(March 22, 2009 at 3:04 pm)Edward Wrote: Doubting everything is its own kind of dogma called skepticism. Notice the -ism on the end of the word. Many atheists I have talked to simply refuse to believe in God, no matter what they are shown, or how it is debated. They are dogmatic in their disbelief.
I am not talking about doubt and skepticism as in doubting something once or twice and then being blinded from your doubts from then on - even if the evidence changes.
I am not talking about denying whatever it is...
So I am not talking about doubting something and the dogmatically going all the way with that doubt and ignoring from then on....
Because I am talking about doubting my doubts too. I do not doubt once or twice and then ignore from then on...
I am agnostic about things in the sense I do not claim absolute knowledge - so however certain I am, I am not dogmatic about it because I accept the fact that my certainty could always be wrong...
And if however certain I am, I still accept the possibility that I could be wrong and my own certainty could be wrong - then how exactly is that dogmatic?
If I doubt my doubts and I'm a skeptic in THAT sense...and that's still dogmatic and I am to be labeled as dogmatic because of the 'ISM' in skepticISM - then I am wondering, by your definition, how is it possible to NOT be dogmatic? What isn't dogmaticism is doubting my doubts is dogmatic?
What is the opposite of dogma if doubt and skepticism isn't? And doubting your own doubts - not doubting once anc then ignoring from then on. That's not really skepticism I don't think. One or two doubts lol. Not exactly skeptical.
Quote:Don't get me wrong. I think I too am an atheist, but I don't need to be an atheist.
Nor do I! Although I'm glad I am one because I believe if I wasn't then I'd almost certainly be delusion because I'd believe in a God or gods that almost certainly doesn't/don't exist.
This has got nothing to do with need. I have no choice in my atheism...
This is not a matter of choice or preference - its a matter of defintion.
I could choose not to CALL myself an atheist. But I would still, by definition be an atheist.
And belief is not a matter of policy - never mind NON belief - so not only would simply not calling myself an atheist make me not one (because I am by definition, an atheist) - but I can't choose to not believe or believe something at all...
No matter how much I will myself to believe something that isn't going to make me believe it. I need to be convinced by being influenced accordingly.
IF I 'wanted' to believe in "God" and I went to church or whatever and read the bible....and did affirmations, etc, thinking over and over again "I DO believe in God, I DO, I do I do" That would not make me believe in God if I didn't!
It would be a waste of time and energy AND also I do not remotely desire to believe in God either...no matter how much I try to believe (or not believe) something, it won't change it....
So whether I call myself an atheist or not...or whether I 'need' to be ant atheist or whatever - either way I AM an atheist by definition.
It's not a question of 'need' it's a matter of definition.
I am by definition an atheist.
What's needing got to do with it? If I'm an atheist I'm an atheist. Whether I like it or not, or whether I 'need' to or be one or not....
I don't actually know what that would mean...how CAN I need to be an atheist if I already am one? How could I feel need for disbelief if I already DO disbelieve?
If I don't believe in God then I'm an atheist. Simple as that.
EvF
