We can not know that god exists, and we can not know that god does not exist. There are good cultural and psychological reasons for believing in god, and for not believing in god. The problem the individual has is resolving the conflict between logic and faith. Your friend isn't a moron for thinking belief in god, atheism, and agnosticism are incompatible. And you are not a moron for finding some way to cover over incompatibility.

Religion has value whether god exists or not, and if you find some use for religious teaching--even though you don't believe in god--well and good.

I was raised as a Christian (nothing I can do about that) but I don't believe that god exists. It's a major contradiction in my life to which there doesn't seem to be a neat solution. I have found that people are good, bad, and indifferent without respect to what they believe about god.

I have found that people are good, bad, and indifferent without respect to what they believe about god. — Bitter Crank

Isn't that the truth!

I'd be skeptical of the assumption, shared by theists and atheists alike, that things including gods can only exist or not exist, one or the other.

I'd be skeptical of the assumption that anybody on any side has any idea what they're talking about when it comes to issues the scale of gods.

I'd be skeptical of calling your friends morons in public. :smile:

the skeptic speaks logic

Hello, recently I started discussion with a friend. I have told him I don't reject theism although I am atheist. He didn't understand what I meant by this. I am agnostic atheist. I live like god never exists but I don't reject his being because it's possible he exists. — Katarynka

You aren't an Atheist. You're an Agnostic.

Your friend is right: There's no such thing as an Agnostic Atheist. ...as there isn't a square circle.

Michael Ossipoff\

There is something like agnostic atheist. Agnosticism just say we can't know for sure there is no god so me as atheist can be a agnostic too.

The way I resolved this conflict was to assume that God and religion was a projection from the collective aspects of the human psyche. In that sense, this is real since it is connected to the brain's personality firmware. But as a projection, it is not tangible like an object, but more like a living movie that shines onto physical reality. This affect was more conscious in ancient times when the gods ruled the realm of man.

This experience came to me when I was dabbling into Eastern Mysticism. I was doing some advanced meditation and Kundalini Yoga techniques and strange things started to happen. The most dramatic was a feeling that I was about to leave my body. It felt very real and create panic in me.

It was more unsettling to assume it was physically real, than to assume it was a type of hallucination rom the unconscious mind. After that experience I stopped the meditation and started to investigate this data via Jungian psychology. One thing led to another until I noticed the parallel to religious symbolism and my own mapping of the psyche. The bible, if taken as symbolism tells off the various updates in the brain's firmware.

Religion also contains command lines that allow access to hidden resources. Faith and feelings associated are sort of the ancient passwords to allow various access. This is more obvious in Eastern Mysticism. Faith needs to be heart felt to work.

The skeptic assiduously avoids becoming mired in the concrete of rectitude and certainty. That is to say, she studiously maintains an open mind.

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of "Atheist":

"One who believes that there is no deity."

That meaning has been in use since the year 1551.

Houghton Mifflin Dictionary's definition of "Atheist":

"One who denies the existence of God."

That's what "Atheist" has always meant. ...going back, as I said, to the year 1551.

Nowadays there are lots of people who express Agnosticism, but refer to themselves as Atheists. They can use "Atheist" with their own definition if they want to, but they must understand that they're using that word contrary to its long-accepted meaning.

If you aren't sure if there's God, or aren't taking a position on the matter, then you're an Agnostic, but not an Atheist.

That's true whether you believe that the matter is un-knowable, or whether you just personally aren't sure, but don't necessarily consider the matter to be un-knowable.

No one would say that you should believe what you don't know of reason to believe.

It's my impression and feeling that Reality is good, and that there's good intent behind Reality, and that Reality is good intent.

It's an impression, a feeling, and I don't assert it or argue it, and I can't prove it. ...but though it's an impression and a feeling, it's an impression and feeling that I don't doubt.

So, call me unscientific. Science only applies to the physical universe.

When I say "metaphysics", I mean verbal metaphysics, about what's describable and explainable. Reality isn't describable or explainable, or a topic for argument or debate

For that reason, I call myself a Theist.

Michael Ossipoff

The skeptic assiduously avoids becoming mired in the concrete of rectitude and certainty. That is to say, she studiously maintains an open mind. — gloaming

In mathematics, logic, and metaphysics there are certainties.

I suggest that vague speculation has no place in the metaphysics of the describable (...which is what I mean by "metaphysics").

You're right to not assert or argue about Reality. ...as I don't.

And, as i told Katarynka, no one would say that you should believe what you don't know of reason to believe. ...but neither should you get assertive about the matter...even about skepticism.

