I keep getting involved in conversations online about atheism with other atheists and folks who think atheists are stupid. To me, this whole atheism thing isn't all that complex. It's pretty straightforward and simple in fact. It could be the simplest, most straightforward ism there is. It is acknowledging there is no god or gods. Anything beyond that moves into a different ism.
It's safe to say that I am an atheist. I declare confidently that there is no god or gods as presented by any known religion. Does that mean there isn't a god? Well, if there is, then we need a new definition of what god is then. And then once that definition is clearly outlined we can determine if something exists that corresponds with that.
The gods that I reject are the gods proposed by religion. Does that mean there is not something out there that can be referred to as a god? Sure. I suppose. But let's define what one thinks that is first before we declare whether it is or isn't.
It is interesting how some wish to debate the existence of a god. If one is changing the definition as we go, we have a real problem, and some, particularily agnostics, do seem to like to do that. And that is fine, but what it illustrates is the ability to come up with ideas of what something may or may not be, not prove that what they propose is right or not.
Is asserting there is no god wrong? Is it right? Well, it's right in the absence of any sort of proof of proposed gods and lack of solid definition of something beyond that. So, ya, it is right. Could we find some evidence at some point that shows there is some sort of god? Who knows, but it seems to me our understanding of the world and everything around us is taking us farther away from this proof than towards it.
Just some rambling thoughts by an atheist.
It's safe to say that I am an atheist. I declare confidently that there is no god or gods as presented by any known religion. Does that mean there isn't a god? Well, if there is, then we need a new definition of what god is then. And then once that definition is clearly outlined we can determine if something exists that corresponds with that.
The gods that I reject are the gods proposed by religion. Does that mean there is not something out there that can be referred to as a god? Sure. I suppose. But let's define what one thinks that is first before we declare whether it is or isn't.
It is interesting how some wish to debate the existence of a god. If one is changing the definition as we go, we have a real problem, and some, particularily agnostics, do seem to like to do that. And that is fine, but what it illustrates is the ability to come up with ideas of what something may or may not be, not prove that what they propose is right or not.
Is asserting there is no god wrong? Is it right? Well, it's right in the absence of any sort of proof of proposed gods and lack of solid definition of something beyond that. So, ya, it is right. Could we find some evidence at some point that shows there is some sort of god? Who knows, but it seems to me our understanding of the world and everything around us is taking us farther away from this proof than towards it.
Just some rambling thoughts by an atheist.
No comments:
Post a Comment