Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Attila]

For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

[Stevil]

Hello Attila

Welcome on board.
I feel you put too much meaning into the terms Agnostic and Atheist.
From your intro it seems to me that you are Agnostic and you are an Atheist (lacking a belief in god), although these are not your defining labels.

But to say that you are not an Atheist is to say that you do not lack a belief in god, which means that you do believe in god.

I think a more defining term for you is Apatheist.

Anyway, I liked your intro, not really sure why it was moved, it certainly wasn't controversial and was a statement about you.

Hope you stick around to discuss your position more with us.

[Tank]

This wasn't Attila's intro and it was likely to spawn a theistic debate in the introduction forum. 

[Stevil]

Not his intro?

But the original post is sitting in the Introduction section?

[Tank]

Not his intro?

OK fair enough then.

Sorry, my bad. Not his first post. Was I a bit quick with the move?

[Asmodean]

I think a more defining term for you is Apatheist.

Yes. That.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think there are quite a few people here who are willing to admit their ignorance on a lot of issues. I, personally, believe that it is that kind of humility that draws quite a few people into being atheistic in the first place.

[Tank]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm guessing that if I did find out that some god exists, the only thing it would change in my life would I would curiously try to find out more about it. I know for a fact that I'm just not made for any theistic religion, with all their messy philosophical baggage and ideas of a personal god who listens to them.

Though by your definition, I wouldn't call myself an apatheist because of the reasons above. Truth is I'm way more concerned about religion's effect on people than the religions themselves.

[Siz]

Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

[Attila]

Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

A fair question, Scissorlegs. 1. I don't think I'm apathetic. I actively dislike discussions about whether god(s) exist(s) or not. As I said, I find them pointless. I don't like do refer to myself as an atheist because I don't find my disbelief in any divine-human  interaction has no bearing on my moral/philosophical code. I find the terms "rationalist" or "materialist" (in the literal sense not in the Madonna -"I'm a material girl" sense). I felt Dawkins did himself a disservice in The God Delusion by broaching the subject. I claim that the absence of divine-human human interaction is the front that I will engage on. In a way Dawkins takes this position himself (but still argues the other) in his removing a Spinozan  god (=logical force) from his argument. So I actively reject divine-human  interaction and am willing to argue about it and, as a rationalist and not a person of faith, I admit the possibility that I could be wrong. So my position is that anyone claiming to have had contact with a deity or deities, is delusional or a liar.

I hope my clumsy efforts at clarification have helped somewhat.
ciao,
Attila

[Cforcerunner]

For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

I would say you have a form of agnosticism which is understandable in reasoning. Simply put, your reasoning in not affirming the existence of God appears to be primarily due to a lack of significance you'd feel personally (you're life would be more or less the same no matter truth).

In response to your primary stance, I would say although you may not personally feel like the existence of God or theological implications would play an enormously significant role. No matter the case, being member of humanity at a time and place of such astonishing height of social, industrial, and technological development, we have all commonly taken many things around us in lives as granted.

A bagel you had this morning for breakfast, for example, obviously had to of come about from somewhere. Surely through a complex route of natural and human processes, you have been fed. We all know that for whatever reason, if these human processes did not take place you would have no bagel, and if these natural processes did not take place, human existence would have a much more troubling time surviving. When we say something has the origin of a natural process, all that really means is that it is an observable phenomena. We don't really see anything very "magical" about our wheats and grains relying on the water cycle in order to sustain their existence mainly in part for the lack of surprise. Sheer repetitious nature of the process which has been observed and studied time after time again; to the everyday person, these process severely lack any sort of imaginative enginuity and at the end of the day, are down right boring.        

It appears this mother nature has a countess number of chores and errands to check-list day in and day out. Sculpting the topography of your backyard, providing uv rays protecting the sun from the skin and blood cells that have been placed all around you, the oxygen and hydrogen that are sustaining the lives of your loved ones. To someone who believes there is no rhyme nor reason for these things, they simply go along their merry way through life, perhaps appreciating the ups and downs this life has to offer, then expire.When we wake up each and every day, why do you choose to do so? Perhaps to meet, measure, and the succeed the expectations of the culture around us, maybe to pursuit ambitions of a particular hobby, pleasure, person you have grown fond of, or to simply enjoy life to the "fullest" in whichever manner one sees fits.

For the theist, these metaphysical implications are something to be cherished and given thanks to. Their view of the world around them is fulfilled through the faith that divinity has imparted responsibility for what is seen before them, a purpose in how others should be treated in much deeper sense than the social norms and expectations brought upon them.

In others words, if you were acknowledge the existence of some kind of "God", you're life and perception should have a notable shift.

[Attila]

I would say you have a form of agnosticism which is understandable in reasoning. Simply put, your reasoning in not affirming the existence of God appears to be primarily due to a lack of significance you'd feel personally (you're life would be more or less the same no matter truth).

First of all, thanks for the thought-provoking reply, Cforce. Let me try to answer a few of your points.
I reject my view as agnosticism. It's not that I don't know. I believe I have as much knowledge about the existence of god as any other human. Any attempt to quantify this knowledge or absence thereof is complicated by the total absence of a definition of god. How could anyone  possibly point a finger and say, "this is god" or "that is not god". If you have an operational definition, I'd love to hear it.

In response to your primary stance, I would say although you may not personally feel like the existence of God or theological implications would play an enormously significant role. No matter the case, being member of humanity at a time and place of such astonishing height of social, industrial, and technological development, we have all commonly taken many things around us in lives as granted.

Again you seem to be presupposing a definition of god that I'm not privy to. Why would the existence of god necessarily have any implications whatsoever? Again, you are presupposing a definition of god that you haven't stated. Even a singularity is not a logical necessity as far as I can see. Maybe there's a nest of them? or maybe they're now just background noise of the Milky Way. I don't see that people who hate gays or women are going to stop hating gays and women because of the existence or non- existence of some entity. Suppose some mysterious being appears out of a puff of smoke and says, "I don't hate gays or women". What will that change? People who believe god hates gays and wants women to be subservient to men will just claim that this being is not god but, say, a devil.

A bagel you had this morning for breakfast, for example, obviously had to of come about from somewhere. Surely through a complex route of natural and human processes, you have been fed. We all know that for whatever reason, if these human processes did not take place you would have no bagel, and if these natural processes did not take place, human existence would have a much more troubling time surviving.

Sorry Cforce, things are getting murky here. I really don't follow the business about natural processes.

When we say something has the origin of a natural process, all that really means is that it is an observable phenomena. We don't really see anything very "magical" about our wheats and grains relying on the water cycle in order to sustain their existence mainly in part for the lack of surprise. Sheer repetitious nature of the process which has been observed and studied time after time again; to the everyday person, these process severely lack any sort of imaginative enginuity and at the end of the day, are down right boring.

Now I'm really lost. Is there any thing that happens that doesn't involve some natural process? Can you give me a list of what these natural processes are? Are you describing physics here?        

It appears this mother nature has a countess number of chores and errands to check-list day in and day out.

Ok, I'll stop. Things are getting way too metaphysical for these old materialist bones.

Sculpting the topography of your backyard, providing uv rays protecting the sun from the skin and blood cells that have been placed all around you, the oxygen and hydrogen that are sustaining the lives of your loved ones. To someone who believes there is no rhyme nor reason for these things, they simply go along their merry way through life, perhaps appreciating the ups and downs this life has to offer, then expire.When we wake up each and every day, why do you choose to do so? Perhaps to meet, measure, and the succeed the expectations of the culture around us, maybe to pursuit ambitions of a particular hobby, pleasure, person you have grown fond of, or to simply enjoy life to the "fullest" in whichever manner one sees fits.

For the theist, these metaphysical implications are something to be cherished and given thanks to. Their view of the world around them is fulfilled through the faith that divinity has imparted responsibility for what is seen before them, a purpose in how others should be treated in much deeper sense than the social norms and expectations brought upon them.

In others words, if you were acknowledge the existence of some kind of "God", you're life and perception should have a notable shift.

Anyway thanks for your comments. They've been educational.
ciao,
Attila

[Siz]

Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

A fair question, Scissorlegs. 1. I don't think I'm apathetic. I actively dislike discussions about whether god(s) exist(s) or not. As I said, I find them pointless. I don't like do refer to myself as an atheist because I don't find my disbelief in any divine-human  interaction has no bearing on my moral/philosophical code.
ciao,
Attila

OK, your explanation, alongside some googling of the nuances of the Apetheist philosophy gives me some better understanding. It makes sense.

I understand that it doesn't impact your everyday life whether there is a disinterested God or no God at all. Of course we don't have all the answers, and rationalism is a noble stance. Are you so free-minded as to be able to forego any 'decision' that would help intellectually position yourself  within the universe (as I have done by 'deciding' on Atheism)? That's possibly the most broad-minded thinking possible and I salute you.

I, however, am not so intellectually unencumbered. Maybe you'd consider that I'm overly sentimental about such things, but I like to be able to place myself in the universe relative to all that is around me and how it became. I derive great joy from the notion of simply having evolved and just 'being'. And the man-of-faith derives great joy from the notion of being created by his God. Are you not depriving yourself of either of these joys by taking a neutral, emotionless view of your creation?

[Attila]

OK, your explanation, alongside some googling of the nuances of the Apetheist philosophy gives me some better understanding. It makes sense.

I understand that it doesn't impact your everyday life whether there is a disinterested God or no God at all. Of course we don't have all the answers, and rationalism is a noble stance. Are you so free-minded as to be able to forego any 'decision' that would help intellectually position yourself  within the universe (as I have done by 'deciding' on Atheism)? That's possibly the most broad-minded thinking possible and I salute you.

I, however, am not so intellectually unencumbered. Maybe you'd consider that I'm overly sentimental about such things, but I like to be able to place myself in the universe relative to all that is around me and how it became. I derive great joy from the notion of simply having evolved and just 'being'. And the man-of-faith derives great joy from the notion of being created by his God. Are you not depriving yourself of either of these joys by taking a neutral, emotionless view of your creation?

Hi Scissorlegs,
To be brutally frank with you, I don't give a rat's arse about my place in the universe but I will defend to the death your right have such concerns. I don't think my position has any bearing on those feelings. Again it's about how you define god. For me, it's just as likely (or rather, unlikely) to be an adolescent extraterrestrial playing a computer game  where we are the avatars as  some Milky Way background noise. Whatever it may be, there is pretty good evidence that it has never had naught to do with us. In fact, the object popularly known as god is most often an aberrant use of the first person pronoun. (God hates fags=I hate fags). As for my view of my creation, I don't see anything to do with god here but rather my mother and father fucking sometime in 1941. I am not without emotion; I sincerely hope the had a good time. They're both dead now so I guess I'll never know but then I'm not that interested.

Most of the "people of faith" that I have had the bad luck to deal with (source for another thread) are tight-arsed grumpypusses who don't get joy out of anything except maybe burning witches and blowing up abortion centres. Joy and faith most certainly do not mix. Pleased about your concern though   but not to worry.
Attila