Attention Atheists: Validity Issues

[bunny1ohio]

hmmm... how to explain this without sounding all long-winded lol... I'm not atheist or agnostic... in a manner both of those are religions because they both hold some amount of certainty... I will say I'm usually "considered" one of the two because I do not believe in God. Now bear in mind... this depends on one's definition of what/who God is! It's not that I don't believe something created us... it had to or we wouldn't exist to be able to have this conversation. But I'm saying that it was not some all-knowing higher power that knows everything we are going to do in our lives before we do it.... I also do not believe in predestination if you can't tell. The thought of a "divine" being is simply a matter of interpretation. Define divine.

Define Godlike.... higher power... higher intelligence... something we do not yet or may not be capable of understanding. Well... if we're not capable of understanding it... then how can we possibly give it a title and worship it? Shouldn't you understand the nature of a thing before you devote your life to it? :shout And since we mere mortals cannot begin to understand God or the nature of God... to me it is absurd to worship it. What if "God" is just some advanced alien life form and we are nothing more than a petry dish? Do you think it really cares what you do? I don't. I do not believe we were created for the sole purpose of fullfilling the eternal happiness of some unexplainable unknowable all powerful "being".

How did we get here? Don't know... hence the reason God is a matter of faith. Faith is simply a belief in something we do not understand. I have never said I KNOW there is no God... I do say that to me man's "definition" of God... should it exist... is absurd. Therefore I do not believe in any human-invented God or any human explanation of what God is or isn't. I would picture "God" as a power source... like electricity. All energy stems from this source... but that doesn't make it intelligent let alone all knowing. All we have been able to describe "life" as so far in human terms... is energy. It doesn't mean something purposefully "created" us... just that we "live" because we draw from this energy source. When we die... nobody knows what happens. Therefore I have no reason to believe that anyone can say with certainty that there is a "God".

I hope that made some sense lol.

 

[Yerda]

Hi bunny1ohio (mind if I call you bunbun? ), in regards to this:

I'm not atheist or agnostic... in a manner both of those are religions because they both hold some amount of certainty...

I think you've formulated a lovely non-sequitur. Congrats.

The rest of your post makes some sense to me though.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Hi bunny1ohio (mind if I call you bunbun? ), in regards to this:

I think you've formulated a lovely non-sequitur. Congrats.

The rest of your post makes some sense to me though.

LOL... sure ... you could call me Bobo D Clown for all I care lmao... it's just a name :angel2: And thanks... I think *cheeky grin*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

hmmm... how to explain this without sounding all long-winded lol... I'm not atheist or agnostic... in a manner both of those are religions because they both hold some amount of certainty...

That doesn't sound "long-winded" at all ... simply muddled.

 

[bill]

"Atheism is impossible" How can you argue for the impossibility of a lack of belief in the possibility of an intangible?

 

[Sunstone]

"Atheism is impossible" How can you argue for the impossibility of a lack of belief in the possibility of an intangible?

As Jay might say, about as effectively as you can argue for the impossibility of a lack of belief in the possibility of there being pixie dust in your "drawers". (OK, maybe Jay wouldn't put it quite that way.:run

BTW, this is a good thread: I'm learning more than I can contribute. Especial thanks to Jay for that link to Barbara Forrest!

 

[ikitikitembo]

My final thoughts on this whole thread:

A.) I made a false assumption when I said: "a strong athiest is one who knows that God doesn't exist." I now understand that a strong athiest is one who logically admits he believes and doesn't know. If one claims he knows, we can just set him aside and forget about giving him a separate title.

B.) Weak atheism still remains: One who lacks of faith in God.

C.) I think that what people think of God is like a spectrum:
____________________________________________________________
No God Strong A Agnostic Theist God

D.) Where then, lies the weak atheist? The most logical would seem to be between the strong atheist and the agnostic. This would mean that the strong atheist simply lacks faith in God more than the weak atheist. If this is true, I think there deserves to be a place in between the agnostic and the thiest. We would split "theist" in two and call them strong and weak theists. The weak thiest would be one who lacks faith in the non-existence of God, and would be between the agnostic and the strong theist.

