Hi Watson
I am an atheist. You seem to have spent a lot if time and words saying not a great deal and nothing, as far as I can see, new.
In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth. Therefore, to suggest that "something" came from "something" can be construed as a more reasonable stance.
Firstly, as has been pointed out to you already by both Rahvin and Granny M, this is a gross misrepresentation of most people's thinking. Secondly the very obvious question that has to be asked here is "If something must always come from something then how did the first something come into existence?" Who created the creator etc. etc. etc. The usual answer to this is some sort of bogus and ill defined concept of "eternity" or timelessness for which there is considerably less evidence than there is for the existence of reality. I.e. None.
As suggested in my post, I propose that atheism should vanish into either the belief set of agnostics, or deists. I mean, both just make more sense.
I don't
know you exist. I don't know that anyone actually exists. I cannot prove with 100% certainty that reality as I know it exists at all. Nor can you. You could be a brain in a jar being subjected to various stimuli. You could be in a Matrix style version of reality. These rather pointless considerations however do not make me agnostic about the existence of my mother, brother, friends, this computer, the planet Earth or anything else that makes up reality as far as I am concerned.
PROOFIn the absence of proof there is no 100% certainty of anything. Evidence based investigation can never provide "proof" or 100% certainty. This however does not stop us "knowing" things exist with such a high level of certainty as for the miniscule amount of philosophical and theoretical doubt that we need to factor in to be all but meaningless and certainly not worth mentioning or considering at any practical level.
So if I cannot be 100% certain that God does not exist how can I be an atheist?
Well given that you cannot prove that your best friend actually exists, given that you cannot be 100% certain, would you honestly say that you are agnostic about his existence? Or would you say you know he exists in every meaningful way? Would calling yourself agnostic in relation to your best friend just be bloody stupid? Semantics gone mad even?
I would say yes.
I feel to go as far as being an atheist, requires some sort of inner "knowiness," or "truthiness" as Colbert might put it. Otherwise, it's the product of rebellion, and arrogance, as outlined in my post.
THE ALMIGHTY PLINKY PLONKI have just invented a God. The great and almighty plinky plonk. Grand protector of those with silly names. Well I think I just invented him. Of course I could be misinterpreting some divine revelation made to me by the
real plinky plonk. I could be too stubbornly atheistic to perceive the true origins of this "knowledge" of plinky plonk. But regardless of this I am as certain as it is possible to be that plinky plonk does not actually exist.
I am an atheist as far as plinky plonk is concerned. Are you? Or are you agnostic? We cannot prove he/she/it does not exist. Does it require some sort of inner "knowiness" or "truthiness" on your part to "know" that the whole concept of plinky plonk is in fact a complete pile of invented horse dung?
Well there is as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for plinky plonk.
I am as certain that God does not exist as I am that plinky plonk does not exist.
If that makes me an agnostic by your definition then I would suggest that your definition is misleading and silly.
If that makes me an atheist then, regarding plinky plonk at least, you can apply whatever criticisms you have of my position on God to yourself.
Enjoy
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box (no "/" at closer).
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
