[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Olga Bourlin]

From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

> > > A person without a belief in god, but also without a belief in the
> > > non-existence of god, is more properly described as an agnostic.
[etc.]

Unfortunately, many people don't understand "agnostic" very well -
especially people with beliefs regarding "god(s)."   God-believers - will
*often count agnostics as one of them* (putting them in the category of a
"weak believer") by default.  As I'm ecumenical towards religiosity (i.e., I
*dislike* all forms of religiosity) - I don't want to be counted as one of
the "faithful."

I have actually taken to calling myself a nontheist for some years (although
I sometimes have to explain the term "notheist" term to people who have
never heard it, something the term "atheist" does not make me do).  I am
also a nonsupernaturalist.  Call me what you will, but however you slice and
dice it, I am not a person who takes a belief based on "faith."  And to call
a "faithless" person "faithful" is just an exercise in futility.

As to the dictionary definition (written for the convenience of the public -
and therefore somewhat dumbed down) of atheist, sometimes the definitions
are not right on.  Years ago I was getting rid of some old books, and
happened to notice that in the encyclopedia set my husband has had since his
childhood - the section on "atheists" was written by people with "Rev." in
front of their names, and various other theologians ...!  (What a surprise
... ?)

A good working for definition of  "faith" is "an admission that one does not
have proof."
Certainly one can't prove a negative - so why not simply deal with reality?
Who cares about proving something that doesn't exist .. if it *doesn't*
exist?

> And when the person with the belief cannot demonstrate a proof (because
> proving a negative is impossible) then they are believing on faith alone.

Aaaargh ...!!!

Olga