(no subject)
I should probably follow up by clarifying my position on this too.
I am an atheist.
A "theist" being one who believes in the supernatural divine, and "a" being the negative of that.
More specifically, I am what is termed a "weak" atheist. This is what many people call an agnostic, but this is not the actual case. It also does not imply that the position is wishy-washy, or half-hearted despite the other uses of the word "weak".
A "strong" atheist is one who says "I believe that gods do not exist".
A strong atheist is one who has taken a position of faith, that there is no way that a divine being can possibly be working behind the scenes. I personally find that a poor stance, since it requires the same faith of a theist.
A "weak" atheist is one who says "I do not believe that gods exist".
In my position, it means that I see no reason whatsoever to make up stories to explain the world, when science is inexorably filling in the gaps as time goes on. However, should one of those gaps be found lacking, or if there were even a slim piece of evidence to suggest the supernatural, then I would consider it (although don't expect me to EVER accept anything that cannot be tested or challenged".
Just because a weak atheist is open to possibilities, does not mean that the half-believe, or are looking for supernatural evidence, or are hedging their bets. It simply means that if a theist has an extraordinary claim, then they had better have extraordinary evidence to convince me, because the default position is non-belief.
An agnostic is one who says "I do not have enough information to know if gods exist" or "I think that the existence of gods is unknowable".
"Gnostic" meaning "with knowledge" and again, a, to suggest the negative.
An agnostic can be either theist or atheist. Many people of faith say that "God is unknowable" or "works in mysterious ways" yet they still maintain belief. While others will say "well I we can't know either way, so why should I bother?".
It all comes back to one phrase for me "Why SHOULD I believe?".
Is it because "well we don't understand this right now, so it must be magic?".
Is it because I was told to believe by a nice adult when I was a child? But who told them...and them...and them....and them....until you get back to an age before science and literacy, when a few powerful individuals with a vested interest in control, were in a position to influence what people believed?
"Aha!", you say, but the bible talks about real places and real people who existed and of which there is archaeological (SCIENCE!) evidence. Yes, this is true...and it is also true of any of Dickens' novels, or Shakespeare's plays.....real people and places with bizarre events.
Again, I could ramble, and I am not eloquent enough to do that or any length of time and continue to make sense ;). I was half going to go off onto a metaphysical navel gaze there, but will leave that for another time.
I am an atheist.
A "theist" being one who believes in the supernatural divine, and "a" being the negative of that.
More specifically, I am what is termed a "weak" atheist. This is what many people call an agnostic, but this is not the actual case. It also does not imply that the position is wishy-washy, or half-hearted despite the other uses of the word "weak".
A "strong" atheist is one who says "I believe that gods do not exist".
A strong atheist is one who has taken a position of faith, that there is no way that a divine being can possibly be working behind the scenes. I personally find that a poor stance, since it requires the same faith of a theist.
A "weak" atheist is one who says "I do not believe that gods exist".
In my position, it means that I see no reason whatsoever to make up stories to explain the world, when science is inexorably filling in the gaps as time goes on. However, should one of those gaps be found lacking, or if there were even a slim piece of evidence to suggest the supernatural, then I would consider it (although don't expect me to EVER accept anything that cannot be tested or challenged".
Just because a weak atheist is open to possibilities, does not mean that the half-believe, or are looking for supernatural evidence, or are hedging their bets. It simply means that if a theist has an extraordinary claim, then they had better have extraordinary evidence to convince me, because the default position is non-belief.
An agnostic is one who says "I do not have enough information to know if gods exist" or "I think that the existence of gods is unknowable".
"Gnostic" meaning "with knowledge" and again, a, to suggest the negative.
An agnostic can be either theist or atheist. Many people of faith say that "God is unknowable" or "works in mysterious ways" yet they still maintain belief. While others will say "well I we can't know either way, so why should I bother?".
It all comes back to one phrase for me "Why SHOULD I believe?".
Is it because "well we don't understand this right now, so it must be magic?".
Is it because I was told to believe by a nice adult when I was a child? But who told them...and them...and them....and them....until you get back to an age before science and literacy, when a few powerful individuals with a vested interest in control, were in a position to influence what people believed?
"Aha!", you say, but the bible talks about real places and real people who existed and of which there is archaeological (SCIENCE!) evidence. Yes, this is true...and it is also true of any of Dickens' novels, or Shakespeare's plays.....real people and places with bizarre events.
Again, I could ramble, and I am not eloquent enough to do that or any length of time and continue to make sense ;). I was half going to go off onto a metaphysical navel gaze there, but will leave that for another time.