I have converted to atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Until ValentineWiggin answers, I will tell you what I believe in: Reason.

There is no important difference between agnostics, ignostics, weak atheists, strong atheists, rationalists, materialists, deists, pantheists, whatever. It's just a word game that people play to make their position seem more interesting.

The interesting questions are:
(1.) Are the laws governing the universe ever overruled by an outside agent? If this has happened before, give details.
(2.) Is your consciousness dependent on your physical body?

What's really funny Sappy, is that I share a remarkably similar number of non beliefs with a brick.

The number of non concepts we share is similar as well.

Of all the infinite number of beliefs someone could have, or infinite number of concepts they could be exposed to, I have a finite set. The brick has 0. Infinity minus any set rational number is still infinity. Whether that number is 0 or a billion, the end result is still an infinite number of beliefs both the brick and I don't have.


The part of this whole debate you are not coming to terms with I think is the scope of how many things the word "god" could stand for. And that number may well be infinite itself. Even if there is a finite set, I certainly haven't been exposed to each and every one of them, and neither have you.

You may "feel" you know what the word means. You might "feel" it has a specific meaning and describes something very specific. But I would wager that you don't actually have a specific definition that is logically coherent and meaningful. What you feel and what you know, in this case, are not in agreement. You are buying into an illusion of understanding. The very idea that someone could know what the word "god" means is nonsensical.

That's why I generally refer to my position as ignostic. I'm not always an atheist, weak or strong, on everything. Sometimes I am. I'm an atheist about certain definitions of "god", agnostic about other definitions of "god", but think that most definitions are incoherent ramblings, and overall that the very word "god" itself is nonsense due to the sheer number of things it could mean that no one agrees with.

For a word to hold any use, it needs to have an agreed meaning or at very least have a small set of variable meanings. Some words are more flexible than others, but this one..."god" is too flexible. I'm not sure there are any two people alive who agree exactly as to what the word means. And because of that, because it lacks a mutual meaning, it is a useless word. (That's why I say I'm ignostic, after all)

Now, I'm not saying you have to agree that the word is useless, that's just my opinion. But I do want you to think about the sheer number of different things that the word could mean. The many, many different ways to try to describe what someone is trying to say when they use it. And then think about why someone could say they hold no belief. because like the brick, the person you are asking doesn't have your definition of god...you would have to explain it to them. But since you haven't (I would content that you probably can't) they have not in fact even been exposed to the idea, just like the brick.

And thus, they have no belief either way.

^^^ x2

Lots of things.
When it comes to claims of god's existence or non-existence, nothing at all.


A being who is popularly-defined as:
omnipotent
omnibenevolent
omniscient

It doesn't MATTER if god is defined as something specific or not, except to say that the more specific a god is, the LESS likely I am to believe it. Adding "wears a blue hat" to the above list just in my mind lessens the likelihood of it being true, as it's yet another unevidenced claim.

I would answer, each time: my belief is one of reasoned skepticism.

Do you hold complete knowledge about the things you believe in? No, of course not. Just like you don't regarding the concept of God. There's no difference, except you might have more info to consider from belief to belief.

Your belief is that God doesn't exist and reasoned skepticism is your doctrine.

Yes, of course I do.

Except that I DON'T believe god doesn't exist.

All you need is one instance of the concept of God.



Is God logically coherent and meaningful? I think that's kind of presumptuous to assume, to act like you know something about the characteristics of God. It's not an agnostic or ignostic notion. But people still have beliefs about God, regardless.

No one knows but everyone believes, whether they'll admit it or not.



A lot of it has to do with the personal meaning you give it. People that sit on the same church pew probably have different complete pictures of what God entails, but there is enough common ground for them to stand on that they can attend the same congregation.

Again, you've been exposed to the concept enough to have formed an opinion and belief.

"I believe that God doesn't exist because the concept sounds like nonsense"

Sounds right to me.



Yet the concept of God is a meme, a universally known meme that translates across cultures. It's mysterious, I'll agree, but it's still a concept, one that you can judge to believe or believe not.



I understand that anything could be called God, but you also have to consider the utility in considering something God. Someone could call the desk I'm sitting at God, but why? What purpose does it serve them to say that? Without any purpose, I don't see it happening. But if they do, then that is their belief, and I can believe that they are wrong...or right!

You don't need to be exposed to every concept of God. You just need one.

They are not a part of your beliefs, but your knowledge. You are gnostic regarding those things. You dont' have any knowledge about God, so it remains a part of your belief.



You stated your belief is reasoned skepticism, and that is why you believe God doesn't exist, because accepting God's existence doesn't stand up to your criteria you use that determines whether you'll accept it.

Hmm, I think a lack of belief is a non-position.

There we have it, problem solved

But no one can say they have a lack of belief. But babies and rocks can.

Well have fun talking to babies and rocks then

My point is you think that, but when you ask the actual individuals who you have decided about, you disagree because it does not seem to occur to you their minds do not work the same as yours

The English language is fun to play with, but can interfere with intelligent conversation about important topics. Playing with it too much is a distraction.

I don't think it's a wise thing to accept that people have the ability to not come to a stance when exposed to a notion, like they were never exposed to it to begin with. Like an asteroid as the ability to blow through people's houses, but when it comes to yours, it just bounces off, leaving no mark. Or you were in the middle of a great explosion and everyone around you see's destruction and gore, but you still see your surrounding as it was, like it never happened.

A weak atheist's position is one that denies reality.

I wonder if anyone is going to notice that I dumped a bunch of atheists into the lake the other day?

Sometimes it seems like the best argument believers can come up to is "But You BELIEVE god doesn't exist!"

Really? "You are as bad as I am"? Is that your best argument?