entity simply wouldn’t effect our everyday life.

Although recently I have been finding problems with how such an entity could exist, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000230" target="_blank">Like how where did the entity get it's ideas from...</a>

However the more I debate with Xians on apologetics forums and the more time I spend here, the more I tend towards atheism…

I’l probably say you are a weak atheist or agnostic…