Why Atheism....

[guacamole]

I read through some of the "antimonys" in the other forum and I noticed that there are quite a few people who, the vast majority it seemed to me, who became atheists after repudiating Christianity.

 

I'm curious as to why people chose Atheism when they rejected Christianity instead of another form of theism (Those of you who took another form of theism instead of Atheism can feel free to comment as well).

 

Specifically, I'm curious as to what exactly seemed to sour you to theism in general as well as Christianity specifically.

 

Thanks,

guac.

[I Broke Free]

When I rejected Christianity I did not choose Atheism as an alternative. If you decided not to pierce your ears, does that mean you choose to be non-pierced? Not really, it is the default position; there is no choice involved. The same holds for Christianity. When I rejected Christianity as false, I resumed my default atheistic position.

 

What soured me on theism? Theists pretend to know things that they can’t possibly know, and then proceed to convince others of their special knowledge. If there is anything out there in the supernatural world that is critical, it would have been revealed to me personally.

[Vigile]

Why bait us? Surely there are easier groups of people to pick off for the kingdom. Or is it a badge of pride if you convince one of the hard core to reup for service?

[quicksand]

When I rejected Christianity I did not choose Atheism as an alternative.

I am with you on that IBF.

 

When I rejected Christianity I was still in junior high school. The question of God, well, the jury was still out as I didn't have enough education on the subject whether to make a decision to believe in God or not. If I recollect, I was taught to actually hate and despise atheists, and I did! Well, that programming stayed with me for quite sometime. Later on I read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell, but no hard works on the philosophy of atheism per se. But I did not go to bed one night as a theist and wake-up as an atheist.

 

Why am I an atheist, Guac-ooh?

 

Simple, all such concepts of this god-fella are logically impossible, contradictory, and incomprehensible.

 

Read a book on atheism for the details.

[guacamole]

When I rejected Christianity I did not choose Atheism as an alternative. If you decided not to pierce your ears, does that mean you choose to be non-pierced? Not really, it is the default position; there is no choice involved. The same holds for Christianity. When I rejected Christianity as false, I resumed my default atheistic position.

 

Thanks, I have heard other Atheists refer to atheism as a default position and I am genuinely curious to understand it since it isn't a statement that is intuitive to me. I understand your analogy to pierced ears, however, I'm trying to make it fit. Perhaps you had a underlying skepticism that I've never had and that would explain why you see Atheism as the default position?

 

fwiw

guac.

[guacamole]

Why bait us?  Surely there are easier groups of people to pick off for the kingdom.  Or is it a badge of pride if you convince one of the hard core to reup for service?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At this point I am honestly simply interested in getting in your shoes and walking about a bit. If you feel that I have ulterior motives feel free to participate to the extent with which you are comfortable. I'm not here to twist your arm.

[white_raven23]

First, that's the scariest tree-frog I've ever seen.

 

I'm not an atheist. I'm a deist. Which means while I do reject religion in every form, I do not deny the possibility of God, but I'm not going to make grand assumptions about his nature and where we fit in the grand scheme of things. Enough people have done that already, and the result is a BWB (badly written book).

 

Religion appears to benefit the general populous (when you're not looking at prejudice, bigotry, and sexism). The "masses" if you will. But on an individual by individual basis, it's caused confusion, pain, and agony.

 

Individuals are big square pegs. Religion is your small round hole. For many individuals, the only way to fit into the hole is to deny and reject the parts of themselves that don't fit the mold.

 

Religion is like training wheels for your life. There are those who 1: need them, those who 2: don't need them but leave them on "just in case", and there are those people 3:who've pried the training wheels off.

 

Now since the majority of Americans fall into the 1 and 2 catagory, those number 3's seem more odd and reckless to the 1's and 2's. Where if you went somewhere with a more even spread of 1,2, and 3, the 3's wouldn't seem as much of a big deal.

 

As for what's wrong with religion in general? LOTS. But I'll just stick with a biggie.

