(December 26, 2012 at 1:23 am)Jaxl Wrote: 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?
2 points. First of all, you are ignoring the first definition and focusing on the second. Anyone who qualifies for either of those definitions would be an atheist. Also, knowledge is justified belief, i.e. a subset of your belief system. On subjects where there is no adequate justification, belief may fall on either side. For example, you may believe that OJ Simpson murdered his wife or you may believe that he did not, but in absence of conclusive proof, you cannot know. Which is why atheism can be further classified into agnostic atheists (I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not sure) and gnostic atheists.
Secondly, I disagree with your implicit statement here that "no one can actually know if there is a god or not". Depending on what one means by the word - that knowledge should not be beyond the possibility.
(December 26, 2012 at 1:23 am)Jaxl Wrote: 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?
Don't put both statements in the same category of basic assumptions. While a theist often bases his entire worldview on the belief that god exists, for an atheist, the belief that god does not exist is merely a secondary conclusion. Frankly speaking, I consider both statements as conclusions because the question of whether or not god exists is never the first or basic thing an individual learns. However, a theist goes on to treat it as a fundamental assumption, while the only reason it becomes significant to an atheist is because of the horde of theists trying to convince him otherwise.
Further, your assumption that either case is equally probable is is incorrect. And most of the atheists would disagree that your beliefs should be based on a cost-benefit analysis.
