I keep seeing this construction in a great many posts: “Atheism is the one-word answer, ‘No,’ to the question ‘Do you believe in any gods?’ Nothing else.”
Uh, actually I beg to differ. I am an atheist because I am unconvinced. This is possibly due to being a scientist and, for example, we scientists believe that all scientific findings are considered provisional because we do not know what data the future will bring.
If someone were to ask me “Do you believe in any gods?” I would have to answer, “Well, no, not so far.”
Theists seem to think there is a default argument on the table somewhere, placed there by their god. They keep asking why do I “reject their god.” I haven’t rejected their god because their god has not approached me or communicated with me in any way. If it had I would be leaning toward believing in its existence (or seeking psychiatric care).
What I have rejected, in each and every case, is theist’s arguments for the existence of their god(s). And, I have not heard from all of the world’s theists so I can’t claim that there isn’t an argument that might convince me. Actually I think the probability of this occurring is vanishingly small because what those theists are trying to prove is the existence of a supernatural being and no one has ever brought forth valid evidence of the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural event. Ever.
So, theists, it is not your god I disbelieve . . . it is you I disbelieve. Your god hasn’t failed to convince me, even though you claim it could, it is you who has failed to convince me. Your god probably supports this conclusion because it seems to blame all failures on people like you, rather that claiming any responsibility for itself.
Uncommon Sense 
I might also add, “Not only has your god not convinced me, he/she/it apparently (according to your beliefs) created me knowing full well I would turn out to be an atheist and would be sending me to your supposed Hell (not that I believe it exists). Gee, thanks a lot.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Comment by ziggyseamstress — February 2, 2023 @ 12:29 pm |
As in many instances, there are variations in word meanings. However, I do think common belief is that the word “atheist” indicates the person does not believe in god(s) of any size, shape, or form. (Definition from WordWeb: A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods). Whereas, “agnostic” is a bit more forgiving: A … denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God.
From your remarks, I would tend to say you’re more in the “agnostic” realm.
Personally, as I’ve given more and more thought to the subject over the years, I am convinced there is no supreme being of any size, shape, or form or mental imagining. I do, however, still contend (as I addressed in my book) that there is a “Universal Presence,” only because of the overwhelming feeling of wonder that I feel when I consider the magnificence of the universe. But as I also addressed … this is NOT a belief in a potential “being.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Comment by Nan — February 2, 2023 @ 1:13 pm |
Technically, I am an agnostic atheists. I d not believe in a god or gods, therefore I am an atheist. The reason I do not believe is because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence, thus an agnostic atheist. Another label I like is “apathist” I don’t really care to believe in a god or gods, so I guess that applies, too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 3, 2023 @ 11:08 am |
I don’t mean to start a long-winded discussion, but I find it puzzling that a person feels that with “sufficient evidence” they would acknowledge there is a god. To me, that’s the same as saying a person believes in a potential god; thus making them an agnostic. Further, using the title of “agnostic atheist” seem to take away from the actual meaning of “atheist”.
Wordplay, I know. But still …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Comment by Nan — February 3, 2023 @ 11:56 am |
Nan, my sister, my love, I am a scientist. Data beyond my ken is currently flowing into our pool of collective knowledge. There may be sufficient knowledge in that pool to convince me of many things I had not even consider ahead of time. And, as I have said many times, I think the probability of the existence of a god being proven is vanishingly small because they define their gods as supernatural beings and as far as proving evidence for supernatural beings or events, they are oh-for-zillions and zillions and zillions, ad infinitum. The theoretical probability, however is not zero, but for all practical reasons it is so close to zero to make no difference in our lives.
And isn’t it fascinating, for word lovers like you and me, that the people who claim that “God is outside of nature” are also the one’s who drone on about “God’s nature.” If their god had a “nature” it would have to be part of nature, but such contradictions do not phase our theistic brethren, god besotted as they are .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 3, 2023 @ 12:06 pm |
The “I am a scientist” sums it up. 😊 For you scientific folk, there’s always “more” beyond the horizon …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Comment by Nan — February 3, 2023 @ 12:59 pm |
And all scientists don’t let the provisional nature of findings bother them. We just putter along as if everything is hunky-dory. Overnight revolutions just don’t happen, maybe because scientists think do slowly. :o)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 5, 2023 @ 11:34 am |
“If their god had a “nature” it would have to be part of nature.”
