by "Guitar"

From http://www.atheistlloyd.com/Geetar.html                   

Dried out from the wind

In the absence of empirical evidence for any of the gods of literature there are only two things that perpetuate these old beliefs.

The Gnostics:

The Gnostics claim to have received a direct revelation and therefore have KNOWLEDGE of and from the god. Who were these people who claimed to have this gnosis or knowledge from the gods? The authors of the myths are the Gnostics even when the knowledge was given through their scribes. Moses was a Gnostic. David was a Gnostic. Jesus was a Gnostic. Joseph smith was a Gnostic. Mohammed was a Gnostic. They are the prophets, the priests, the authors, the ministers, the shaman and the fortune tellers of the gods. These people didn't claim to believe, they claimed to KNOW.

The Theists:

The Theists are those who BELIEVE the Gnostics and their tales of revelation or simply rely on their own imaginations. How can the Theist do this without hard evidence and even in the teeth of contradiction? They believe, because they want to believe. They are highly motivated to suspend all doubt and reservations so they can have some hope in a stable, unchanging, supernatural, benevolent being. Even more, they refuse to accept that their Gnostics might be untruthful or mistaken. Their faith is blind because their belief as well as their hope is blind. They are encouraged to this behavior in their holy writing.

In Christianity for example:

Hebrews 11:1 "we walk by faith, not by sight".

John 20:29 "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed".

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Romans 8:24-25 (gives the definition of those "unseen" things) "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

This is the type of blind-faith employed by the religious and to doubt the Gnostic revelations that offer this hope is the unforgivable sin. The Theist is all about blind-faith, blind-hope and blind-belief. Nevertheless, it is a great comfort to them.

Theists would like nothing better than to accuse the Atheists and Agnostics of employing the same flawed belief system they themselves employ. Dictionaries may define Atheists as those who "disbelieve in god" and Agnostics as those who "believe knowledge of god/gods is not possible", but in reality the "A" people are as diverse as the Theists and Gnostics are themselves. The simplest explanation is that Atheists and Agnostics are NOT Theists and Gnostics.

The "A" position is NOT a similar belief at all. The "A" position should be no more than a NOT position, as in asymmetry, asynchronous and atonality.

The Theist lives by blind-faith and belief in the Gnostic revelations while the Atheist does NOT.

The Gnostic claims to have received revelations from god/gods while the Agnostic does not.

Beyond the strict "A" position, both Agnostics and Atheists often have beliefs but not the type found in their counterparts. Most would hold their beliefs provisionally and base them on a preponderance of evidence. (That's just not the Theistic way).

For example:

I believe all the gods of our literature are the creations of man's imagination.

I believe man creates new gods all the time.

I believe that gods exist in the imaginations of man where they live and die with no power but that which their creator host grants them.

I believe that the god of Abraham was and is a malevolent creation of man.

I believe the contradictions in the so-called word of this god are proof of its fictitious nature.

I believe there is nothing yet to warrant belief in anything called a god.

I believe that all claims of "god knowledge" remain invalidated.

I believe that other forms of intelligent material life might exist but ¹I don't believe they do exist.

I believe that most people can not even agree on what a god is.

I believe that beliefs are only possible when there is no knowledge.

I believe that belief without a preponderance of evidence is immature.

I believe that my beliefs are more accurately described as "I think" and therefore I am willing to self-correct.

As you can see, I hold many beliefs or thoughts but I hold these beliefs or thoughts provisionally and am willing to revise them based on new information that can be validated. This is NOT the Theistic method and that's why it's so hard to convert a Theist. They need to take the first step of valuing self-correction when it comes to their hopes and beliefs. It's not easy for the stability seekers to agree to re-invent themselves.

If there are any gods out there, I have no KNOWLEDGE from/of them (Agnostic), so I certainly will not grant them even conditional belief until I do (Atheism).

Therefore I am both Atheist and Agnostic.

Is 'Atheism' a Synonym for 'Faith or 'Belief'?

Atheism is not a synonym for faith or belief. A synonym only works if it can be interchanged relative to the context and in this case Faith is not belief or "certitude".

Faith may be the evidence of belief, and certitude a measure of belief, but this is about theistic BELIEF which is the foundation of their faith and certitude. I understand why it seems like splitting hairs to some people, but the Theists have BELIEF in gods as "actual living entities" for which there is no verification or verifiability. The Agnostic is quick to admit this and so is the Atheist. So far we are in agreement.

It is extraordinary to claim that supernatural gods are actual living entities. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet when it comes to these gods there is nothing offered but literature and imagination, and we KNOW that these things come from natural sources. In this case their knowledge of god/gods comes from the Gnostics that make claims of divine revelation and their imagination comes from themselves.

At this point the Theists would have you believe that many Agnostics are no longer in agreement. The Agnostics are accused of being undecided about whether or not to believe in the supernatural. They are also accused of employing blind-faith to eliminate the question so they don't have to admit to not believing in god. Neither of these accusations are fair.

The Atheists go on to admit that they don't believe and are then accused of blind-faith in that they refuse to believe without evidence for or against the reality of a god. This also is not a fair accusation.

There are so many gods of the supernatural to choose from... Santa Claus, Yahweh, Osiris, Ra, Ea, Bel, Anu, Dracula, Jesus, Hercules, Satan etc. Take your pick. If you believe even one of them is a real god, then you are Theist no matter how "certain" or faithful you are towards that belief. This is the "dividing line" between the Theist and the Atheist. At this point we are simply without belief while the Theists have taken the plunge. Whatever our reasons why or what our level of certainty is, it is all subsequent to this general position.

If you're not a Theist, you are either an Atheist or you are

undecided.

If you're not a Gnostic, you are either an Agnostic or you are

undecided.

So which supernatural god do you believe is real? It's not important to the discussion to know your reasons or how certain you are. Just say whether or not you believe in one or more of the supernatural gods. If you don't believe in any, then explain how you are not a Theist and not an Atheist at the same time without being just plain not sure? Define any measure of supernatural god you want (if you can) and then explain why this supernatural god deserves our belief. The god's verifiable attributes, not your reasons, are what is important.

Guitar

Footnotes:

1: I don't disbelieve it, I simply don't believe it. My absence of belief is passive rather than active.   BACK