THEIST: One who actively believes in deities and sentient higher powers.
ATHEIST: The "A" at the beginning denotes that an Atheist does not believe the tenets of Theism.
AGNOSTIC: One who believes that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods.
You state: ...if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic.
Again, this is incorrect.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in anything remotely theistic. If I see proof otherwise, yes, I will believe it. I do believe that the existence or non of a deity can be utterly proven - until it is, however, I do not believe in one at all.
The scientific method of stating an Atheist bent would be: There is no proof positive of a deity. This does not give so much as a nod to the possible existence of a deity, any more than lack of belief in ANY unproven concept does so. Examples:
- There is no proof positive that, underneath the antarctic ice, there lies a giant treasure trove of extraterrestrial jellybean farms. - There is no proof that dreams are actually what happens when your consciousness takes a hike and wanders to an alternate dimension where giant overlord newts sit behind an enormous computer control center. - There is no proof that the Dinosaurs were fond of a saurian form of gangsta rap, especially the phat rhymes busted by a lone Allosaur under the handle of Grandmasta Auuuuroooorrruuuuuugh.
Under your definition, I am on the fence in how I view these concepts. That's retarded. I do not "give a nod" to any of these ideas. I do not view them as "possible, just unproven." I don't view them at ALL. They have not been proven in any way, and are merely silly things my mind has come up with.
This is, incidentally, why several years ago I finally tipped from Agnostic to straight-up Atheist, mind you: Agnosticism is silly. The idea:
- There is an invisible, unproven and intangible deity that invented the universe.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 05:44 pm (UTC)THEIST: One who actively believes in deities and sentient higher powers.
ATHEIST: The "A" at the beginning denotes that an Atheist does not believe the tenets of Theism.
AGNOSTIC: One who believes that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods.
You state: ...if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief in any deity or intelligent and motive force behind the universe, you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic.
Again, this is incorrect.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in anything remotely theistic. If I see proof otherwise, yes, I will believe it. I do believe that the existence or non of a deity can be utterly proven - until it is, however, I do not believe in one at all.
The scientific method of stating an Atheist bent would be: There is no proof positive of a deity. This does not give so much as a nod to the possible existence of a deity, any more than lack of belief in ANY unproven concept does so. Examples:
- There is no proof positive that, underneath the antarctic ice, there lies a giant treasure trove of extraterrestrial jellybean farms.
- There is no proof that dreams are actually what happens when your consciousness takes a hike and wanders to an alternate dimension where giant overlord newts sit behind an enormous computer control center.
- There is no proof that the Dinosaurs were fond of a saurian form of gangsta rap, especially the phat rhymes busted by a lone Allosaur under the handle of Grandmasta Auuuuroooorrruuuuuugh.
Under your definition, I am on the fence in how I view these concepts. That's retarded. I do not "give a nod" to any of these ideas. I do not view them as "possible, just unproven." I don't view them at ALL. They have not been proven in any way, and are merely silly things my mind has come up with.
This is, incidentally, why several years ago I finally tipped from Agnostic to straight-up Atheist, mind you: Agnosticism is silly. The idea:
- There is an invisible, unproven and intangible deity that invented the universe.
...Is just as silly as these other ideas.