tommyc

Ok, I know this has been done a million times before, but here's my two-piece:

I am an atheist because I don't believe in God (Gods, Yaweh, Vishnu, IPU(!), blah blah blah). Now if a theist wishes to take up soms sort of stance against that it's fine. I'm not a very accomplished debater, so any theist could probably give me a run for my money and I accept that. And even enjoy the challenge, and maybe discovering a few thoughts that I hadn't thought about before.

However, what I do object to are those who insist on telling me that I am agnostic because I can't know either way. or even saying that everyone in the world is an agnostic. I know that there's no proof either way on the subject, and for the term agnostic to be used to describe someone who believes it is impossible to know the veracity of the existence of God, I find utterly pointless. A correct reponse would be "so what?".

The definition of an agnostic that says they are someone who is not commited either way is far more practical, because the term most certainly does not apply to everyone, and is a useful indicator a particular persons stance on god-belief.

We may all be "Agnostic", but so what, are you (agnostic preachers) trying to prove a point?

[maybe this should go in rants & raves]

WJ

Yeah, if you want to debate this with me I'll spend some time with you, but I think you're right, R&R is probably more approriate... .

The best and most convincing thing you can do for yourself and perhaps others is not only to say "so what", but something like ...'god has no meaning to me', and walk away. Otherwise, it is truly nonsensical to debate/argue over a some thing that is believed not to exist in the first place.

Once you choose to engage in deep philosophical reasoning/debate, you become an agnostic wannabe. I would say resist the temptation of doing this, and stand by your conviction that god does not exist. Remember, the concept god has no meaning!

Walrus

Theli

Great post WJ.
Although, I have to disagree with this point...

If the discussion would be about the easterbunny, I would agree. But when it comes to god, atheists like to discuss it as it's a good springboard towards other philosophical debates. And that we are interested in.
Speaking for myself, I don't believe that god exist. I would call myself a strong atheist.
Yet I like discussing god, regarding his existence, that is.

Viking

For most of my life I was publicly an agnostic because that is a completely rational and philosophically defensible position. But to be honest, I have a deeply held affirmative conviction (belief) that there is no god or gods. My belief is, I could argue, supported by all the objective evidence but it is still a belief.

I've finally decided to come clean and be more vocal about my beliefs because I see a the current stampede to superstitious religion from the most powerful to the most gullible a genuinely dangerous trend. I'm no longer willing to just spar with the religious when, to me, they are no more rational than a bunch of 10th century frog worshippers.

Morgan

I maintain that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I consider myself both; I don't believe that there is a God out there but I don't rule out the possibility that there is.

Walter_Mitty

Well said and I agree! I have adopted a doctrine of passive aggression myself. If witnessed to, I now take the person to task! The public's misperception of atheism was really driven home after the flag debaucle. Idiots like Pat Robertson who misreprent the atheistic philosophy don't help matters.

As for atheism & agnosticism...six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I think it depends on the person's personal definition of agnosticism or atheism. Some agnostics could also be considered weak atheists and vice versa.

Eventhough I say I'm agnostic regarding a god of the universe (i.e., suspending my judgement), I think for the most part I have been a weak atheist in denial. I do not feel comfortable "actively" denying the existence of a god or gods so that rules out strong atheism--still, I certainly can respect their stance.

WJ

Hey Theli!

Yeah it's funny, a gal here at work who is going to retire just advised me she was/is and agnostic. The whole time I've known her (a few years) I thought she was a conservative Christian and republican. I always called her 'church lady' because she reminded me of a chatolic nun in here appearence and dress. Yet, she never said anything about here 'agnosticism' until recently. she told me she was liberal... . And although politically I'm moderate, I'm probably considered a liberal Christian. But my point was going to be about how sehe reconciles her politcal believes (she is very very active in politics) with her ambivolence in religious matters. I asked her at what point could she foresee the need or circumstance to take a position, but got interupted.. .

Anywho, the only concern I have over the 'nonsense' issue/interpretation is that if you can come to terms with the fact that your approach is paradoxical in nature, then I would not see any logical inconsistency with such approach or willingness to debate God's existence. But of course if one buys into that, then it opens the door for other things that are equally as paradoxical... .

...know what I mean vern?

Walrus

seanie

I'm a devout atheist too. I have a deeply held personal conviction that there is no God. But I'm agnostic in the sense that I accept I don't know whether God exists.

But then I don't absolutely know for sure whether the Easterbunny exists. Let's just say the Easterbuuny seems highly improbable.

And personally I'd put God in the same category, along with Leprechauns and Tooth-Fairies.

But I always found arguing about the existence of God was all but pointless (unless you enjoy it). If someone is putting forward supposedly rational arguments proving the existence of God by all means point out their errors.

But don't expect to convince them otherwise.

The last time I bothered to seriously argue the subject I was about 16 and got into a marathon session with three Ministers, a local one and two visiting evangelicals. The local minister was dim but amiable enough and one of the evangelicals seemed a nice guy, genuinely worried about my lack of faith.

But the other one!

What a piece of work. A lying, decietful, duplicitous piece of shit. Using entirely ridiculous arguments to try and bamboozle gullible children, arguments that wouldn't stand up to a moments scrutiny.

Now I did OK (coming from an argumentative family) but ultimately he floored me. I had stated I was an atheist and after the argument had raged for a while he said;

'Well an atheist means you know God doesn't exist. If you know that where's your proof?'

I objected that that wasn't the definition and that my atheism was a matter of belief just as his theism was. But he insisted on his definition. I still regret I didn't have the presence of mind to ask the local minister for a dictionary. But he'd caught me completely unawares. He gently patronised me about how my misunderstanding was understandable given my age and then cajoled me into promising to read the bible.

A promise I have resolutely failed to keep to this day.

Now if someone says the earth was created 6000 years ago or that evolution is just a theory then I might get involved in an argument.

But if someone tells me they know that God exists then my response is;

"Fine."

"That's just dandy."

"I'm very happy for you."

"But please don't bother me with it."

"And please stay away from my child you God-bothering loon."

"And by the way you wouldn't fancy buying some magic beans I happen to have?"

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If we discover that there is an alien intelligence that 'created' the universe, and all the religions on earth claimed that this intelligence was what they had meant all along by the word/concept 'God'--would that make it so?

Should I 'worship' this 'thing', just because the Pope says that the Bible says I should?

Would I worship this thing?

Absolutely not.

Would it be 'God'--for me?

No.

Could I still justify my atheism, given the facts that such a thing exists, and created me?

Absolutely. (God isn't a thing, it's the attitude we have towards a thing. Many claim that reality IS God. I don't disagree that reality exists, I simply disagree that reality is God.)

I will never worship.

God is not possible.

Keith.

Philosoft

I hear and read constantly statements of the form, "Atheists believe there is no God" or "Atheism is a positive disbelief in God," said or written by people who apparently don't grasp the implications of what they're saying or writing.

The most commonly referenced implication is that such "strong" atheists are, by definition, faithful or irrational because they "believe" that nothing that can be described by the word "God" can possibly exist. This is wrong, for what should be obvious reasons. The most important of which is that atheists are simply responding to a definition or description which has already been provided. Hence, to the Christian who says, "God is omnipotent, omniscient... yadayada," the atheist can then say, "Omipotence and omniscience are logically contradictory, therefore such a being cannot possibly exist." Is that person a "strong" atheist? Probably. Is that person being "faithful" or "irrational"? Hardly.

The important thing to understand is that the burden of the "strong" atheist is to show that a definition of "God" as presented is illogical. It is not to show that anything that someone, somewhere, might call "God" does not and cannot exist.