A few years ago I came to the conclusion I was an atheist, but was recently convinced I was actually agnostic.
My question for everyone is: what is atheism? Atheism is by definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity(s), or, the doctrine that there is no deity.
By this second definition, it states that atheists know there is no higher power. However, no one can actually ever know if there is or isn't. Since no one can ever know if there is or isn't a higher power, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say one is agnostic?
On that note, I would like to launch into a much deeper issue of morality which I have come to face. First of all, I'd like to clarify that without religion, people can make moral choices. With this in mind, I’d like to launch into the idea of logic. Whether you are atheist or religious, you are presented with two basic options: God exists, or God does not exist.
Now in order to have a proper base for a logical argument, assumptions must be made. For the first case, our initial assumption is that God exists. With this assumption, the benefits of doing so would be any of the world’s religions; where with proper understanding can generally benefit the individual by creating in infrastructure for future decision making. With the second assumption, we find ourselves in the lap of atheism or agnosticism. At this point, we find…nothing. Atheism and agnosticism offer no help in proper decision making in the future. This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?
My question for everyone is: what is atheism? Atheism is by definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply the disbelief in the existence of deity(s), or, the doctrine that there is no deity.
By this second definition, it states that atheists know there is no higher power. However, no one can actually ever know if there is or isn't. Since no one can ever know if there is or isn't a higher power, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say one is agnostic?
On that note, I would like to launch into a much deeper issue of morality which I have come to face. First of all, I'd like to clarify that without religion, people can make moral choices. With this in mind, I’d like to launch into the idea of logic. Whether you are atheist or religious, you are presented with two basic options: God exists, or God does not exist.
Now in order to have a proper base for a logical argument, assumptions must be made. For the first case, our initial assumption is that God exists. With this assumption, the benefits of doing so would be any of the world’s religions; where with proper understanding can generally benefit the individual by creating in infrastructure for future decision making. With the second assumption, we find ourselves in the lap of atheism or agnosticism. At this point, we find…nothing. Atheism and agnosticism offer no help in proper decision making in the future. This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?
