by real one 168 Replies latest jw friends
how do you know there is no evidence of God's existence? are you calling yourself ignorant for making such a statement?
Didn't the existence of god develop in the minds of ignorant men, who lived so long ago
Gods do not exist but the human imagination certainly does , therefore I believe in imagination
I dont believe in athiests.
There is no such thing as AGNOSTICISM. Agnostics do not exist. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/123456/1.ashx
I like to think of atheism is an absence of theism; it doesn't necessarily imply that one is against theism (as atheists tend to be stereotyped), it simply means that theism is not your persuasion -- you are indifferent or ambivalent to it. I wish there was a finer distinction, similar to the one between amorality (which is indifferent towards morality) and immorality (which is more directly implies a footing counter to morality). It is for this reason that I wish that antitheism was a widely recognized word, which could usefully contrast with both theism and atheism. Because in a political sense, I see that many theists fear atheists because they think they want to take away their right to religion. I see that as more antitheistic than atheistic, and the tendency in the media is to emphasize those whose position is more the former than the latter. It would also allow the label "atheist" to be used more freely among those of the "I don't know" category.
Anyone agree with me?
Leolaia, as an atheist, I agree 100% with what you just posted.
To put all the BS in more simple terms.
Atheist means that you absolutely do not believe that god is there.
And agnostic means that you do not believe god exists, but your not to sure.
I'd love to see the reaction a fundy Muslim spouting stuff like "Everyone knows about Allah" would get. Those doing it about Bible god seem totally blinkered to how partial and limited their idea of god is, and how many other believers in other conceptions of god.
Arrogance is never attractive, something I should mumble under my breath before I post, LOL.
The whole atheist/agnostic/theist question is meaningless until you define theos.
Atheist is also an uncomfortable label; most adults don't believe in Santa, but wouldn't call themselves asantaists. Why should you define yourself by something you don't believe in? It's like saying Democrats are arepublicanists
As already noted, many Christian theists are, from the point of view of some atheists, just sloppy inconsistent atheists. For exactly the same reasons that some atheists don't believe in ANY god, many Christian theists don't believe in all gods BUT one. That one god they don't apply the same reasoning to that leads them not to believe in all the others.
Leolalia makes a good point but it is possibly an unneccesary coinage as the word 'secular/ist/ism' was coined to describe precisely what she wants a non-oppostional word for. I assume in this a link between belief in god and religion, although accept this is not neccesarily automatic.
This lack of linkage is something held true by those who might describe themselves as an irreligious theist, religious skeptic or infidel. Freethinkers and secular humanists can also arguably have some form of theos in their concept of reality. Freethinkers like 'brights' is a bit uncomfortable term as it defines by exclusion other forms of thought in an unfavourable (but quite possibly true) light.
Leolaia
It is for this reason that I wish that antitheism was a widely recognized word, which could usefully contrast with both theism and atheism.
I can see why atheist have trouble fitting in.
You need a word to describe your self that doesn't have theism embedded in it.
What's wrong with materialist or naturalist?
People who are simply non religious are sometimes labeled as Atheists. To not have a religion or any interest in religion is different to not believing in a God.
Then again if there is an intelligent force at work in the universe does it take the form of a Deity? I for example do not consider that existence of a deity as described in holy books and scriptures is realistic or accurate. I have no time for organised, commercialized religion.
This does not mean that I have ruled out the possibility that the universe is permeated by a coordinated intelligence.
Such an intelligence does not have to have a plan or fixed moral rules, but could operate by a very different kind of process to the one that goes on in our heads, that we choose to label as intelligence. So before we enquire into one's belief in God we have to define God.
This idea of believer versus non-believer is very primitive. We all have opinions that are subject to change and growth. They do not need to be categorized and labeled as anti or pro Deity.
Leo,
I like to think of atheism is an absence of theism; it doesn't necessarily imply that one is against theism (as atheists tend to be stereotyped), it simply means that theism is not your persuasion -- you are indifferent or ambivalent to it. I wish there was a finer distinction, similar to the one between amorality (which is indifferent towards morality) and immorality (which is more directly implies a footing counter to morality). It is for this reason that I wish that antitheism was a widely recognized word, which could usefully contrast with both theism and atheism. Because in a political sense, I see that many theists fear atheists because they think they want to take away their right to religion. I see that as more antitheistic than atheistic, and the tendency in the media is to emphasize those whose position is more the former than the latter. It would also allow the label "atheist" to be used more freely among those of the "I don't know" category.
I can agree entirely with what you have written.
The problem with the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' is that they are terms that come with emotional baggage attached. This baggage does not belong to the philosophical position of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' (and I disagree with Nicolau regarding the position of agnosticism) , it is baggage that religionists have attached to the issue. Even the very premise of this thread, which given its originators previous posts on the subject was inspired not as a genuine attempt at reaching a conclusion not yet made, but more as an attack on a viewpoint, speaks to this.
Given that some words can develop over time into concepts, and that concepts can be distorted for divers reasons as I note above, my own methodology when asked whether I am an atheist or agnostic, is to ask the person inquiring to define what they mean by these terms before I answer.
The strange standards which religionists hold atheists and agnostics too in expecting them to understand what they mean by these two terms puzzles me. After all, ask a Christian whether they believe God exists and they will answer, 'Of course'. Ask the same person whether Ganesha exists and they will reply, 'Of course not'. The 'atheist' sees no such distinctions, yet the Christian will hold an atheists position toward other Gods, and vica-versa.
I propose that most religionists are atheistic toward some Gods, and most atheists are agnostic in some situations, as defined by common usage of course. I hope that you are all suitably confused. :)
HS