 

Religion cannot be the answer to a positive world future, because religion starts wars.

 

Show me one war that was caused by science (and yes, science is used in war, I'm talking about cause here).

 

Or witchcraft. Show me a war caused by witchcraft. Or how about homosexuality?

 

I can see it now:

GayWars Episode I The Christian Menace

GayWars Episode II Attack of the Fundies

GayWars Episode III Revenge of the Sects

GayWars Episode IV A New Homo

GayWars Episode V The NeoCons Strike Back

GayWars Episode VI Return of the Queers

 

 

Okay....I'm way off subject so I'll stop (but that was fun to put together).

[guacamole]

I am with you on that IBF.

 

When I rejected Christianity I was still in junior high school.  The question of God, well,  the jury was still out as I didn't have enough education on the subject  whether to make a decision to believe in God or not. If I recollect, I was taught to actually hate and despise atheists, and I did! Well, that programming stayed with me for quite sometime. Later on I read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell, but no hard works on the philosophy of atheism per se. But I did not go to bed one night as a theist and wake-up as an atheist.

 

Why am I an atheist, Guac-ooh?

 

Simple, all such concepts of this god-fella are logically impossible, contradictory, and incomprehensible.

 

Read a book on atheism for the details.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for your perspective. I've read "Why I am not a Christian" but if you could recommend some others I would be grateful.

 

If you can remember what you felt as a Junior High student, what was it about Christianity that didn't make sense to you even then. One would think that children are more easily hoodwinked and yet there are many many atheists who said they've never believed it, even when they were kids.

 

The more I listen and think, the more I think that there are different kinds of people whose brains work in extremely different ways. For example, why is it natural that one should be inquisitive and skeptical at a younger age while a peer, who is otherwise his equal in age appropriate intellectual and moral development is more trusting and complacent? It never occured to me at such an age to doubt what I was taught. That didn't extend only to religious observance, but also to academic lessons and other forms of speech from "authorities". For example, I remember talking to a classmate in eighth grade about drugs, specifically pot. He said that he would use it because he felt he could control it. I thought, "What a moron, don't you listen to anyone? Why would you throw your life away." I realize I was perhaps overly shielded and trusting now.

 

 

Thanks,

guac-o

[NimbusBirdMgp]

... I just made a Blog Entry Today for which I will share here, for the very question ...

 

TITLE: "Pantheism? It Haunts Me More"

 

SUBJECT:

 

There is a time I wonder if everything of Nature makes up anykind of real Deity God like in this Universe? That maybe the whole Universe and the Matter that is, is being this one real Deity God (?) If this definition can hold valid? And is this what is called ... 'Pantheism'?

 

My thoughts and wondering began when I started questioning the Christian Faith I use to be in back in 1981. I began to take notice of the world and its Nature of being Nature. What is Nature reveiling as evidence of truth that can not be denied by its evidence.

 

The idea of 'God' to me, as the means of having a relationship would have to be something that one deals at the moment with the aesthetics and senses. I got thinking, if we want to relate with this 'God' (?) It would be how we relate with the world and this Nature before us. I felt that if we are appreciating what we sense about the world and Nature. Then we can appreciate 'God' and that is the aesthetic proximity of dealing with Nature. We appreciate and contend with Nature in the right way and we are dealing with 'God' in the right way. We are experiencing, seeing the evidence and relating with this 'God' by enjoying what Nature offers us. Who we are as physical beings and sexual beings. Sex wasn't just for propagating, but to find a sense of fulfillment in relationships aesthetically. Erotically Aesthetically. Sex is the borometer of health, fitness and excercise. We are really having this relationship with 'God' by who we have relationships with others. Maybe sexual orientation doesn't have to be a big deal, as long we want to see the best going between such congress enterchanging of ideas that do make differences. We try to find what agrees and how to deal with differences by understanding what makes those differences. Life's mistake is not at being a bigot on them. Life is expermenting with diversity. Making diversity so that there is still something exciting about the aesthetics of life and to be able to take notice of the changes. In that way, life is trying to avoid bordness and offering something new all the time.