How so? I am not sure I understand where you feel the contradiction is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by consoledreader — February 3, 2023 @ 5:32 pm |
When we say “it is his or her nature to be quiet, or whatnot” regarding a person we are claiming there is an underlying biology or psychology, aka part of nature, that is the cause of that. If it is “God’s nature” to be moral, or whatever, then there has to be a “nature” behind that god to make it behave in that manner. (And why create a separate nature just for each god we create? His “nature” and our “nature” are probably the same, speaking hypothetically about a hypothetical being possessing hypothetical attributes.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 5, 2023 @ 11:29 am |
Thanks for taking the time to respond. There are two different definitions of nature being used here:
1) phenomena of the physical world collectively
2) the basic or inherent features of something.
It the nature of a well-designed bed to be comfortable. The nature of the problem is complex. It is the nature of philosophy to ask questions. All of these sentences make perfect sense, but none of these require nature in the first sense of physical phenomena of the world collectively. So while it might be true that a person whose nature is to be quiet is being driven to certain behaviors by biology or psychology (nature), it doesn’t follow that something’s basic or inherent features have to be part of physical phenomena.
Which is why we can construct a sentence like: God’s nature is to exist outside of nature.
Which is just saying: God’s basic or inherent feature is to exist outside of physical phenomena.
One can disagree with this statement, counter that there is no evidence to deduce this, or think it is untrue, but I don’t think the ideas are necessarily contradictory.
LikeLike
Comment by consoledreader — February 5, 2023 @ 1:55 pm |
You were doing fine until you got to “All of these sentences make perfect sense, but none of these require nature in the first sense of physical phenomena of the world collectively.” Try again. Imagine a bed with no wood, wool, metal wire, screws, etc. A bed exists inside of nature. And so do people. There are reasons we pet dogs and cats but not porcupines and hedgehogs.
LikeLike
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 6, 2023 @ 1:28 pm |
I think you’re working with a more expansive definition of nature.
The full definition that I cut off because I got lazy: “the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.” – Oxford Languages
“all the animals, plants, rocks, etc. in the world and all the features, forces, and processes that happen or exist independently of people, such as the weather, the sea, mountains, the production of young animals or plants, and growth.” – Cambridge Dictionary.
Notice these definitions explicitly exclude things that happen or are created by the effort of people as counting as nature.
I do get the point you’re making that every physical object ultimately has an origin in some physical phenomena or natural object, but in practice I don’t think many people are going to buy that they are spending lots of time in nature while sitting in their living room because their bookshelves and chairs are made from wood.
LikeLike
Comment by consoledreader — February 6, 2023 @ 2:22 pm |
Re “Notice these definitions explicitly exclude things that happen or are created by the effort of people as counting as nature.” And the only reason they do so is because of religious influence. Human beings are apes, great apes, but apes. We have an evolutionary history. We suffer disease and maladies just like other species. We are part of nature. If not where are we?
LikeLike
Comment by Steve Ruis — February 7, 2023 @ 11:49 am
No, they exclude them because most dictionary definitions reflect normal everyday usage of a word. Like I said most people aren’t going to think sitting in their living room gazing at their wooden bookshelves counts as spending time in nature whether they are religious or not.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. We seem to be going down tangents at this point. I read what you had to say, you read what I had to say in response. I get the point you’re trying to make. I agree human beings are part of nature. Nevertheless, I don’t find your original suggestion that the ideas are necessarily contradictory to be particularly convincing.
LikeLike
Comment by consoledreader — February 7, 2023 @ 12:35 pm
Yes, Steve!
I have similar issues with these bone heads who try to bring atheism down to their level of idiocy and claim it is a belief and it is a religion.
I reject their god claims solely because of the complete lack of evidence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Comment by Ark — February 2, 2023 @ 1:39 pm |
You’re still holding out hope for some piece of evidence coming your way, after all these ages of no proof, no scrap of proof, nothing?
We know “what future the data will bring” – another day on earth with no deity or deities in sight to invite over for dinner. It ain’t happening – is it that hard to understand, and to move on to a different subject?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comment by notabilia — February 3, 2023 @ 5:02 pm |