Agnostic/Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

This one's been itching at me for quite some time. Why don't people realize that atheism it not necessarily a belief in the nonexistence of god, but more accurately a lack of belief in god? Sure, in the end technically we're all agnostics- faith is a meaningless vocalization meant to end a discussion without intellectual merit; nobody really knows. But in terms of practical conversation, why can't I label myself as an atheist without inviting the ret*d comment that to be an atheist is as "faith-based" as being a true believer? Like I said, I'll acknowledge that in the most technical sense, I'm also an agnostic. But look at it this way:

If you flip a coin, what are the possible outcomes? The possible outcomes, most would say, are heads or tails. However, about once every ten thousand tosses, a coin will invariably land on its edge. The chances of this happening, however, are so remote that even if you know this bit of statistical trivia you'd sound crazy for bringing it up in casual conversation. I think that the possibility for the existence of a god is as likely as the possibility of a coin landing on its edge in one flip- not necessarily impossible, but unlikely.

Just because I acknowledge the remote possibility of a god does not mean I have to call myself an agnostic, which is closer to the 50-50 of a coin flip. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if you show me a coin that has landed on its edge, I will believe in god. Until such time as god has been proven, the possibility is not even remotely 50-50.

Well, atheism is a word. Words don't have meanings, but rather people give them. Many people think that atheism has the meaning that it is a belief in the non-existence of God, while agnosticism is considered a lack of belief. Now, of course, when things are pushed it does start getting sketchy given that this distinction is made partially on a really strict standard for belief. So, your reasoning makes sense, but most people don't see it this way and it doesn't make too much sense to most.

That's what I'm saying. In order to share thoughts, the two consciousnesses would have to share every sub-conscious pre-thought first; it would feel like you had lived the life of the person with whom you were sharing thoughts. You would have every memory they do, every emotional context.

Believe me, I realize just how far-fetched this idea is. A relatively amateur knowledge of neurology is all that is needed to take the wind out of this idea.

Still, it's a great idea. Imagine it- if you empathized 100% with everyone around you because you were, in essence, the same person, there would be no misunderstanding or war.

Here's how I explain the terminology:
Atheism doesn't answer the question "Do gods exist?". It answers the question "Do you have a belief in god/gods?". When asked if I believe in god, my answer is no. That makes me an atheist. Why I don't believe or how certain I consider myself to be is entirely irrelevant to the question. We're all born atheists.
That said, separate from my being an atheist, I also happen to have come to the conclusion that concepts such as "almighty" and "supernatural" are logically impossible (one for contradicting itself and the other for literally meaning "impossible" when you break it down), and as such an almighty or supernatural entity is incompatible with the very concept of existence, leaving only the metaphorical definition of god, which is entirely useless to existential discussion. This observation is not what makes me an atheist. I'm an atheist because, of all the things I've seen, heard, experienced, and thought of, nothing has convinced me that there is a god. That everything I've seen, heard, experienced, and thought of, has convinced me that there isn't a god, is an entirely separate matter.
I am a gnostic atheist.

I agree on your conclusion as to individuality. In my opinion, should such a hypothetical construct such as this ever be possible (just for argument's sake), it should be only willing, and such an entity would, I assume, have the technology to leave this planet so that those who do not wish to partake do not have to.

Actually, going back to the Borgs from Star Trek for a moment... I'm not a fan btw, just a fan of wikipedia. Anyway, going back to the Borgs, I remember reading on wikipedia that within Trek lore, the main force was the 'you will be assimilated' entity, but there was a less well known Borg Collective that only assimilated the willing.

EDIT: Vince, you're right on the mark.

hey masterdieff - I just encountered you in another forum but this is coincidental - I'm not purposely following you around.

Also I'm not trying to change your beliefs - but you mentioned being shown a coin landing on its edge. So I just wanted to ask if it counts if it's in a movie? lol The character talks about the probability of the coin landing on its side - and then - it lands in a crack in the ground - forcing it to remain on its side! lol The movie is a Stephen Chow film called 'Shaolin Soccer'. It's really funny. He made it before the better known 'Kung-Fu Hustle'. And I'm not giving much of the plot away by telling you about the coin. I just couldn't resist mentioning it.

Also I appreciate the exchange about each person's experiences impacting on our interpretation of language. Even if we had the best communication skills I still wouldn't fully trust it.

When a word has multiple related meanings, you don't get to choose only one of those for everyone to use. Atheist can mean someone who believes there is no God. Which is called strong atheism. Alas, you are running into the problem of people who only know that meaning of atheism. So, I suggest educate them. Not by telling them they are wrong about what atheism is, but by telling them that's only one type of atheism.

Personally, I see weak atheism as "I believe there's no god, but I could be wrong", and agnosicism as "I don't know if there's a god". That is, the atheist has a firm opinion on the matter, the agnostic doesn't. Which seems to be similar to what you said.

This is quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_a ... it_atheism