Yeah. I'm pretty much a complete skeptic. I see the basic survival assumptions
(causality for example) as matters of faith, so I'm coming from a pretty extreme
point of view.
I get closer to that when my anxiety kicks in, not sure I like it though.
My common existence is not easy. Driving thought away is the only means of survival.
Gaming does that. So does drinking. Or spamming.
Yeah I have similar coping activities when anxiety hits, which thankfully I seem to manage a little more effectively than I used to.
People tell me atheism means I believe there is no God, which by definition isn't true, atheism is my lack of belief in god which is a different thing.
So, how is that any different from agnosticism? And what do we call those people, who self-identify as atheists,
but truly just seem to believe that there is no god? Oh, they may put some cover that "of course we can't know,"
but then proceed to attack the very idea as absurd. Reality itself is absurd - thus Tertullian's misappropriation.
Well if agnosticism is the position where the existence or non existence of god is deemed unknowable, isn't the lack of belief in god a consequence of that rather than it being the same thing? But yes this does rather lead to the inevitable fact that the strict definition of atheism is a bit pointless. If we are going to use strictly defined definitions then maybe we need less flawed ones?
Nice. Yes, there is a distinction between believing the question is unanswerable and simply not having the answer. It may be that what
I'd call 'weak atheism' makes the first claim. Until there is proof though, it's still a matter of faith that the answer is unknowable.
I'm pretty close to simply not believing. I does largely have no impact on my life, and I rarely think about it except when discussing with other people. The fact that I need a label is only because people claim it, therefore as someone who doesn't have any belief in it I label myself as such when questioned.
Simply not believing without thinking though (and obviously you're not doing that as you're discussing this)
strikes me as something else entirely. Animals and rocks don't believe in god, I suspect, but they also
wouldn't qualify as either atheists or agnostics, IMO. They just don't consider the issue.
I was quite interested in the modern atheist books, discussions, etc and I've read quite a lot over the years but I've found myself less and less interested as it's turned from interesting discussion to name calling and point scoring. I've no interest in changing peoples opinions, and I've no interest in ridiculing other positions which seems to be what that great surge of books and media on the subject seems to have caused.
I think this is a non-issue in most countries. In the US though, there is this strong religious
current, which is threatening to those who don't hold such views, AND a core principle of freedom of religion.
Something of a culture war springs up with discrimination on both sides - with faith becoming no longer a merely personal
matter, but a political one.
In some ways, it's hard to see how it cannot, if religious derived beliefs are strongly held. They
WILL come into conflict with one another, and government policies are often rooted in concepts
of morality which are, whether theist or not, matters of faith. Very few people can claim to
know the ultimate 'good'; at least the religious have something which lays down rules for them.