E.) This is rediculous. I think we have a semantical issue here. Distinguishing between a strong atheist, a weak atheist, and and agnostic just gets too specific. Why not just drop the "weak theist", make the "strong atheist" and "atheist", and call it Atheism. Much simpler, and prevents misunderstandings.

Aside from that, I've also learned a few other things from this post. Like the consideration that nothing is for certain. I used to think there was a way of knowing there is a God. Divine intervention. Communication with him. But now I realize that claiming you know anything, assumes anthropocentricism. Which, in my view, cannot be assumed of us. If I ever do experience some extreme form of intervention, like say, a huge figure in the sky who's yelling down at me that he is God, I will believe in him. I will not, however, claim to know there is a God, because I cannot be 100% that what I'm sensing as a human being is an absolute for what reality really is, or that it even exists. So while I'm praying to him, worshipping him , or paying my respects to him because I believe he is my creator, sadly, there will always be the little thought in the back of my mind: "Perhaps who I'm praying to doesn't exist at all"

Thank you all for your thoughts, ideas, and insights on my initial post, and I look forward to learning more from you. Proves all the more that the internet is a great learning tool!

________________________________________________

"What is important is to keep learning, to enjoy challenge, and to tolerate ambiguity. In the end there are no certain answers."
-Martina Horner

 

[ikitikitembo]

My spectrum got silly. Maybe this one will work :




__________________________________________________________
No God Strong A Agnostic Theist God

 

[ikitikitembo]

Oh my, what an embarrassment. I'll try this.:


No God--Strong A----------Agnostic----------Theist--God

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

B.) Weak atheism still remains: One who lacks of faith in God. ...

E.) This is rediculous. I think we have a semantical issue here.

It is clearly ridiculous, and the 'semantical' [sic] issue is entirely your own fabrication.

 

[ikitikitembo]

It is clearly ridiculous, and the 'semantical' [sic] issue is entirely your own fabrication.

Oh. Could you explain. What have I missed now? :help:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

iki, what would you call a person who rejects a belief in God(s) on the basis of a perceived insufficiency of evidence?

 

[ikitikitembo]

A strong atheist. Am I wrong? :help:

 

[ikitikitembo]

Wikipedia: "Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity."

Jayhawker, was I naive to believe this? :help:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wikipedia: "Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities.

The person who "who rejects a belief in God(s) on the basis of a perceived insufficiency of evidence" makes no commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities.

 

[Yerda]

Oh. Could you explain. What have I missed now? :help:

One the first page of this thread Jay suggested you learn the difference between epistemology and ontology. I believe he was making reference to the nature of agnosticism as epistemological and atheism as ontological i.e. they are not exclusive. You're subsequent posts and especially your 'theistic continuum' indicates that you haven't managed to grasp this. While you are agnostic in so far as you say you don't know, or more importantly cannot 'know', you might still be atheist in so much as there is no reason meriting belief.

 

[ikitikitembo]

Oh, my bad, they're not a strong atheist. Who you're describing, I agree, Is a weak atheist. So wouldn't it follow that, "a person who rejects the belief in God(s) on the basis of a percieved insufficiency of evidence, and makes no commitment to the neccessary non-existence of God(s)" be a person who lacks faith in God(s)?

If not, could you please help me out?

If so, how would you distinguish that person from an agnostic? I'm an agnostic for the exact same reason above. Or am I an agnostic? I reject belief in a God, and I make no commitment to the neccessary non-existence of God, therefore, I believe that the existence or non-existence is unknown. I also think it is unknowable, which makes me a strong agnostic (opposed to the "weak agnostic", who is unsure, and thinks that their surety is possible to come in the future) Now, with either definition of agnosticism (strong or weak), wouldn't that be the same as lacking faith in God?:cover:

 

[Snowbear]

Just a question -
Why is it so important to place a label someone's degree of unbelief?

 

[Opethian]

Just a question -
Why is it so important to place a label someone's degree of unbelief?

We're battling for the heretic heathen award . Just kidding .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., how would you distinguish that person from an agnostic?

I see no conflict. I "reject a belief in God(s) on the basis of a perceived insufficiency of evidence" yet maintain that the existence and characteristics of the supernatural are inherently unknowable. At the same time, a fideist may hold a deep and abiding faith in deity while fully sharing my agnosticism. Again, there is a distinction between ontology and epistemology.