Throughout the years that I have considered myself an atheist, my definition for the term has changed somewhat. Due to constant debate, discussion, and defense of my "beliefs" I've gotten to the point where my position on an omnipotent "god" is pretty fine tuned. Of course, there is always room for refinement. That, in my opinion, is the key difference between me and those I ridicule for their religious beliefs.
In recent months, I've had to explain my position on god and what exactly I believe numerous times. I guess it's about time I laid out my definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Hopefully, this will allow a clearer understanding of my atheism and how it influences my worldview. And hopefully, it will allow us to discuss these things without confusion or cloudy labels.
For starters, I reject the current use of the term "agnostic." Most people understand an agnostic to be someone who isn't sure about god. They don't necessarily believe, but they don't necessarily disbelieve either.
The current understanding of the word "atheist" is someone who knows that there is not a god(s). This position is equal in ignorance and arrogance to those that know that there is a god(s). It is understandable that a distinction between atheists and agnostics was made. For much of history, the denial of the gods of a person's society was blasphemous and usually resulted in some sort of horrible torture and/or death. Finally, and with no thanks to the theists of the world, we've reached a point where those distinctions can finally be discarded and we can actually speak with honesty and without fear of violent repercussion.
I consider myself an atheist. I also consider anyone who currently claims to be an agnostic an atheist. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't explicitly believe in a god(s), then you can't be called anything but an atheist. If we look at the qualifications for being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. they all demand one fundamental belief from their followers; an unquestioning belief in the deity(s) outlined in their holy book of choice. By definition, you cannot be a Christian unless you believe that Jesus was the son of God. You cannot be a Muslim unless you believe that Mohammed was a prophet sent by God. Therefore, anyone who doesn't believe these things cannot be considered a member of the respective religion. This goes for every other religion as well.
Modern agnostics, like most atheists, agree that these things are unknowable. The only real difference between agnostics and atheists is their ability to come to terms with (and more importantly, admit to) the stigma that is attached to the label "atheist." I have never claimed that I know there is no god. In fact, I'm always open to some sort of proof or evidence of a god. As of now, I have yet to hear anything that even borders on convincing. But I will follow the evidence, even if it leads to a god. Unfortunately, not enough people can make the same claim.
That is one of the many gripes I have with theists. Not only are they unwilling to budge on their beliefs in the face of mountains of evidence, but they expect others to to be willfully stubborn with them. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that this evidence disproves god. What much of our scientific evidence challenges is the manner in which each religion claims that the universe, the earth, and humanity, came to be. If, by challenging certain tenets of a particular faith, the evidence does challenge the overall truth of the religion, then so be it. Science may prove religions wrong, but it hasn't (and most likely will never) disproved the existence of a god.
Hopefully this clarifies my position and enables us to continue with our discussions (and shit talking) with a better understanding of each other. I would honestly like to know what you guys believe. I'd appreciate it if you were as specific as possible.
Soulless Quote Of The Week:
"The man of belief is necessarily a dependent man.... He does not belong to himself, but to the author of the idea he believes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
7 comments:
I feel as if you are now writing this blog directly for my benefit. Thank you.
Don't get cocky kid.
Science serves as the vehicle of truth by attempting to explain the "mysteries" of existence and the universe by using procedural methods that can be recreated to attain results solidly grounded on fact. Religion, on the other hand, emphasizes faith as the main justification for the way things are; there are no tangible proofs to the respective religious theories.
I simply cannot believe anything of importance to the human experience based on a hope, wish, or faith alone. Maybe because I'm a product of the Information Age, but I need a solid amount of indisputable facts before I can accept something as highly possible or truth. This is something religion doesn't provide for me with the timeless fail safe - the "faith" explanation. While science doesn't claim to have all the answers,religion does, even without reasonable substantiation.
Maybe there was a time when these theological explantations were plausible but the advances made in human civilization have provided more reasonable, alternative interpretations. In fact there is very little evolution in religion, thus serving as stifles for the course of global progression and advancement. There is no room for adaptation and amendment in religion, so there will never be a more attainable truth than what was written thousands of years ago.
To quote Penn and Teller, "Bullshit!"
This coming from the man that thinks black people are genetically lazy.
Skips - that's not what I said. I said that genetics plays a part into one's socio-economic status, rather than environment being the sole factor. I simply gave an example of a certain tribe in Africa to illustrate a point but I do NOT think black people as a whole are lazy.
For an interesting perspective, do some research on Dr. James Watson.
I think that saying genetics can play a part in socioeconomic status is a safe assumption. But, then again, genetics play some role in literally every single aspect of our lives. I'm curious to what degree you feel that genetics role in socioeconomic status is. At certain extremes, such as debilitating diseases or geniuses, it undoubtedly plays a huge role. But I think many severely overestimate the impact that genetics have on our potential successes or failures in life. I think it's pretty clear that, aside from those extreme circumstances, environment plays a much bigger role in a person's development and their future status in society.
The problem with this timeless debate is that it is really hard to obtain any useful data that can be used to present the different stances more clearly. Belief seems to play a huge part in one's opinion on this matter and that is exactly why the arguments are flawed.
Still, I have a hard time believing that environment occupies a overwhelming percentage as the main determining factor to one's achievements. Undoubtedly, environments can be highly conducive to one's success, but without the genetic traits and makeup that successful people seem to carry, the environment can only take less-gifted people so far. Why do some people in arguably level playing fields excel more than others?
We can argue level of importance in respect to these two sides, but I can't relinquish the idea that genetics is simply a minor aspect to the outcome of one's life.
Post a Comment