Sure, some folks don’t believe in the scientific method, or don’t comprehend the issues that (arguably*) drove Cantor and Godel mad, or disagree with Spinoza’s semantics or the fundamental axioms of set theory as presented in his proof. But you don’t have to accept Spinoza (or Leibnitz, or Einstein, or Sagan, or Cantor, etc.) to see that @jerwin’s post contains a hidden theological argument based on an unstated claim to knowledge (i.e. it is known that “the Universe and God are not identical”) so it’s simply not an agnostic statement.
It’s very tricky (and mostly uninteresting) to talk about divinity without referencing some definition of the word “God”. And your definition of god is your theology. You might not think you have a definition of god, but if you look really closely, you probably do. And if you are from the USA and have not seriously studied comparative religion, your definition of God is almost certainly some damn foolishness cribbed from the Christian Bible… which is why most American atheists are easily classified as Judeo-Christian heretics - they acknowledge biblical authority to define what god is, and accept no substitutes for the mythical sky-man they are so gung-ho for denying, which makes them part of the Judeo-Christian traditional belief system, just like Satanists are. Meaning no insult to Judeo-Christian heretics, or heretics in general!
Sorry about the hideous run-on sentence there. I hope it’s comprehensible.
We agree that atheism – even when not specifying which specific theisms one is rejecting – is itself a religious belief. Asserting that a set is null requires defining the set.
I have run into a (very, very) few cases where a person was both agnostic and atheist; these people weren’t capable of (or interested in) discussing their beliefs, other than to say that they had no personal god and did not agree with any of the religious people who had tried to convince them of a particular theology. I think that’s usually called “weak atheism” or “strong agnosticism” although I could be wrong. That sort of person will never say “there is no god” although they might readily say “I don’t believe in YOUR god”.
I would say 99.99 percent (repeating!) of atheists fit your description, though. I find that as soon as a person starts trying to communicate categorical beliefs based on lack of evidence it’s very unconvincing for them to pretend they don’t have any faith-based beliefs.
That’s the core of it, indeed. Belief provably does matter - to a believer. Many studies have claimed to prove you are more likely to be healthy, wealthy and wise (or at least more likely to be satisfied with not being all those, which is why Marx’s famous epigram) if you have some sort of spiritual dimension to your life.
I personally find it difficult to believe in a God that is so pettily anthropomorphic in persona that She would actually care about my religious beliefs, though.
But if you are interested in improving your quality of life, you might want to find God. Unfortunately, many well-accepted religions do so much harm to society that the benefits to individuals are not worth the cost. In my opinion, anyway.
No, come on, theology shouldn’t be the semantics of how you choose to apply a particular syllable; words are already defined by usage. The term “god” can cover a spectrum of meanings but refusing to define it as meaning “cheese sandwiches, unless they have pickles” is only asking people to communicate in normal terms.
If you want to take “god” as meaning the universe, I imagine most atheists would agree that exists but question what supposed properties make you apply a term most English-speakers use in a different way. Because presumably you’re implying some point of conceptual similarity, which they might or might not believe; if you’re genuinely not, saying that concept is better called “universe” is not taking a stand on the nature of reality, just words.
When most people say they don’t believe in a god, they’re saying they don’t believe in things most listeners would call gods. That could involve some theological assumptions, but really in general, it’s good practice if you’re speaking English.
No, really, regardless of what it “should” be, theology is fundamentally about explaining how some person or group defines divinity and (as a consequence) mankind’s relationship to the divine. Your definition of god is the purest, most fundamental form of your theology.
People who insist that only their definition of God is valid, are called religious bigots… and they are a source of great suffering in this world. Don’t let them dictate to you! You are allowed to have your own theology, no matter how ridiculous it is, even if it involves spooky skyman penises impregnating virgins. Most mainstream religions have gods and practices that make significantly less sense than worshipping cheese sandwiches and have less meaningful liturgical minutiae than banning pickles, but that’s not universally true.
EDIT:. Been busy in meatspace, and thus could not reply to @chenille again before topic close.
@chenille & @LDoBe, I don’t think you’ve understood a single word I’ve said. Sorry I was unable to explain it to you in the time I had available. Perhaps some other time.
No, because you’re still mixing what people believe with how they use a word, and they’re not the same. Sure, how a Christian defines the deity they believe in is important to their theology. But they might also call Apollo and Thor gods without it saying anything about their theology; it only means they’ve agreed to refer to them by the common English term.
I wasn’t so much as suggesting someone might want to worship sandwiches; that you brought it up suggests that’s something you think is at least implied by calling them gods. I don’t think that would be bigotry on your part, but rather an understanding of English. People should be able to form their own conceptions of things, but a word without any agreed implications is just empty sound.
So again: when most people say they do or don’t believe in gods, they mean the sort of conceptions their listeners might call by that name. That doesn’t mean they’ve adopted other people’s theology, only that they are trying to use common language.
Russel’s teapot my friend. Just because I can conceive of a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri doesn’t mean that I must believe in it. Likewise, the fact that I don’t believe there’s a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri doesn’t preclude me from an agnostic position of saying it’s possible that there could be a teapot there. The atheistic part of the view says “I don’t believe there’s a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri”, the agnostic part says “I can’t prove there is or isn’t a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri”, and even though it’s untestable, I’m most likely right, and would be embarrassed as hell to be proven wrong. But that proof is up to the people making claims about the existence of a teapot orbiting a distant star.
I’m sick and tired of the undeserved respect religion gets. If I said that everyone who drinks diet sodas will go to hell, but if they believe a cat I had 30 years ago was ritualistically sacrificed and came back to life so that people who believe in the story can drink diet soda and not go to hell, everyone would think I’m insane.
The only reason religion is respected is due to the fact that humans evolved to take mental shortcuts all the time so they could rapidly make decisions in everyday situations where time was a factor in their survival.
