The Spiritual and/or Religious beliefs of an Atheist

And I might have missed it...if it hadn't been for you, Chumly.

So thank you for helping make my day.

I've learned there is no accepted definition for "Atheist" fresco.

Eorl wrote:

I've learned there is no accepted definition for "Atheist" fresco.

That the majority of those that try to define it (ie:theists) also see it as an equal but opposite camp to theism certainly doesn't help anything in this respect.
When broken down to root words, free of what Setanta would certainly describe as 'tortured exegesis', the definition is pretty simple.
"a"=without/the lack of
"theism"=a belief in a god/gods (especially a/some 'personal' ones/s )
Atheism=the lack of belief in god or gods, or being without god or gods.

A direct assertion that 'god does not exist' is certainly not necessary to be an atheist, although the theist contingent would certainly have everyone see it that way.

Simply propaganda.

At some point, many atheists realized that the perceived atheistic position (a direct assertion that there are no gods) was as untenable and unsustainable as the theistic assertion that there are gods (or is a God).

Love to discuss this further, Doc...if you think it is worthwhile.

Hi Frank,

Quote:

Love to discuss this further, Doc...if you think it is worthwhile.

Ok, lets. First, I'll explain in breif why I see things as I do on this issue, and we can go from there.

There was a time I defined myself as 'agnostic' as well.
I agree that it can be useful to distinguish atheists that outright deny the possibility of anything supernatural from atheists that don't.
However, the word 'agnostic' is problematic for me.
You see, I don't feel that the premise of 'theism' is worth any serious consideration whatsoever.

Using the label 'agnostic' raises the theistic position from absurd to worthy of consideration, and I really see no reason for that.

Now, I would say the word 'atheist' has picked up a lot of undeserved stigma and undue definition. Atheists are not a group, they are not defined by any common characturistics. In fact, the word is only really useful for one purpose..those that believe there is a god/gods and those that don't. The only time an atheist should ever even use the word atheist is in relation to that one question "do you believe in god/s?"

'Agnostic' in my mind will only be a useful word when/if evidence that supports the probability or necessity of a god arises. It aint happened yet.

However, the word 'agnostic' is problematic for me.
You see, I don't feel that the premise of 'theism' is worth any serious consideration whatsoever.

I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

However, I personally see absolutely no reason to give the assertion "there are no gods" any more credence than the other asssertion...and in fact, I give it less.

As I noted, the worst that can be said of the assertion "there is a God" is that "from all indications...it is a blind guess." The assertions "there aer no gods" is absolutely a blind guess.

That is because it is quite evident that you are an atheist...not a soft atheist at all...and that any protestations of soft atheism is a ruse. NO INSULT INTENDED HERE. I'm calling a duck..a duck.

Atheism has had meaning for a very, very long time. At some point, Thomas Huxley recognized the defects in the atheistic position...and coined the word "agnostic" to move off the defective postion.

Modern day atheists (except those like Edgar Blythe) realize the defect...and adopt the agnostic position...but retain the atheistic designation...in my opinion, to save themselves from the considerable scorn some atheists tend to heap on agnostics. The charges of "fence sitting" and all that crapola.

I ain't ever gonna happen...but "agnostic is plenty useful now...and that other stuff is not necessary at all.

When atheists come up with proof or evidence of probative value that no gods exist...or that it is impossible for them to exist...or even that it is more likely that they do not exist than that they do...

...then the word "agnostic" might be ashcanned. But before that...it spells out a very sound, powerful, reasonable, logical, truthful, and unassailable position.

You ought really to get back to it. With all the respect in the world, Doc, your move from agnostic to atheist was a move in the wrong direction. Decidedly so.

Quote:

However, I personally see absolutely no reason to give the assertion "there are no gods" any more credence than the other asssertion...and in fact, I give it less.

Of course anyone capable of reasoning will realize you cannot prove a negative, therefor where proof is concerned only positives are applicable.
"but you can't disprove it!" thusly becomes an empty and meaningless statement.

Quote:

As I noted, the worst that can be said of the assertion "there is a God" is that "from all indications...it is a blind guess." The assertions "there aer no gods" is absolutely a blind guess.

The same could be said of the flying sphagetti monster or tiny invisible spaceships flying around our heads.
I don't see how it is useful in any way.

Quote:

That is because it is quite evident that you are an atheist...not a soft atheist at all...and that any protestations of soft atheism is a ruse. NO INSULT INTENDED HERE. I'm calling a duck..a duck.

I have already explained to you how I define atheism. I make no distinction between 'hard' and 'soft'. You either have a belief in deities or you do not.
I do not.

Quote:

Atheism has had meaning for a very, very long time. At some point, Thomas Huxley recognized the defects in the atheistic position...and coined the word "agnostic" to move off the defective postion.

Modern day atheists (except those like Edgar Blythe) realize the defect...and adopt the agnostic position...but retain the atheistic designation...in my opinion, to save themselves from the considerable scorn some atheists tend to heap on agnostics. The charges of "fence sitting" and all that crapola.

Again, this difference arises from our differing definitions of 'atheist'

Quote:

I ain't ever gonna happen...but "agnostic is plenty useful now...and that other stuff is not necessary at all.

When atheists come up with proof or evidence of probative value that no gods exist...or that it is impossible for them to exist...or even that it is more likely that they do not exist than that they do...

...then the word "agnostic" might be ashcanned. But before that...it spells out a very sound, powerful, reasonable, logical, truthful, and unassailable position.

I remain unconvinced. We seem to stand on the same ground, but differ on where the line is. Fine.
I still have a beef with the term agnostic simply because it lends credibility to the theist position, and that is something that goes against my grain.

Quote:

You ought really to get back to it. With all the respect in the world, Doc, your move from agnostic to atheist was a move in the wrong direction. Decidedly so.

I never defined myself as either, really.

There was a time I defined myself as 'agnostic' as well.

Just like i don't define myself as a 'tea drinker' or a 'libertarian' even though those are things I do/stand by.

My position in relation to the existence of deities has never changed. I didn't move, I just moved the line.
Essentially we are differing in semantics only.

Deists and agnostics think atheists should have answers to concepts originated to promote religion before they can honestly call themselves atheists. Those are all straw dogs arguments. People dreamed up religion and gods and have the gall to say, "Prove otherwise," and people strain their brains to comply. Why should I have to prove these figments of the imagination are or are not anything? Frank will say, "Well, you just don't know." That's bullcrap. It's the same as someone saying, " My Barbie doll talks to me and performs miracles. I know it's real, because I have experienced it." We don't have to perform all these intellectual excercises to recognize hocum when it appears.

It is possible to prove a negative. It is not easy...and it definitely is easier to prove a positive...but to suggest that it is impossible to do so is simply wrong.

Huh????

Simply because the word's etymology derived the way you suggested is not germane. Although ALL atheists are folks who do not "believe in" gods....it is not necessarily true that ALL folks who do not "believe in" gods are atheists. I do not "believe in" gods...and I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.

Everything seems to indicate that you indeed "believe" there are no gods....else, why on earth are you suggesting the very notion is absurd or expressing worry that you might lend it credibility....if that is not the case?

Which is it, by the way. Have you "never defined yourself that way" or "have you defined your self that way?"

We are differing in a great deal more than just semantics, Doc. We are worlds apart in this.