|
Post by yeshuapantera on Mar 8, 2019 0:15:33 GMT
While atheism is probably one of the most simple positions, it's usually over complicated unnecessarily. That's not hard to understand, though. Considering what a threat non-belief poses to belief systems that depend on membership to stay alive. These belief systems mass produce straw man arguments and the like against atheism very regularly, year after year, decade after decade, and century after century. Their main concern is to throw as much crap as they can at atheism and hope that some of it will stick.
But at the end of the day, atheist only means "not god belief." That's it.
I don't believe that any gods exist, not at all. So I embrace atheism for that reason. Meanwhile, I'm open to all kinds of possibilities. The potential powers of the human mind, interconnected consciousness, mind to mind and mind to matter communication, etc., etc. But none of that amounts to me believing in a god or any number of gods from human made mythology. My speculations about the unknown are not belief. They are merely speculations and explorations into possibilities. Some possibilities seem stronger to me than others. The only point being is that atheism need not be roped into some rigid category and claimed only by people who are overboard "pseudo-skeptics" about any and everything. That's one variety of atheist, in a sea of many other varieties. But it's usually the variety that receives the most attention.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by taba on Mar 8, 2019 16:43:43 GMT
While atheism is probably one of the most simple positions, it's usually over complicated unnecessarily. That's not hard to understand, though. Considering what a threat non-belief poses to belief systems that depend on membership to stay alive. These belief systems mass produce straw man arguments and the like against atheism very regularly, year after year, decade after decade, and century after century. Their main concern is to throw as much crap as they can at atheism and hope that some of it will stick. But at the end of the day, atheist only means "not god belief." That's it. I don't believe that any gods exist, not at all. So I embrace atheism for that reason. Meanwhile, I'm open to all kinds of possibilities. I think this simple agnostic atheism, no more no less, is intellectually the soundest position to hold, and the opposite of limiting. I still find it incredibly refreshing compared to my former Christian faith, and a position that I have far more comfort with and confidence in.
|
|
Wertbag
New Member
Posts: 14
Current Belief System: Atheist
Gender: Male
|
Post by Wertbag on Jan 15, 2021 9:32:25 GMT
The number of comments I've heard from Christians where the term Atheist is linked to other beliefs; "Oh you're an atheist? You must believe in man evolving from rocks, in the big bang where nothing exploded and became everything, in a pure material universe, that life is pointless and valueless, and..." insert any other number of potential worldviews. Many just cannot accept that "I don't know" is perfectly valid, especially for the big questions like the big bang and abiogenesis. There are experts that study these subjects for decades and still claim to be unsure. Why would I, a surface level dweller at best in regards to these questions, think he knows better?
I also have seen quite a few apologists say "An atheist makes the claim there is no god, so the burden of proof is also on them to justify their position", trying to flip the burden of proof and then claiming an atheists position is illogical or poorly thought out if they can't instantly disprove god. The apologist knows better, so I can only imagine its intentionally done and very dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 15, 2021 15:56:54 GMT
The number of comments I've heard from Christians where the term Atheist is linked to other beliefs; "Oh you're an atheist? You must believe in man evolving from rocks, in the big bang where nothing exploded and became everything, in a pure material universe, that life is pointless and valueless, and..." insert any other number of potential worldviews. Many just cannot accept that "I don't know" is perfectly valid, especially for the big questions like the big bang and abiogenesis. There are experts that study these subjects for decades and still claim to be unsure. Why would I, a surface level dweller at best in regards to these questions, think he knows better? I also have seen quite a few apologists say "An atheist makes the claim there is no god, so the burden of proof is also on them to justify their position", trying to flip the burden of proof and then claiming an atheists position is illogical or poorly thought out if they can't instantly disprove god. The apologist knows better, so I can only imagine its intentionally done and very dishonest. Very good points. Atheism by itself, does not make any such claim that there is no god. It only states a lack of belief in god as a stand alone term, by itself. It's not a claim that needs proven. An atheist might individually make a claim like that, but makes them a sub set of atheism, specifically a gnostic atheist. I think the best way to handle this situation is point out to the christian apologist that only one sub set of atheism makes such a claim: Gnostic atheist = "I know god doesn't exist (Gnostic) + and I don't believe in god (atheist). There is a burden of proof on the gnostic atheist because they are making a positive knowledge claim. But if you are not arguing gnostic atheism, then there is not burden of proof on the agnostic atheist. Agnostic atheist = "I don't know if any god may exist (agnostic) + and I don't believe in god (atheist). There is no burden of proof on the agnostic atheist because they are not making a positive knowledge claim. The agnostic atheist doesn't have to prove a claim that they never made in the first place! Not believing in god is not a positive claim, it's a negative contrasting positive belief. This is how I handle it with christian apologists. Because it explains to the detail what the two atheist positions and which one carries a burden of proof and which one does not. And that I have very intellectually and consciously sided with the position that does not require any burden of proof.
|
|