Pelican Parts Forums - Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Atheism. Outlived its usefulness? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/424735-atheism-outlived-its-usefulness.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 4117443)

That's it in a nutshell, on all counts. I've maintained over and over again that true atheism requires precisely the same sort of leap of faith that, well, "faith" requires. Both sides make unsupportable statements, based purely upon their feelings and predispositions. Attempting to label one side or the other as "rational", or attempting to elevate one side over the other as a component of rational thought, or an outcome of rational thought, was a non-starter from the get-go. Like I mentioned earlier, the clear implication is that is one side is rational, the other is not. Following that logic, one can only conclude that one side is valid, and the other is not. The very premise of this thread is no more than a very thinly veiled attempt at establishing that pecking order. Atheism is valid, theism is not. I think our discussion has pretty thoroughly debunked that.

So where does that leave us? Our former atheists are all jumping on the agnostic bandwagon. Maybe some were there already, and were merely confusing the two terms. I know I have freely (and erroneously) mixed the two terms; perhaps we were seeing a bit of that. I think in colloquial use, "atheist" really means "agnostic", or at least it does with the "atheists" I have met personally. Every one of them is open to the idea of a God, they just feel as though they have not seen convincing evidence for one. They could be swayed. True atheists cannot. They are rather irrational that way.

So, with agnosticism being far more "rational" than atheism, can it occupy the same "either/or" slot in rationality as some were hoping atheism could? Can agnosticism push theism out of the realm of rationality, and occupy it solely as far as an answer to "is there a God?" I don't think so. While it is certainly rational, it is neither fish nor fowl, black nor white, and cannot claim exclusive domain. There is room for theism in rational thought. They can, in fact, happily coexist.

Its good to see you making an argument Jeff. But this lets you down. “Our former atheists are all jumping on the agnostic bandwagon. Maybe some were there already, and were merely confusing the two terms.” Most of us are pretty clear on our various views- it’s in a defiintioanl sense that we are out out of step. This is the very point of the question which kicked off this thread, the essence of it. Theists you see, are only one flavour of faith based whackery that rationals must deal with.

I will claim agnosticism, more correctly, agnostic atheism- because I wont concede a position of faith. I wont say there is no god- I don’t have to. As long as say, Christians and Muslims deny each others gods, or all the gods that have existed before -and theists say there are no orbiting teapots or garden faeries, the point is moot. There is the same evidence for all these things as there is for any particlaur god. Its a quite quandary for the faithful, really.

We are all atheists- I just believe in one god less than you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 4117459)

Childish, and unnecessary.

You lost me. How was that "childish and unnecessary?" I'm trying to get a handle on where you guys stand on this - atheist or agnostic? I see two of you are now proclaiming yourselves agnostic. I rather suspected you were all along, you came out and said you were, and now I'm childish for acknowledging that??? What gives?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 4117459)

I'm a pansy-azzed agnostic! My viewpoint is that there is no supporting evidence for a god, therefore, I go on in life without a god as my personal crutch/invisible friend/whatever. If someone at sometime produces evidence of a god, well, I guess I'll look at the evidence and consider the possibility that one exists if the evidence is compelling. I might not choose to worship this hypothetical god, and I might just continue living as I currently am. We'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 4117459)

Well I'll call myself one. Its a fact- we cant say THERE IS NO GOD. We cant, without invoking an argument from faith. And that was the point of this thread. "Atheist"defines a positon, a line in the sand- but its narrow and only deals with theism.

I readily acknowledge agnosticism as rational. How could I not? I have no trouble at all with some one who says he see no evidence, and therefore can't believe. Perfectly rational. I do have trouble with those who would say there is no evidence, so therefore it cannot be. No possibility. That is atheism in its purest form, and it is irrational.

Quote:

What gives?

Simple...you made the "jumping on the agnostic bandwagon" statement. This has nothing to do with getting a handle on anything. It's judgemental and unnecessary. Childish, because it wasn't warranted. Some folks here are agnostic (like me), some atheist, and some are agnostic-atheists (Stuart, maybe this is a better term for me, too). This is all simply a matter of finding the proper terminology to describe one's self.