There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the ‘Atheist Bus’ campaign set up by Ariane Sherine. The campaign was originally set up to raise a small amount of money in order to counteract some religious ads that kindly advised us non-believers that we would all burn in hell. The British buses sport the phrase ‘There’s probably no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life’. I actually prefer the one put out just before Christmas by the American Humanist Society which said ‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake’. I think that’s a much more positive message.
A lot of the discussion has been around the use of the word ‘probably’ in the ad. Some people said that this showed a lack of conviction and was really a statement of agnosticism. Actually the truth was that the word had to be added to satisfy the advertising authorities. I think most of us have come round to accept ‘probably’ as it is logically correct (you can’t prove that there isn’t a god), but I think it’s going a bit far to say that this makes us agnostics rather than atheists.
I call myself an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of god, in the same sense I don’t believe in the existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy. I could never claim that I can prove the non-existence of any of these entities.
Some atheists describe themselves as strong agnostics as the argument cannot be proved one way or another. I think this is a fine philosophical point, but the problem is that the agnostic in general use tends to mean someone who is undecided and feels that the argument is evenly balanced on either side. You could be agnostic on the grounds that the evidence is only 99.99% on one side.
Also, theists cannot prove that their particular god exists so, until they start referring to themselves as agnostics, I’m still happy to call myself an atheist.
Even if God himself turned up and proved his existence, I guess I might still be called an atheist since I would refuse to bend my knee to him. I don't worship my parents after all and they were directly responsible for my existence.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fair point. I've never really understood the worshiping business. Even if any of these religions were true, would you really want to worship someone or something that demanded to be worshiped.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to note that your new website theme is called "DISCIPLE" - Freud would have a field day with that :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, I had noticed that! I like to think of it as me being a disciple of Wordpress :-)
ReplyDeleteAn atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a god or gods. It does not mean that the atheist is sure there are no gods. An agnostic is someone who thinks it can not be known for sure if a god exists. Therefore, I am an atheist AND an agnostic. I think it is very unlikely that any gods exist, but I can't be absolutely sure. If there is in fact, a god or gods, one of the gods could decide to make herself known to humans, so a god could prove her existence, but the non-existence of gods can't be proven. I think people who do not have a god belief and use the agnostic label but reject the atheist label and atheist who either misunderstand what an atheist is, or they don't want the atheist label because of some negative views associated with the word atheist.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'd never really considered the terms atheist and agnostic to be compatible. I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with saying that I know I can't prove something, but I believe it anyway. I think heard others say that they are, technically and philosophically, agnostics, but in practical terms, they are atheists. I'll stick with that for now!
ReplyDelete