(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.A funny thing about dictionary definitions is that the word defines fits all of the definitions, but that doesn't mean that they are all equivalent.
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?
In this case, the two definitions pertain to two different approaches of the concept of atheist, two different sets of people with different views on the existence of gods... and atheists are all the people from any of these two sets.
Dawkins goes even further than that dictionary with his 7 levels of theism:
- Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
- De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
- Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
- Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
- Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
- De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
- Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
Most atheists around here fall closer to 6 than 7. And I think that's where you would stand.
Level 6 is the typical agnostic atheist.
(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.Option 1: believe in god...... option 1.1: chose one god.... option 1.2: accept all the mythology of that god and live by it.... yeah, all the work is done for you, you just need to accept it.
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?
Option 2: do not believe in god. Use your local laws are behavior guidelines.
Now, probabilities...
Some people have managed to account for all the gods that humanity has followed. They came up with something like 2800 different gods. You can add to these any gods you may come up with, but you'll know there's no believers for those, so just forget about it
How do you know which of those 2800 is the real one? if any!
What are the odds that a given deity you end up following, turns out to be false, man-made, imagined...? 1/2800.
What are the odds that the absence of gods ends up being real?... 1/2?
Equally probable?
