Quote:
Originally Posted by minidiaz
hi there....
i think this boils down to semantics. since there is no position that is called a-deist... so the
being that would be considered to be a the first uncaused cause, the prime mover as it were, who isn't concerned with humans problems isn't what is being debated. the theists position is to have access to a third party revelation of the all encompassing moral authority of the universe which often times marginalizes people (homosexuals and women in particular). so really, in my opinion it is very easy to be an atheist as it is the neutral position...."make a claim, prove it"
and since we know that our tiny little blue bubble is surrounded by the chaotic events in the universe, our disposition is to try to make sense out of it...why? as rational thinking beings we have no choice but to....
 |
Good post. The problem with the post you replied to is the old and very common one. It is assumed that atheism denies any possibility of there being a god or indeed anything like one. Since this cannot be known for sure, it is a logically untenable position. That comes out as 'Atheism cannot exist' or 'it is impossible to be atheist' or more coherently, atheism is logically unsound'.
Thus it is suggested that 'atheism' be declared moribund and obsolete (along with a few days of Thanksgiving in a lot of churches) and the more open - minded term or position of 'agnostic' be adopted instead.
It is not very widely understood that denial of any possible god or even of 'God' is not the atheist position, and that all that is required for atheism to be a logically sound position is to be agnostic - that is to not know that a god exists and also to have no good reason to supose it does.
It is also possible to not know whether a god exists or not, but to be convinced by the evidence (and there is a lot, very little of it worth a damn') that it probably exists. Thus agnostic as a
knowledge position can cover thinking it probably doesn't exist or it probably does.
I can well imagine that, given anyone claiming to be agnostic but believing that the evidence was good enough that a god probably existed, the believers would be clamouring at them to become a believer in 'God' as a fact, and put aside doubt.
When the much more logically sound (in fact perfectly sound) position of not believing if the evidence isn't good is adopted and one is thus a-theist, we are told this is impossible or illogical or dogmatic.
I agree that 'a -deist' is never heard. That is because a deist does not believe that god is around any more. Effectively that is atheism since an atheist wil concede that we haven't looked everywhere in the universe so God might be be chilling out on the other side of the cosmos.
We couldn't care less as it is a god here, on earth, that is contactable here and now through prayer and intervenes (mysteriously
) in our daily lives and is very concerned about which orifice we choose to put things into that concerns us and it is that god that the deist doesn't believe is around to be contacted (though some still seem to think it can be contacted by mental prayerphone). And in that respect the deist is under the same beer tent or marquee as the atheist and indeed the non -believing agnostic (1).
Now this simple
position is complicated by the fact that many atheists say flatly 'God does not exist'. I say it myself, in that I am confident that this is so just as (to use the common exemplars) I am sure that Leprechauns, Santa and fiery dragons do not exist. I cannot say 100% that they could not be lurking in the Amazon rain - forest, the bowels of the earth or somewhere I haven't looked in the universe, but to all intents and purposes I say, 'They do not exist' and nobody tells me I am illogical, dogmatic or closed -minded for saying so.
I put the absurdity of the eden scenario, the myth of Noah's ark, the unhistorical tosh of the Nativity and the concocted fantasy of the resurrection into the same category and I say that the God and the Christ -figure did and do not exist. About that God I am not really agnostic. The evidence (for me) has piled up too much for me to take any other position than 'God - Bible-god -does not exist.'
When atheists say that, it is the specific god of the bible (and that applies to all the religions of the book) they are talking about, as the other possible sorta god is neither here no there. mainly because as an unproven possibility, it has no associated religion to be a bother, a nuisance and something to get militant about.
(1) see the Penn Jilette initiative (you - tube talk) which encapsulated the idea that atheists, agnostics, deists and indeed irreligious theists should all be on the same page, combatting the controlling and pernicious influence of organized religion.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
