Groups > Atheists and agnostics

Heh ... You're a funny man, Britscot. I like that. I can't speak for the others, but I tend to say what I think and the "audience" (I guess I kind of thought of them as mutual "conversationalists" ... but you might be right) can think and/or respond, or not, as they may. Given the relative anonymity of this vessel, it's hard to know who the other members are, what the destination is or might be, if a steady star guides us or even if the wind is fair or foul.

What the other contributors do with their words as they send them out, I don't know. I'd like to think they are well considered ... but, I admit, from time to time I may err in that regard.

I've read Sam Harris's essay on this subject and I did find it persuasive. When I'm around like-minded people, the subject simply doesn't come up. Which is fine with me. It is when I'm around everybody else that I have trouble.

The problem is that I no longer live in a college town. Now I live in the part of the United States where ninety-odd percent of the population is some flavor of monotheist, usually Christian, and by and large the people I meet assume that I am a Christian, too. Believe me, it comes up. I've tried saying I'm a "humanist" or a "rationalist," but I get too many blank looks. People don't seem to realize that these words are code for ATHEIST! I've considered using "unbeliever," but it just sounds so precious and old-fashioned. Might as well go around telling people I'm a neurasthenic abolitionist with angina. In any case, "unbeliever" doesn't resolve the problem of "atheist," since its meaning depends on the idea of religious belief.

When pressed to reveal my religious affiliation, sometimes I say, "I am not religious." This is OK when I want to be ambiguous, because people tend to decide that this means I don't go to church, or don't accept traditional Christian beliefs. If they press on with the subject, usually it is to say something like, "Oh, me neither! But you're SPIRITUAL, right?" Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what "spiritual" means. Some people interpret this as being more or less a good person, while others mean "filled with the holy spirit." One friend asked me if I was spiritual, and I said, "No, I don't think so. I'm not even sure what that means." She said, "Well, I think you're spiritual, because you care about nature."

So--though I don't use the word ATHEIST often, I do use it, because it is a word that most people understand. Instantly. Not all, I've learned (I've had to define it more than once), but most. Then I get to find out if they hate me for it. That's always a treat. One time I was very grateful for the A-word was when a pair of Mormon missionaries came to the door early one Saturday morning. I really wanted to go back to bed, but you know how they are. So after they launched their opening salvo, I said, politely, "No thanks. I'm an atheist." I'm not sure they had ever heard anyone say such a thing before. Their eyes widened a little, they looked at each other, mumbled "Okay," and left. It was great.

I love science, but I struggle to understand it, and I would feel silly calling myself a scientist. Nor would I feel right about calling myself an empiricist when I rely on intuition as much as I do. (My intuition may well derive from experience, but my documentation of it is spotty.) One day, perhaps, people won't need the word "atheist" anymore. It will become as outworn as "theosophist." And people like you are leading the way--while people like me just try to muddle through in the meantime.

I always liked Non-Theists

I tell people that I'm a registered independent and an unregistered skeptic...

These are two VERY important points that Aethiests disguised as scientists rarely acknowledge or even discuss.

Personally... I believe electromagnetic radiation from deep space may be The Holy Spirit.

There was religion, war, division and arguments long before the Bible came along, sir.

Judi wrote

1) Science has yet to disprove the existence of God

2) Science is frequently revising its original hypotheses and findings

As far as I can tell, it is not possible to prove the lack of existence of something. (One might be able to prove the impossibility of existence of some things, but I doubt one can prove the lack of existence of something. Perhaps one can infer it?)