Atheism

[phyllo]

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience. So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

So it is better to claim an arrogant certainty? That is the "badge of honor"? That is preferable to being open to other possibilities if the evidence presents itself?

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism itself has no creed to speak of. It is simply a position which has the identifying statement "lacking belief in God(s)."

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism" -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist." As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience. So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

Here is how [a]theism started [> 3000 years ago?].

• Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

From the above, Psalm 14:1 triggered desperate believers to coin the term 'atheist' [one word for convenience instead of a narrative] to represent the "fools" as [a]theists in a very pejorative manner; this is with reference to those fools who do not believe in God.

Sorry: this is nonsense. You don't know a thing about it, obviously. Let me help you out, there.

Here's the real etymology:

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

The truth is that "Atheist" is a Greek word, as its form reveals; it was not at all invented by the writer of the Psalms, who was a Hebrew. It does not appear in association with Psalm 14, nor did it appear until much later. In fact, later polytheists used it to describe not people who believed in no gods at all, but rather anybody who was insufficiently reverent to all the many gods the Greeks believed in. In fact, the early Christians were condemned as "Atheists" by the Romans, because they believed in only one God, and not in the many gods of the Greeks and Romans.

The term 'atheist' originated somewhere around the 15th century.

I see how you think this is right: you're talking about its English usage, not its usage in Greek or in the ancient world. But it's not right. It didn't originate there, nor did the concept.

However, what the Psalm says is certainly right.

[Gary Childress]

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism" -- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist." As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience. So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

Here is how [a]theism started [> 3000 years ago?].

• Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

From the above, Psalm 14:1 triggered desperate believers to coin the term 'atheist' [one word for convenience instead of a narrative] to represent the "fools" as [a]theists in a very pejorative manner; this is with reference to those fools who do not believe in God.

Sorry: this is nonsense. You don't know a thing about it, obviously. Let me help you out, there.

Here's the real etymology:

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

The truth is that "Atheist" is a Greek word, as its form reveals; it was not at all invented by the writer of the Psalms, who was a Hebrew. It does not appear in association with Psalm 14, nor did it appear until much later. In fact, later polytheists used it to describe not people who believed in no gods at all, but rather anybody who was insufficiently reverent to all the many gods the Greeks believed in. In fact, the early Christians were condemned as "Atheists" by the Romans, because they believed in only one God, and not in the many gods of the Greeks and Romans.

The term 'atheist' originated somewhere around the 15th century.

I see how you think this is right: you're talking about its English usage, not its usage in Greek or in the ancient world. But it's not right. It didn't originate there, nor did the concept.

However, what the Psalm says is certainly right.

I'm not sure about the term "atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind. It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least). As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more technologically advanced societies.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure about the term "Atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind.

The etymological sources don't mention them, it seems. If you know of them, I'd be interested in knowing who said what when about that.

But I don't think there's anything special about the concept of wondering whether the idea of God or gods is made up -- especially in a situation like the Greeks had, where they didn't have one god but many, and all behaving like actors in a cheap soap opera...chasing mortal women, falling asleep, having hissy fits, and so on, and also having both an origin-story and a death-of-the-gods legend. If those were their "gods," then who wouldn't wonder if they were all made up? I would.

It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least).

Very true. Anybody who questioned the "gods" was damned as impious, and usually killed.

As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more advanced societies.

That's what people used to think, espeically back in the 18th Century, when science and the Industrial Revolution were new phenomena, and everything about them seemed so shiny and good. "Maybe," some thought, "science is all we're going to need."

But history didn't play out that way, at all...two world wars, among other things, settled the question of whether science and technology were universal forces for good that would precipitate us out of the "Dark Ages" into "enlightenment" forever. It turned out that science needed a boss...needed ethics, morality and limits, or it was just as capable of manufacturing factories of death as it was of manufacturing cars. And we still haven't really discovered the solution of how to control science.

The truth is that science never could tell us anything about the most important questions, like, "Why are we here," or "What is right and wrong," or "What is the meaning of life," or "What should we do," "What ought we not to do," "What do we owe each other," "What is a 'human right'?" or "What is a mind/soul," "Why is a picture beautiful," "What is the good society," or even "Does the human race deserve to survive?" In point of fact, the scientific method couldn't even tell us, "What should science itself be for, and what ought it never to do?" In such areas, it's been utterly incapable of making any progress since the beginning. So as great as science is, it seems its only great in a particular range of areas, and unable to speak at all on some others that are so important that none of us can ever live without them, apparently.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure about the term "Atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind.