 

I'm very Heterosexual and want intimacy with the opposite sex. I'm in some ways attracted to some conventional means of this. Whatever? I still see a world and its Nature as being what it is. I have thought that the origional 'Sin' is Man making Religion and Cults to deviate from Nature. So where is the origional Sin? Man avoiding Nature. The real 'Sin' is Religion. Nature is the 'Real God or Deity'

 

It does seem to make more sense. But I still am offended that it isn't something you can rely on for guidance and much support to honor and worship. There is also this Decay, Savageness, Competition, Survival over the death of something else, Evil that can distroy and nothing seems to make it all out to be fair. I might admire Nature for its beauty. But I do expect something fair in return if such is cognitive enough to be worth saying it's all a 'Deity or God'. But for any case (?) Nature would be the closest I could see for a 'Deity or God' and of this Universe.

 

... and of course, not believing there is a 'God' means = Athiest.

 

... Something about the claims and concepts of 'God' really doesn't behave in this real world. It is best to contend with what really gives evidence and effects in the senses we have, then to think what has to be so mind set, is nothing more than a mind set. A mind set is control from such things.

[guacamole]

At this point I consider myself a nontheistic pagan.  When I first left christianity and discovered paganism, I believed in the gods...as real beings...because I really WANTED to, not because I had a reason too.  It was so much easier to just still pray and change it to "isis" instead of Jesus.  It was nice having that whole "mother goddess" thing for awhile instead of "father god" thing.

 

But that was just a crutch for me, cause deep down I knew ANY anthropomorphic deities were ludicrous and created by humans.  I still have spiritual beliefs...I will admit part of it is because I WANT to, but another part is because that's really what makes sense to me...I don't buy a totally newtonian mechanical universe.  I just see the universe as too alive and interconnected for that.  *shrugs*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never cease to be amazed at the iconoclastic structure and diverse thought in neopaganism. I've had a very interesting discussions with a pagan on another board who rejected Christianity precisely because of the growing theological abstraction. This is oversimplifying his point to be sure, but the more anthropomorphic the theology, the more primitivistic the faith, the better.

 

I'd be curious to hear sometime what you thought of liberal theologians like Paul Tillich and his "panentheistic" view of the universe. Bishop Spong, the famous Episcopal gadfly, is famous for wanting to construct a non-theistic Christianity based, in part, on the writings of Tillich and others.

 

Thanks,

guac.

[Cerise]

I'm an atheist until someone can come up with a really clear definition of "God" that I can believe in and that isn't easily covered by another, more clear term like say "nature" or "the universe" or "energy".

[pandora]

I never cease to be amazed at the iconoclastic structure and diverse thought in neopaganism. I've had a very interesting discussions with a pagan on another board who rejected Christianity precisely because of the growing theological abstraction. This is oversimplifying his point to be sure, but the more anthropomorphic the theology, the more primitivistic the faith, the better. 

 

I'd be curious to hear sometime what you thought of liberal theologians like Paul Tillich and his "panentheistic" view of the universe.  Bishop Spong, the famous Episcopal gadfly, is famous for wanting to construct a non-theistic Christianity based, in part, on the writings of Tillich and others.

 

Thanks,

guac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, Tillich. I liked him. My Ultimate Concern is not a god, so maybe I am an atheist, but in reality, I am more agnostic.

 

If there is a god, I don't think this god would want us wasting our earthly lives away worshipping and looking for him. There is no "ah ha!" proof he exists, so obviously, god isn't too big on making sure we know all about the supernatural realm. The idea of god is simply an idea that is not applicable to my life. God may exist, and if he/she/it does, then he/she/it is much bigger and complex than we can imagine. And it probably doesn't have a personality or ego or sense of self. All these things that religion pin on god are simply anthropomorphizing him (sp?) because we assume that god has to be like us.

