Nah, I agree with Mordoth only in the sense that Atheism is just the opposite extreme; utter denial of ANYTHING is the height of arrogance and oversimplification; who is to say that we know enough to entirely refute anything spiritual/supernatural? Just stay open-minded about the things we can't understand! Agnosticism FTW.
Not so at all, my friend. Sure, there are very
strong atheists who insist, with as much conviction as an evengelical Christian, that god absolutely does not exist, but that is a rarity. To be an atheist simply means that you are not adopting a belief in a god, that you are simply
not a theist. It's not even an opposing or alternative point of view - it's the absence of one.
(Insisting that a completely untestable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, and unverifiable assertion is
true is alot more arrogant than assuming it isn't until proven otherwise.
)
Relate theism in general to some other practice or institution.....let's say astrology. If someone chooses not to buy into astrology, they don't have to adopt an alternative practice to take its place - you just get by without it. That's what atheism is. It's a meaningless word - a placeholder of sorts - simply to suggest one's non-involvement in theism. We don't go around calling everybody a-astrologists, but it would mean the same thing.
I cannot prove that god does not exist, and therefore my point of view is not based on the assertion that he doesn't. His existence cannot be proven or disproven, much like that of unicorns and leprechauns, and so I treat all such matters with the same attitude. Until strong evidence is presented for them, they are not worthy of intelligent consideration.
And concerning agnosticism, it's not more sensible than atheism because it's
not an alternative. It is at best a
modifier. Every human being who is honest would have to proclaim agnosticism, including theists and atheists alike. To
insist that you know the answer is eliciting blind faith on either side of the argument. But that doesn't mean you have to hide behind ambiguity....
Think of it this way:
If someone insisted that invisible, undetectable unicorns existed, since you could neither prove nor disprove this contention - would you have to lend equal credence to either possibility? I don't think so, and most everyone would agree with me. Extroardinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on those who make the assertion. It's the same with unicorns, faries, leprechauns, extremely ugly dudes who claim to have fucked supermodels and omnipotent deities. People may have compartmentalized their minds to secure religion from this sort of logical thinking, but not I, and not the majority of people who call themselves atheists.
Those who reject the term "atheism" and chose to wallow in ambiguity by calling themselves agnostics are showing that compartmentalized reverence towards religion, not pure logic. It's understandable - and I was stuck there myself for many years - but it's not a defendable point of view.
And considering
anything spiritual or supernatural. I have as open a mind to that as I do towards anything else. Show me convincing evidence and I'll be right there with you. I have not
concluded that nothing supernatural exists, I am simply operating on a logical assumption.
My motto is: Keep an open mind - but not so open that your brain falls out.
