|
I also don't want to jack will's thread, but I will interject to say that I've always had a slightly different set of definitions, after reading a bunch of theistic/atheistic agnostic/gnostic information a while back. To be clear, I agree that atheist/theist and gnostic/agnostic are two separate questions. In my understanding, the question of atheism/theism comes down to whether or not you can positively state that you believe in the existence of a deity/deities. If the answer is yes, then you are a theist. If not, then by default you are an atheist. It's really that simple. My difference with the above is on the definition of agnostic/gnostic. I've always read that agnosticism was more than saying that you don't know if god/gods exist, but saying that such knowledge is impossible to have. Gnosticism, would then be the opposite of this - saying that such knowledge is possible. In that sense, I consider myself to be a weak gnostic atheist. Which seems to coincide with the basic philosophy posted above as agnostic atheism. My stand is that I see no real reason to believe that a god or gods exist, but I think that such evidence is possible. If god or gods came down every so often and did some godlike acts, and imbued humanity with their presence, took a few people to heaven and back, and injected people with the direct knowledge that they / it were, in fact, God/Gods...you'd have more ground to stand on. Yes, you could think they were aliens, but I assume that something with the power to create the world, cause miracles, etc could get over this little logical hump. No bars would be barred for God/Gods, thus I think by definition proof could be provided. The fact that such proof is not provided, or does not measure up to questioning and checks of consistency, is the main reason that I am an atheist.
In response to the question about preferring to cower to a God's pleasure, if in fact I die and go to meet God/Gods...then I would say that one should develop their moral code outside of any perception of religion. Is it ok to kill people or not? Ok to lie to people or not? Should absolute power come with requirements of absolute mercy and responsibility to love unconditionally, despite the fact that humanity is not perfect, lacks full comprehension, and may have reasonable cause to doubt the existence of God or not? After making these decisions, I think one can determine whether they would support a given hypothetical God, and from that point of departure can determine how they might face God/Gods. I might be afraid if I were to meet God(s) after my death, but I don't think that would make my basic position any less valid.
Then there's always Pascal's Wager, which in a nutshell points out that you're better off stating your fundamental position regardless, because he's like Santa Claus. He sees you when you're sleeping, and he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness' sake. You can't fake out an omniscient being.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|