 

 

I say anything grand enough to sustain and create the universe is more or less like an energy or force, not a concrete being, spiritual or otherwise.

[guacamole]

First, that's the scariest tree-frog I've ever seen.   

 

www.worth1000.com

 

Check out their photoshoped "chimeras". Some are absolutely hysterical.

 

I'm not an atheist. I'm a deist. Which means while I do reject religion in every form, I do not deny the possibility of God, but I'm not going to make grand assumptions about his nature and where we fit in the grand scheme of things. Enough people have done that already, and the result is a BWB (badly written book).

 

Religion appears to benefit the general populous (when you're not looking at prejudice, bigotry, and sexism). The "masses" if you will. But on an individual by individual basis, it's caused confusion, pain, and agony.

 

Individuals are big square pegs. Religion is your small round hole. For many individuals, the only way to fit into the hole is to deny and reject the parts of themselves that don't fit the mold.

 

Religion is like training wheels for your life. There are those who 1: need them, those who 2: don't need them but leave them on "just in case", and there are those people 3:who've pried the training wheels off.

 

Now since the majority of Americans fall into the 1 and 2 catagory, those number 3's seem more odd and reckless to the 1's and 2's. Where if you went somewhere with a more even spread of 1,2, and 3, the 3's wouldn't seem as much of a big deal.

 

I think that's spot on. You've articulated something that I think I have felt for a long time but haven't been able to put my finger on. Atheists DO seem reckless to me (uh.. no offense, just being honest).

 

As for what's wrong with religion in general? LOTS. But I'll just stick with a biggie.

 

Religion cannot be the answer to a positive world future, because religion starts wars.

 

Show me one war that was caused by science (and yes, science is used in war, I'm talking about cause here).

 

Or witchcraft. Show me a war caused by witchcraft. Or how about homosexuality?

 

I can see it now:

GayWars Episode I The Christian Menace

GayWars Episode II Attack of the Fundies

GayWars Episode III Revenge of the Sects

GayWars Episode IV A New Homo

GayWars Episode V The NeoCons Strike Back

GayWars Episode VI Return of the Queers

Okay....I'm way off subject so I'll stop (but that was fun to put together).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

LOL. Someone is a Starwars fan. The observation pains me, but it is true that religion has been a source of a great number of evils. I can't deny it and still think myself honest. In fact, religion hasn't necessarily made me a better person. I, as a religious individual, have been a source of pain and discomfort in the lives of people around me. Hopefully by making myself a source of comfort rather than distress, and encouraging those around me to do the same, I can transform my faith to better represent what I think is an accurate image of my Lord.

 

Do I condemn you for your pov? No. On the contrary I'm astounded more people don't take it.

 

fwiw

guac.

[Alice]

I read through some of the "antimonys" in the other forum and I noticed that there are quite a few people who, the vast majority it seemed to me, who became atheists after repudiating Christianity. 

 

I'm curious as to why people chose Atheism when they rejected Christianity instead of another form of theism (Those of you who took another form of theism instead of Atheism can feel free to comment as well).

 

Specifically, I'm curious as to what exactly seemed to sour you to theism in general as well as Christianity specifically. 

 

Thanks,

guac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the most significant change for me in respect of begining to move away from 'christianity' as understood by the majority of people in our era - was the realisation that even if the Bible had been written by God with a great big celestial biro - the moment the words left the page and entered my mind they could only ever be my understanding of the words of God (if that was what they were!) and in this respect - there was no way to access the 'word of god' EVER - there would only ever be my fallible and ungodly interpretation of a set of words.

 

Therefore the Bible as 'the word of God' was meaningless and pointless. It would only ever be my take on something. If it is the word of God - Guacamole - the minute you read it and turn it into thought - you turn it into the 'word of gaucamole'

 

This had an immensely freeing up effect on me - because I had been scared (if truth be told) to really challenge a 'magic' book.

