Post by jonathanlobl on Sept 9, 2021 14:21:00 GMT -5
Instead of getting lost in definitions; I would like to discuss the intent behind certain labels.
Atheism is about not believing in God. Or gods. That's all it is. Non-Belief. Not even disbelief. An Atheist is someone who has one less god than a Monotheist.
The problem with Atheism as a label is that the pious take it badly. The Atheist label has gotten me into way too many stupid arguments.
Agnosticism can be understood in two different ways. "I don't know whether or not God or gods exist." "I can't know whether or not God/gods exist." The reasoning is simple enough. We have no objective, verifiable facts about God. Or gods. Nothing at all. So the existence of God/gods is not known. Possibly unknowable.
The Agnostic label is popular among people who want to avoid an argument. To my experience, it's a failed strategy. The position of "I don't know" seems to suggest that the matter is under investigation. Or that the Agnostic needs help in making up his mind. Or that the Agnostic is a coward, afraid to take a stand. An underlying assumption is that the question itself is important. That the question of God's existence -- or god's -- is important. That the question actually matters. That the answer actually matters. "I don't know" irritates a lot of people.
Apatheism is different. Apatheism is clear. I don't care whether or not God -- or gods -- exist. Even the question of the existence of God or gods is meaningless. A god that can not be demonstrated to exist, is not important enough to care about. Even if that god actually exists. It puts an end to philosophic rabbit holes.
Of course, any combination is possible. "I don't believe, I don't know and I don't care."
Atheism is about not believing in God. Or gods. That's all it is. Non-Belief. Not even disbelief. An Atheist is someone who has one less god than a Monotheist.
The problem with Atheism as a label is that the pious take it badly. The Atheist label has gotten me into way too many stupid arguments.
Agnosticism can be understood in two different ways. "I don't know whether or not God or gods exist." "I can't know whether or not God/gods exist." The reasoning is simple enough. We have no objective, verifiable facts about God. Or gods. Nothing at all. So the existence of God/gods is not known. Possibly unknowable.
The Agnostic label is popular among people who want to avoid an argument. To my experience, it's a failed strategy. The position of "I don't know" seems to suggest that the matter is under investigation. Or that the Agnostic needs help in making up his mind. Or that the Agnostic is a coward, afraid to take a stand. An underlying assumption is that the question itself is important. That the question of God's existence -- or god's -- is important. That the question actually matters. That the answer actually matters. "I don't know" irritates a lot of people.
Apatheism is different. Apatheism is clear. I don't care whether or not God -- or gods -- exist. Even the question of the existence of God or gods is meaningless. A god that can not be demonstrated to exist, is not important enough to care about. Even if that god actually exists. It puts an end to philosophic rabbit holes.
Of course, any combination is possible. "I don't believe, I don't know and I don't care."