The etymological sources don't mention them, it seems. If you know of them, I'd be interested in knowing who said what when about that.

But I don't think there's anything special about the concept of wondering whether the idea of God or gods is made up -- especially in a situation like the Greeks had, where they didn't have one god but many, and all behaving like actors in a cheap soap opera...chasing mortal women, falling asleep, having hissy fits, and so on, and also having both an origin-story and a death-of-the-gods legend. If those were their "gods," then who wouldn't wonder if they were all made up? I would.

It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least).

Very true. Anybody who questioned the "gods" was damned as impious, and usually killed.

As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more advanced societies.

That's what people used to think, espeically back in the 18th Century, when science and the Industrial Revolution were new phenomena, and everything about them seemed so shiny and good. "Maybe," some thought, "science is all we're going to need."

But history didn't play out that way, at all...two world wars, among other things, settled the question of whether science and technology were universal forces for good that would precipitate us out of the "Dark Ages" into "enlightenment" forever. It turned out that science needed a boss...needed ethics, morality and limits, or it was just as capable of manufacturing factories of death as it was of manufacturing cars. And we still haven't really discovered the solution of how to control science.

The truth is that science never could tell us anything about the most important questions, like, "Why are we here," or "What is right and wrong," or "What is the meaning of life," or "What should we do," "What ought we not to do," "What do we owe each other," "What is a 'human right'?" or "What is a mind/soul," "Why is a picture beautiful," "What is the good society," or even "Does the human race deserve to survive?" In point of fact, the scientific method couldn't even tell us, "What should science itself be for, and what ought it never to do?" In such areas, it's been utterly incapable of making any progress since the beginning. So as great as science is, it seems its only great in a particular range of areas, and unable to speak at all on some others that are so important that none of us can ever live without them, apparently.

I suppose the human mind needs some sort of restraint, a final authority to whom it will ultimately bow or be held accountable. Otherwise, I suppose there would be those who would do pretty much anything on a whim that we wanted. Of course, needing a god and having a god that exists may be two separate aspects of the issue. One may not necessarily depend upon the other. And with the (hopeful) safety of a god who looks out for us seems to also come packaged with a being who punishes for transgressions. How strict or picky God is concerning what will be punished seems to differ between some religious outlooks.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose the human mind needs some sort of restraint, a final authority to whom it will ultimately bow or be held accountable. Otherwise, I suppose there would be those who would do pretty much anything on a whim that we wanted.

Not just that. Science would increase our power to do both good and evil. "What we wanted" would become crucial, then. And it seems that a lot of what people "want" is to harm, dominate, enslave, murder and otherwise mistreat those who get in their way. So it's all the more important, as we grow more and more powerful, that we know what the legitimate and illegitimate uses of our power really are.

Of course, needing a god and having a god that exists may be two separate aspects of the issue.

Of course.

Likewise, not wanting a God to exist doesn't make Him stop existing, if He does.

And with the (hopeful) safety of a god who looks out for us seems to also come packaged with a being who punishes for transgressions.

In some ways, the two are actually the same. For example, if God were "looking out for us," then how could he let evil rage unrestrained forever? That doesn't seem either very caring or very just, does it? And if God were "looking out for us," how could He fail to make it possible for us to get ourselves right with Him, by holding us to some standard that would make that possible? So justice and mercy are not opposites but corellates.

How strict or picky God is concerning what will be punished seems to differ between some religious outlooks.

Very much so. Some depict their concept of "god" as very rigid and harsh, but not particularly merciful. Others depict their concept of "god" as totally pliable, soft and loving, but uninterested in justice or truth. But it seems to me that any full understanding of God has to comprehend both corellates, and give a credible account of them.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose the human mind needs some sort of restraint, a final authority to whom it will ultimately bow or be held accountable. Otherwise, I suppose there would be those who would do pretty much anything on a whim that we wanted.

Not just that. Science would increase our power to do both good and evil. "What we wanted" would become crucial, then. And it seems that a lot of what people "want" is to harm, dominate, enslave, murder and otherwise mistreat those who get in their way. So it's all the more important, as we grow more and more powerful, that we know what the legitimate and illegitimate uses of our power really are.

Of course, needing a god and having a god that exists may be two separate aspects of the issue.

Of course.

Likewise, not wanting a God to exist doesn't make Him stop existing, if He does.

