Decided to make this it's own thread. Question for theists. Would you even be willing to consider the possibility that there was no God out there, and all the things you attribute to God just stem from your own imagination/ignorance? If not then why wouldn't you?
For those who would, what (if anything) do you think would change in your life if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a being didn't exist? How would your behavior change? Would you strive to do more in the here and now? Where would you seek answers to your questions?
Just to be fair, atheists. Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs? Again, if not then why?
The above part could be any deity, but for this part I will use the Abrahamic God for the hypothetical. How would things change for you if such a being was proven to exist, if anything? Would you behave any differently then you already do? How would it effect you emotionally? Would you be fearful and try and get back on his good side, or would you rebel against him even if it did likely mean eternal suffering?
See here's my issue. I simply do not accept that an "I don't know" makes you atheist!
But that is exactly what it means. You are not a theist. Theism REQUIRES you to believe. If you are unsure then you can't believe. Belief is the absence of uncertainty.
I'm going to continue reviewing the definition of atheism but so far don't see a reason to change my position... yet. I don't see what's so hard about saying that somebody is neither theist or atheist.
There are a few terms which may encompass your position, but you'd need some more details.
Details on?
I think I did a very cursory "research" of various religions to see if there was one I might find appropriate for the way I believe, but I gave up rather quickly because it isn't important to me to commit to a specific religion and its traditions...
No, but a misunderstanding on my part was cleared up -_-;
I snickered.
Realistically theism is the only true hard line stance. If you believe in a deity, then you are a theist. Any other thoughts regarding deities which do not end up in absolute belief in a deity, and you are not a theist, hence an atheist.
Atheism is truly the default position for anyone who isn't sure that there is a god. Obviously because of that there are varying degrees of atheism, but because theism is an affirmation of something, there can be no varying degrees of theism.
Being confused about what a deity genuinely is, and whether or not that definition hits what I do believe there to be, what does that make me? I believe, but do I believe in a god, and if what I believe in can't be accurately described as a god, what can I label myself to be differentiated from the "scientific evidence or it doesn't exist" crowd?
Can you believe in the disbelief of something. If you say yes, then the video is moot. If you say no, then it is merely a disagreement on if you can believe in the disbelief of something.
The video strives off the "again, atheism is not the disbelief of god because atheism is not a belief". If you do not think there is a god, you do not believe in him. That is understandable, but at the same time you believe he does not exist. The only way around this is if you are not even aware of the concept of an afterlife or god.
I don't see what's so hard about saying that somebody is neither theist or atheist.
As of now those are really the only two terms we have to describe ourselves on the subject. Either you believe in deities or you don't. Whatever varying degrees of doubt or opposition you may have, if you don't have a firm belief then you are not a theist and by that definition you must be an atheist.
However the most accurate description would be "infidel". But that is filled with so much stigma, and I hate the idea as being labeled unfaithful simply because I don't have a religion. Yet honestly it is the most accurate description, especially if you are on the fence so to speak.
Really I think that there is just so much stigma placed on the term 'atheist' that it makes people hesitant to be willing to accept that they are atheists.
And while you are looking at atheism, consider the definition of theist. And bear in mind that an atheist is simply 'not theist'. Perhaps that will help clarify.
Deity: Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
And there you have it. I'm fond of Princeton University so I'll say their definition is highly accurate.
Then I'll take the trouble to explain myself in full, thank you very much.
In this and most other areas of life, that's probably the wisest choice. There are so many varying shades of gray that limiting ourselves to black/white terminology is severely limited. However humans are lazy. We make up a word. We determine that this huge broad category can fit into it and, voila! misconceptions abound. XD
It's the personification thing that loses me, since I do believe, but not in an anthropomorphic deity. So I'll re-ask, when by definitions of terms I would probably have to call myself an agnostic atheist...
What can I do to be differentiated from the "scientific evidence or it doesn't exist" crowd that "atheist" typically gets viewed as? Say "I'm agnostic" because that aspect is more important to me than the theist/atheist thing? Or just stay away from religious debates... >.> Probably the "explain myself in full" like Strop. Or something. Ehhh.
We make up a word. We determine that this huge broad category can fit into it and, voila! misconceptions abound. XD
What can I do to be differentiated from the "scientific evidence or it doesn't exist" crowd that "atheist" typically gets viewed as?
Explain your views. There are misconceptions everywhere regarding all religions, or lack thereof. Many people don't discuss their convictions, and many that do don't even know what their convictions are. If you are going to use a descriptive term for yourself, just know what it means, and where in that range you fall.
Or just stay away from religious debates.
If you want to, then that's not a bad thing. I simply enjoy them because I have an opportunity to explain my ideas and also to gain a better understanding of other people's ideas, so long as they are open to an actual conversation. Religious debates, in my opinion, are great because it is all a matter of opinion and interpretation. You learn more about yourself in such debates than anything, and I feel that self knowledge is critical to happiness.
Probably the "explain myself in full" like Strop.
Always the best idea. This way there can be no misunderstanding about your position, and once you and the other members of the conversation have a clear understanding of eachother you can proceed with a discussion without misconceptions.
Using the definitiions provided, I would have to call myself an agnostic atheist. I'm not a hardline atheist yet I don't wan't to seriously consider the possibility of a god until there is evidence of it so I'm not agnostic. My default state is the lack of belief until evidence convinces me to seriously consider the possibility and lean me towards theism, but I am not bounded by commitment to stay an atheist like some theists think all athiests are. I do not think the existence of a god in biblical context is ever possible to scientifically prove, I would have to have some kind of spiritual experience which I haven't had yet. However I think theism is a commitment in that theists will not truely consider the possibility that there is no god, since they couldn't have had arived at the belief of god through faith they cannot be swayed by scientific evidence for the unexistence of god(which cannot exist).