By "asserted skepticism", I mean an asserted position that skepticism is necessary, or the only "right" attitude, belief or position on a matter, or that anyone who doesn't share one's skepticism is wrong.

Even asserted-skepticism is a position, and, in the matter of Reality, no position is assertable, arguable or provable.

Skepticism is justified, as a rejection of unsupported positions about matters that are subject to argument, debate, description and explanation.

Personal-skepticism, as opposed to asserted-skepticism, is right whenever one doesn't know of a reason to for belief on a matter.

In the matter of Reality, a matter about which there can only be impressions or feelings, asserted-skepticism is as out-of-place as any other assertion.

Michael Ossipoff





.

Though I don't argue the Theism vs Atheism issue, because I don't regard it as that kind of a matter, I sometimes comment to Atheists about the desirability of knowing what one is asserting.

Among Theists, there are all kinds of different beliefs, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism.

Of course, the God of the Biblical-Lliteralists is, for Atheists, the One-True-God that Atheists so vocally believe in disbelieving in.

But don't presume to believe that you know what all Theists believe,or what they mean when they speak of God. And, without knowing what every Theist believes and means, can you really take a position regarding their (unknown to you) beliefs?

So I'm suggesting just a bit of modesty and humility. Unless you really know and understand the beliefs and meanings of all Theists, then modesty calls for not overgeneralizing and asserting about all of their many different and various beliefs

I suggest that there's very little that can be said about Reality, and that it isn't a matter to debate or argue.

So, if y9u want to be scientific, then be scientific about science. If you want to be logical, then be logical about logic, mathematics, or verbal metaphysics of the describable.

Michael Ossipoff

"Atheism" used to have the stronger sense of positive belief that God doesn't exist, and that's usually how religious people understsand it, as a positive denial of God's existence. Your friend probably has that at the back of their mind.

Recently, the fashion has been to call "Atheism" what used to be called "Agnosticism" (the "I simply lack belief because I haven't found the arguments convincing" idea). So the whole thing is a bit muddled now, with so-called "Atheists" (actually Agnostics) and Theists arguing at cross-purposes a lot of the time.

Recently, the fashion has been to call "Atheism" what used to be called "Agnosticism" (the "I simply lack belief because I haven't found the arguments convincing" idea). So the whole thing is a bit muddled now, with so-called "Atheists" (actually Agnostics) and Theists arguing at cross-purposes a lot of the time. — gurugeorge

But this is a form of disingenuousness. If one hasn't found the arguments convincing (either way) then one lacks a belief that there is God and also lacks a belief that there is not God; and this is agnosticism (with the additional caveat that in this basic form it is a weak agnosticism since agnosticism proper claims that we cannot know whether there is a god or not). If one wants to say that they default to the belief that there is not a God on account of not having a belief that there is a God, then this is atheism. (And again we could pick out a contrast between weak and strong atheism; with the strong form claiming that we can know there is no God, or that there could not possibly be God).

But this is a form of disingenuousness. — Janus

I don't know whether it's disingenuous, it was probably an instinctive move by "Atheists" to shift the goalposts to make winning formal arguments against nonplussed religious believers easier on call-in radio shows and the like :)

Agreed.

Michael Ossipoff

It seems to me that there is nothing deeper to this argument than your rather idiosyncratic language. Usually, to say that I "reject" a proposition does not commit me to a stance of absolute certainty, it just means that I consider the proposition to be dubious at best. Which means that, in order to be performatively consistent with my own beliefs, I'll live my life as if I believed the proposition to be false, just as you said of yourself.

it was probably an instinctive move by "Atheists" to shift the goalposts to make winning formal arguments against nonplussed religious believers easier on call-in radio shows and the like — gurugeorge

But wouldn't that count as being disingenuous?

What if someone believes there is a God or God's and another part of them believes there is not?
@Janus

But wouldn't that count as being disingenuous? — Janus

Not if it was instinctive (by that I just mean the idea being "in the air" and people following it like a fashion - I remember it happening some time in the early to mid-80s).

Fair enough distinction; ideas cannot be in themselves disingenuous, I suppose.

What if someone believes there is a God or God's and another part of them believes there is not? — Blue Lux

Yes, I get the feeling that that's true of a lot of people at this forum.

A lot of people don't want the Materialist label, but nevertheless want to be what they perceive as scientific. In general, a lot of people don't want to commit to a position, and are phobic about labels.

I'd say that such a person is an Agnostic.

Michael Ossipoff

I think it is not unheard of for a person to have two, contradictory ideas.

I think in pychology it is called cognitive dissonance...

But I don't think it is a problem really... I think everyone is a multiplicity of conceptions, and the fact of ambiguity permeates all of human personality.

Freud says "Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity."