Atheism – Logical?

Neil has been a big hero of mine, even though I know he is not religious either. Instead of Atheism, Agnostic is the most logical choice a person could make as far as declaring their beliefs.

He also makes a great point about not applying stereotypical baggage to people when communicating with them. Something I totally agree with.

I always wondered why atheists think they have a claim to him and his ideals as proof of their existence as atheists…?? (**as in proof that God doesn’t exist)

Its kind of funny, from what I hear, he is basically saying Atheists shouldn’t even really exist or have a stance whatsoever.
(**Atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist, Neil can’t either… No one can = no stance)

(updated 5/29/14 10:25pm)


8 thoughts on “Atheism – Logical?”

  1. He objects to being part of the movement of atheism, but that doesn’t stop him from being an atheist. He doesn’t believe in a god, and that’s the definition of atheism. You might as well have someone say, “I believe in the Christian God, and that Jesus died to save me from sin, but don’t call me a Christian because I don’t like those people.” It’s just silly.

  2. I understand your point – I agree, he personally may not believe in God. But the point I think Neil is trying to make is that he will not label himself as someone who knows God doesn’t exist. Because he knows he can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – and its a waste of energy to make that point. He also mentioned that he is open to accept any evidence proving otherwise to his personal belief. Thus the reason why he said that he thinks that it is odd that the word Atheism even exists.

    1. Most atheists are willing to consider new evidence. However, that still makes them atheists. You can add the agnostic in front to make agnostic-atheist if it makes you feel better but that doesn’t chsnge the fact they’re atheists in the same way you’re probably an atheist about invisible gnomes. You’re open to new evidence that invisible gnomes exist, but so far, none exists and so you don’t believe claims they do.

      1. I agree, I do not deny that people could be Atheists.
        I don’t need any mixture of terms to feel better about anything. Reality is reality. Neil clearly shows that Agnostic & Atheist are completely different terms. Neil does not want to be called an atheist, because an Atheist is a claim of knowledge that God doesn’t exist. An Agnostic is one who doesn’t feel God exists, but knows he cannot prove that point.

        This post is meant to be a viewpoint of only one angle. Neil does not and will never claim God doesn’t exist. And that is the most logical thing to do for one who doesn’t believe in God.

        I think the unicorn/invisible gnome bits are being done to death. We’re talking about cause & effect of the universe here. Not simple human imagination. Let’s step away from childish points.

      2. You’re still mixing it up. Atheism is not a belief about knowledge of a god, it is a belief about the existence of a god. You can admit to a lack of available knowledge on the subject, and yet maintain a belief in the lack of its existence. This is ok, and in fact completely typical of an atheist. As is demonstrated by unicorns and faeries, having a belief about the lack of existence of something only requires being presented with the concept, and a lack of evidence or quality evidence. In your world, with your rules, you would not be able to hold a position of there being no unicorns, but instead only profess to being unable to prove they don’t exist. Btw, this is called reductio ad absurdum, applying your rationale to extreme positions, and it is also ok.

        The fact that NdGT cannot prove that every possible god does not exist does not prevent him from pointing out how ridiculous the various existing conceptions and arguments are. Again, it’s not that he’s not agnostic, it’s that he’s not not atheist.

      3. Yes ey are different and I already pointed out how and why they’re different and why Neil is an agnostic atheist because he doesnt believe in god. It doesn’t much matter what he wants to be called if the term is accurate. He may prefer not to be called it in his hearing range but that doesn’t change the fact that if he doesn’t believe in god right now, he’s an atheist.

        Atheism is not a claim of knowledge. Look it up in the dictionary or ask a real atheist and you’ll quickly learn that atheism is a lsck of belief. Theists claim god exists. I don’t believe them because they lack evidence.

        The unicorn gnome isn’t far fetched. People in Iceland believe in elves. A supernatural god that can break the laws of physics is just as improbable as invisible gnomes. It only seems childish to you because you’ve been conditioned by society to think it’s normal. To me, it’s every bit as silly if not sillier than invisible gnomes to believe in supernatural deities that can’t even stay logically consistent.

    2. Atheism is a statement of belief about the existence of a god, and agnosticism is a statement about the availability of knowledge of a god. The two are not mutually exclusive. All atheists I’ve ever known will readily admit that it is impossible to rule out the infinite number of possible gods.

      As for why the word atheist exists, that would be because while being a non-golfer isn’t unusual at all, atheists make up, I don’t know, maybe 5% of the world’s population. We are atypical, and you give labels to things that are different. NdGT might wish there were enough of us to be able to not raise eyebrows and be labeled, but this is the way things work.

      He may, of course, choose and promote the label he feels best describes him, but to say that he isn’t an atheist just isn’t true.

      1. Again, you can call him an atheist, by the point that he does not believe in God. The simple point I’m trying to make here is: Neil will never say/claim God does not exist. Because he cannot make that statement with supporting evidence. Thus he truly does not know. Ultimately I don’t really care what you call each other. I care about his point – he can’t prove his alleged beliefs.

        This is why I’m writing this blog. I haven’t yet – But I’m going to go over each point – scientifically about why God does exist. This will take a great amount of time, because I have to break it down to simple points, each of them separate, then writing supporting posts that tie each point together.

        This post is merely one point i’m making – You can’t prove God does not exist – no matter what scientific proof you think you have.

        Sorry if I didn’t make that clear… Perhaps this is what I get for personal ranting…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s