 

After my realisation I went through a period of hating big chunks of the Bible. But now in a strange kind of way I quite like it again. I think those emotional responses of getting angry at some of the stories taught me a lot about myself and my beliefs - as much as the bits of poetry I love. I'm as full of conundrums and contradicitons as the Bible is - and now that its just a springboard for debate with me - and not some rule book I have to follow religiously it doesn't trouble me quite as much.

 

(althought it does trouble me that a book that I see as a collection of ancient myths and stories and poetry and mankinds struggle to make sense of an incomprehensible world and the spiritual yearnings of human beings has been forced through some kind of modernistic mindset and is used in a way it was never intended for)

 

I still haven't found a 'label' to describe my beliefs. I still feel that I am on a spiritual journey - and I'm loving the freedom of being able to explore teachings and philosophies from outside christianity. I still pray - but I don't know if anyone is listening - I just find it helpful to centre myself I guess and think things through. I still try to have the 'fruits of the spirit' as listed in the NT as my personal goals.

[guacamole]

At this point I really need to get home and get my lazy coddled body onto the treadmill.

 

I realize I missed some. Hopefully I can get back on tonight but my wife is complaining about the amount of time I spend on discussion boards. If not, I'll try to comment tommorow.

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

guac.

[quicksand]

Thanks for your perspective.  I've read "Why I am not a Christian" but if you could recommend some others I would be grateful. 

 

If you can remember what you felt as a Junior High student, what was it about Christianity that didn't make sense to you even then.  One would think that children are more easily hoodwinked and yet there are many many atheists who said they've never believed it, even when they were kids. 

 

The more I listen and think, the more I think that there are different kinds of people whose brains work in extremely different ways.  For example, why is it natural that one should be inquisitive and skeptical at a younger age while a peer, who is otherwise his equal in age appropriate intellectual and moral development is more trusting and complacent?  It never occured to me at such an age to doubt what I was taught.  That didn't extend only to religious observance, but also to academic lessons and other forms of speech from "authorities".  For example, I remember talking to a classmate in eighth grade about drugs, specifically pot.  He said that he would use it because he felt he could control it.  I thought, "What a moron, don't you listen to anyone?  Why would you throw your life away." I realize I was perhaps overly shielded and trusting now.

Thanks,

guac-o

Guac-o,

 

Your welcome.

 

As far as my experience back in junior high school its not really dramatic. I wasn't abused. I never felt anything but admiration and love for this Jesus guy. However, it was the contradictory teachings about goodness, salvation, and why you must believe or end up in hell that got to me. I can still remember the charts that my teachers in 2nd grade drew (I went to a private Lutheran elementary school) showing how good done without God was not going to be counted by God (of Christianity) on that blackboard. That didn't add up to me. And as my knowledge of the world was expanding, my pastor, a YEC'er, so informed us that Grand Canyon only looked old because of the flood and the Earth was only 6k old. That was a defining moment for me and my younger brother. If you're really interested, PM me and I will send you my anti-testimony. Its pretty boring really - that's why its not posted.

 

 

As far as why some children believe and others don't. All I can say is we are individuals, but being so, does not mean that objective descriptions of nature do not exist and that we can not know them. I am not a solipsist, so I look to others to help me get there.

 

I have pretty cool parents, and didn't force the religion down my throat although they did baptize me, took me to Sunday School, and let that same YEC Pastor pressure them to pressure me to attended confirmation classes. They attended to their credit and so did my younger brother. I hold no ill thoughts toward them for this, I believe, that they thought this was in my best interest.

 

In my world, I would teach logic and critical thinking before I would introduce religion into someone's life. Not because truth lies within them, but because it helps a person sort through truth claims.

 

For books on atheism, I would suggest Doug Krugger's and George H. Smith.

 

They are really the only two books I have read on the basic tenets of atheism.

 

I also love Albert Camus too. Especially the Myth of Sysipsus.

[DeathWorship]

hi guac,

 

it's nice to see a christian who is here to learn and not to condemn..

 

i consider myself an atheist because i feel a god that thinks and feels and has the ability to make decisions cannot possibly exist. especially because there are too many contradictions in the way the god of the bible acts and thinks.