And with the (hopeful) safety of a god who looks out for us seems to also come packaged with a being who punishes for transgressions.

In some ways, the two are actually the same. For example, if God were "looking out for us," then how could he let evil rage unrestrained forever? That doesn't seem either very caring or very just, does it? And if God were "looking out for us," how could He fail to make it possible for us to get ourselves right with Him, by holding us to some standard that would make that possible? So justice and mercy are not opposites but corellates.

How strict or picky God is concerning what will be punished seems to differ between some religious outlooks.

Very much so. Some depict their concept of "god" as very rigid and harsh, but not particularly merciful. Others depict their concept of "god" as totally pliable, soft and loving, but uninterested in justice or truth. But it seems to me that any full understanding of God has to comprehend both corellates, and give a credible account of them.

All that seems like a pretty fair assessment to me.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose the human mind needs some sort of restraint, a final authority to whom it will ultimately bow or be held accountable. Otherwise, I suppose there would be those who would do pretty much anything on a whim that we wanted.

Not just that. Science would increase our power to do both good and evil. "What we wanted" would become crucial, then. And it seems that a lot of what people "want" is to harm, dominate, enslave, murder and otherwise mistreat those who get in their way. So it's all the more important, as we grow more and more powerful, that we know what the legitimate and illegitimate uses of our power really are.

Of course, needing a god and having a god that exists may be two separate aspects of the issue.

Of course.

Likewise, not wanting a God to exist doesn't make Him stop existing, if He does.

And with the (hopeful) safety of a god who looks out for us seems to also come packaged with a being who punishes for transgressions.

In some ways, the two are actually the same. For example, if God were "looking out for us," then how could he let evil rage unrestrained forever? That doesn't seem either very caring or very just, does it? And if God were "looking out for us," how could He fail to make it possible for us to get ourselves right with Him, by holding us to some standard that would make that possible? So justice and mercy are not opposites but corellates.

How strict or picky God is concerning what will be punished seems to differ between some religious outlooks.

Very much so. Some depict their concept of "god" as very rigid and harsh, but not particularly merciful. Others depict their concept of "god" as totally pliable, soft and loving, but uninterested in justice or truth. But it seems to me that any full understanding of God has to comprehend both corellates, and give a credible account of them.

All that seems like a pretty fair assessment to me.

Great.

[VVilliam]

Atheism itself has no creed to speak of. It is simply a position which has the identifying statement "lacking belief in God(s)."

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"

I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.

-- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."

Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.

As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.

As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.

So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.

I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.

For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.

I understand that sounds like the I am being my own trumpeter, and perhaps suffering from a bout of cognitive bias and in that I do not apologize because I have seen through the Agnostic Position that every personality no matter what the position, trumpets and suffers the same, and they ain't 'pologize either, so all else being equal, assumpt the most best position 'vaiable to me to honestly deal with that aspect of the equation.

The Strongest Position possible under the ongoing circumstance...

[phyllo]

I suppose the human mind needs some sort of restraint, a final authority to whom it will ultimately bow or be held accountable. Otherwise, I suppose there would be those who would do pretty much anything on a whim that we wanted.

But one can't go to that authority and get an evaluation.

And nothing stops you from following your whims.

Of course, needing a god and having a god that exists may be two separate aspects of the issue.

Then there is the other separate aspect ... the nature of a god that does exist.

And with the (hopeful) safety of a god who looks out for us seems to also come packaged with a being who punishes for transgressions.

There is no direct correlation between "transgression" and "punishment".

Evil people prosper. Good people suffer.

How strict or picky God is concerning what will be punished seems to differ between some religious outlooks.

And how do they know?

[VVilliam]

I'm not sure about the term "atheist" itself, but I recall a few early pre-socratic Greek philosophers believing that gods were inventions of the human mind. It seems that most early civilizations had predominant religious beliefs among their citizens in one form or another, and being an atheist didn't win a person a lot of favor (to say the least). As science has advanced it seems like atheism has become more popular with eminent scholars and thinkers than it once was and has become more acceptable overall in some of the more technologically advanced societies.

As an Agnostic my view understands that while we all start of as atheists we choose one of 3 Positions (see my prior post for details) and what is being described is a shift toward the Materialism Position where those who have made up their minds have voted "We do not exist within a created thing, therefore there is no need of any gods."
They are not (strictly speaking) "Atheists" any more having moved from that natural default, naturally enough.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism itself has no creed to speak of. It is simply a position which has the identifying statement "lacking belief in God(s)."