 

what soured me to theism is the inconsistency in theistic theory.. see, i feel that the bible is something that can only be interpreted in one way, because its frikkin GOD. yet every church i ever went to, and every xian i ever spoke to, had different ideas and theories on what god thought about the state of the world, about how his mercy/wrath was laid out, etc etc.. also, the idea that god has emotions, i cannot believe that either.

 

i have an idea of WHAT god is, not WHO god is.. i believe in a god of energy [non-spiritual] that formed the universe. this god, however, has no thought pattern/emotions/feelings, thus dogmatic worship never comes into play, which is why i still consider myself an Atheist.

 

DW-

[Vigile]

At this point I am honestly simply interested in getting in your shoes and walking about a bit.  If you feel that I have ulterior motives feel free to participate to the extent with which you are comfortable.  I'm not here to twist your arm.

 

Hey, if you are here to learn and discuss, then more power to you. I've only been here a couple of days and it seems the board has had its fair share of proselytizers already.

 

I'll bite. I probably lean more towards atheism now since I can't even conceive of a god (Anselm may have been able, but I can't even conceive of the perfect island that sorta kinda disproved his premise). It doesn't matter to me where he might be, what he might be, etc. The idea that there is an intelligent being out there that created us begs a huge question for me; who made him? And, you can ask this same question ad infinitum until you reach the ultimate creator; but again, who made him (her?).

 

Science has done a fairly nice job hypothesizing the eternal existence of matter. (read Hawking for a layman's analysis) This explanation is much more plausible unless and until we make more discoveries. A logical precept says that the simplest explanation is the correct one. Weigh it out. On one hand you have god, who begat god, who begat god until you find the god that no one begat (an impossibility) and on the other hand you have the eternal existence of non-organic matter and physical laws. (I don't need to imagine that someone made the material that made a rock. It could just be). I don't know who made the laws, but they didn't necessarily have to be "made." They could just be. Yes this sounds a lot like the old testament "I am," but again, there is the difference that one explanation is simple and plausible while the other one shows some impossibilities, or at the very least the existence of laws that exist outside our own physical world. I won't speculate on this for I might as well speculate on the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause then also.

[I Broke Free]

And as my knowledge of the world was expanding, my pastor, a YEC'er, so informed us that Grand Canyon only looked old because of the flood and the Earth was only 6k old. That was a defining moment for me and my younger brother. [

 

 

Same here: If the Christian indoctrinationists had kept their message to peace and love and not expected me to believe in ridiculous stories, I may have been a Christian today.

 

I honestly question the sincerity of any Christian who tells me they believe in the biblical miracles. To me, they are just trying to convince themselves. No one can say such a thing unless they are under some kind of threat. I mean really; you can’t be serious!

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

The more I listen and think, the more I think that there are different kinds of people whose brains work in extremely different ways.  For example, why is it natural that one should be inquisitive and skeptical at a younger age while a peer, who is otherwise his equal in age appropriate intellectual and moral development is more trusting and complacent?  It never occured to me at such an age to doubt what I was taught.  That didn't extend only to religious observance, but also to academic lessons and other forms of speech from "authorities". 

 

Hello and welcome Guacamole,

 

I was just talking about this with someone yesterday. I, like you, never really questioned what I was told by authority figures when I was young. In fact, with the religion thing I just KNEW that the Southern Baptist version of God and Jesus existed because everyone I trusted told me it was so.

 

It was a big step for me to begin questioning religious teachings, etc. The event that really got the ball rolling for me was when I came to the conclusion that the bible was not inerrant - a foundation of my faith. From that moment on I became more willing to question other beliefs I had.

 

******

 

I have to say that I agree with IBF that atheism, or non-theism makes sense as the default position. (I don't mean atheism in the sense that you KNOW FOR SURE there are no gods, but atheism in the sense that you don't see the evidence for gods, so you are withholding judgement until you do.)

 

This presupposes that you require the same evidence for gods that you require to accept the existence of other things. If you require a different level of evidences for the existence of gods, then it's hard to see how you can discount most gods (or varieties of the christian god) as long as you hold them all to the same standards of evidence.

[Guest marktaylor]

Hi Guac,

 

For me, shedding religion (and patriotism) is a part of personal and social evolution. Losing unsuitable appendages, you know, like the tails humans used to grow. (I'll never forget that picture in my old 9th grade health book)

 

I find your questions sincere. But I think you know, that for an educated modern person "faith" is the only thing a christian has to fall back on when they are confronted with their own holy writings. In the ancient Hindu texts, our notion of reality is a projection of Brahman, an illusion. In my thinking god is the creation, a survival tool, used by our ancestors to make their lives better and of course to give some sort of warped definition(s) to things they were not prepared to explain. (The explanations always came later)

 

Read: Who Wrote The Bible? By Richard E. Friedman

[Guest marktaylor]

Hello and welcome Guacamole,

 

I was just talking about this with someone yesterday.  I, like you, never really questioned what I was told by authority figures when I was young.  In fact, with the religion thing I just KNEW that the Southern Baptist version of God and Jesus existed because everyone I trusted told me it was so.

 

It was a big step for me to begin questioning religious teachings, etc.  The event that really got the ball rolling for me was when I came to the conclusion that the bible was not inerrant - a foundation of my faith.  From that moment on I became more willing to question other beliefs I had.

 

******

 

I have to say that I agree with IBF that atheism, or non-theism makes sense as the default position.  (I don't mean atheism in the sense that you KNOW FOR SURE there are no gods, but atheism in the sense that you don't see the evidence for gods, so you are withholding judgement until you do.) 

 

This presupposes that you require the same evidence for gods that you require to accept the existence of other things.  If you require a different level of evidences for the existence of gods, then it's hard to see how you can discount most gods (or varieties of the christian god) as long as you hold them all to the same standards of evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

An atheist is an ATHIEST... withholding judgement is an agnostic (I think)

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

An atheist is an ATHIEST... withholding judgement is an agnostic (I think)

 

There are as many definitions of "atheism" as there are atheists.

 

The distinction I prefer between the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" is that atheists don't believe in gods (either because they think they know there are no gods or because they don't have evidence they require to believe) and agnostics don't think it's possible to know whether there are gods.

 

Many people will agree with those definitions and probably as many will disagree, but that's what I mean whenever I talk about atheists and agnostics. Because of the disagreement on those labels I try to make it clear exactly what I mean whenever I use those terms.

[I Broke Free]

There are as many definitions of "atheism" as there are atheists.

 

The distinction I prefer between the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" is that atheists don't believe in gods (either because they think they know there are no gods or because they don't have evidence they require to believe) and agnostics don't think it's possible to know whether there are gods.

 

Many people will agree with those definitions and probably as many will disagree, but that's what I mean whenever I talk about atheists and agnostics.  Because of the disagreement on those labels I try to make it clear exactly what I mean whenever I use those terms.

 

 

I am so confused by the definitions of atheist and agnostic that I don’t use either one to define myself. The more I read about them, the more confused I get. There seems to a great deal of overlap even in the best of definitions. Every time I have used either term on this board, someone chimes in with a correction.

 

I am quite comfortable with what I do and don’t believe, and don’t need a personal definition. If others want to label me, that’s fine to. Hell bound heathen is one my personal favorites.

[MrSpooky]

I thought it was pretty simple.

 

Atheism & Theism address a metaphysical question... a question in regards to reality. They try to answer "Does God exist?"

 

Agnosticism is more of an epistemic position... it addresses a question in regards to knowledge. That is, "Can God be KNOWN?"

 

Atheism in the strictest sense in formal logic is simply a LACK of Theistic belief. This can range from Agnosticism, to Implicit/Explicit Atheism, to Positive/Negative Atheism. There's three main factors to take into account.