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"

I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

-- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."

Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.

I've found that agnostics generally know what they are, but Atheists don't always want to be known as Atheists.

And with good reason: Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism can at least be reasonable. The problem, though, for the Atheist, is that saying, "I'm agnostic" doesn't do much to convince anybody else, or even to assure oneself that one is right. So it makes the Atheist's position much weaker than many Atheists would like it to be.

As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.

I'm not sure I see the logic of that last statement. How what does "have philosophy" mean? I know people who DO philosophy...and I have met those who have specific philosophies in mind. I've never met anybody who just "had philosophy," without further specification. It's a bit like saying somebody "has religion," without saying which one.

But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.

The problem for the Atheist, then, is how to get the strength of statement without exposing the irrationalism. And this is the way they tend to do it: they call themselves Atheists when they want to attack, but only defend as if they were only agnostics.

The truth is, they really need to sort themselves out. "Lacking belief" is only strong enough as a claim to warrant agnosticism. "I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.

As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.

Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God. That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.

I agree, actually: Theistic beliefs can be held blindly. People sometimes do that. But Atheism always is.

Can agnosticism be blind? Can we insist we don't know things, when we really do know them, or should know them, or have available all the good reasons to know them but refuse to know them? I suppose it can, too.

So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.

Yes, it needs more. And I think we can tell what it would be.

Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist." And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God." In both cases, it's the second clause that makes the ideological position clear; the first clause is identical, so doesn't tell us which we're dealing with.

I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.

We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods? It's really the Atheism that is learned, not instinctive. We don't even find Atheism as a major ideology capable of influencing a whole society until pretty much the 18th Century, and even then, only in Europe.

Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess. But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly. He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.

The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"? But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"? But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.

The world as it is — the biological, the physical world — in itself does not express god. I mean that for the world and all its denizens (trees, hummingbirds, a molecule, a volcano) no god exists.

The world as it is is thoroughly terrifying in its non-concern. An asteroid could arrive tomorrow, destroy everything, and no one in the cosmos would bat an eye. A tsunami could destroy the West Coast and nature would not care. It would be an event without meaning.

If this world, the world as we know it to be, is god’s handiwork then that god is actually more demonic than angelic (employing these terms of human consciousness and perception).

You cannot derive a god from this world, as it is, that appears in any sense just, logical, or in any sense comparable to any visualized gods of human history. The god that is (i.e. reality) is absolutely incommensurable with the Christian god-concept.

That god has no place in the real world. I mean that nothing in the real world presents a god at all like the Christian god.

For this reason Christians must say that the devil rules the world as we know it. And therefore that for a Christian the only hope is an after- or other-world.

The world as it is (biologically, materially) will never change. Indeed it cannot change!

The only argument of Christians (since here that is our sole constant reference) is that “there must have been a god who put everything in motion” (created all).

There are no other arguments that support the belief that the world is Christian. I.e. the handiwork of a benevolent god. What I mean is evidentiary arguments: like the proofs of Euclid.

Faith and belief are very strange, very complex, psychological states peculiar solely to man. On one side delusional and three-quarters mad; on the other lofty positions of purely human-grounded idealism.

Christian metaphysics (the stuff of the faith) is human idealism. As such it does not require a god. It is all choice not ‘magic’.

Atheism is a realistic and I’d say mature decision of a grounded, rational man. Faith and belief are not needed to be ethical, decent and forthright.

Agnosticism means, effectively, nothing in particular. There is nothing decisive in it (as a position). It is likely a road moving from irrational faith-belief to non-faith and non-belief.

In summation, I have concluded that the position of our Chief Apologist here is itself dishonest and irrational.

And as a response what I propose here is 1) far more honest and 2) more rational — though life is not rational and a rational stance is not necessarily the best response to Life.

[Immanuel Can]

The world as it is — the biological, the physical world — in itself does not express god.

And yet, both Torah (Ps. 19, e.g.) and the NT (Rm. 1, e.g.) say it does. And I see it, and I think it does.

So what is wrong with your eyes?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are (in my view) a “sick puppy” Immanuel. You provide a way for us (i.e. people with our inclinations) to see both faith and belief (of the sort you champion) as pathological.

You ask why I don’t see what you see, and the answer is because I face you. I confront you. You are — and this is weird! — the dispeller of illusions.

Meaning that consciousness itself encounters you and is forced to transcend your limitation.