From: yohan@chester.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 10 Apr 1992 15:58:04 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chester.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <44721@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes:
>In article <s2rfqINN84@festus.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@festus.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>
>> In my humble opinion, yes they do.  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure
>> someone will), but atheist means:  "to conclude that God(s) does not exist",
>> while agnostic means:  "to draw no conclusion about the existence of God(s)."
>> I'm sorry if I'm being redundant, but I just want to make sure this is clear. 
>> Anyway, it seems to me that atheists are just as assuming as theists, since
>> they are "having faith" that there isn't a God, for which, in my opinion, 
>> there can be no proof.  It seems, that a common arguement that theists and 
>> atheists use against one another, deals with the origin of the universe.
>> These are the possiblities, that I can think of off hand (can anyone else
>> think of some more?):
>[lots deleted]
>
>  This is a neat question, simply since there is no one who really has the true
>athority to dispute any answers.  Here is my reasoning for my atheism:
>
>  At one time I believed in a god of sorts in a matter-of-fact sort of way --
>just like I believed in Santa Clause.  My parents eventually told me there was
>no Santa, and at age fourteen or so I concluded that the concept of god was 
>quite pointless.  This was because I believed (and still do) that I am the only
>one who has control over my life, and that shit happens and that I have to deal
>with it when it does.  There can be no all-powerful entity.  It just defies the
>properties of this universe.  I could accept the idea of a higher life form,
>which might _seem_ omnipotent, but not without proof of such.
>  As I have no proof that there is a "god" I will continue to believe there is
>none.  I have talked to many a Bible-thumper with an open mind and heart, but
>no luck.  I don't seek a god's existence in order to improve my life, but for
>the sake of knowledge.  If I had proof (meaning by my own rationale) I would be
>a moron not to accept on basis of fact.  Recently, I had a long discussion with
>a lot of enthusiasts (of God), and they all told me to pray and ask God for
>proof.  They also told me that He would comply, so I could save myself.  Well,
>I humbled myself one evening and did just that -- on my knees and out loud, no
>less.  So far, no soap.  And my belief remains constant.  
>  A note on the concept of good, bad, & evil.  There is no such thing as evil.
>Bad is just entropy, and good is the lack of entropy.  These are not intrinsic
>properties, but relative/qualitative ones.  Someone once told me that when a
>global information/database system has been on line for some time, a survey
>would show that good things don't happen any more often to religious peole than
>non-religious people.  The age of mass-eletronic media/info-collection would be
>the final blow to the social crutch of religion.
>  
>  Oh my.  I've gone and rambled on again.  I'll leave you with a favorite quote
>of mine.
>
>  In the immortal words of John Lennon in his song "God"
>
>    "God is a concept by which we measure our pain
>     [lots of song]
>     I don't belive in Beatles,
>     I just believe in me."
>
>  Just one last question I've often pondered:  Who has copyrights to the Holy
>Bible and who gets royalties?
>
>Geoff Fritz
>--
> ==============================================================================
> || "Maybe its imaginary, I'd like to know. ||            sage.cc.purdue.edu ||
> ||  What's the world coming to, and where  || gfritz @--(       or          ||
> ||    will it go?" -- Kirsty MacColl       ||            mn.ecn.purdue.edu  ||
> ==============================================================================

When you say:  "As I have no proof that there is a "god" I will continue to beli
eve there is
none", isn't that the same position theists take?  By this reasoning, theists ar
e
right in saying they will believe in God until someone proves otherwise (althoug
h
I would argue that they have the burde of proof).

Maybe this is nit-picking, but only when you have proof can you have faith in OR
deny God.  I see nothing wrong with living your life as if God does not exist
until you have proof (and after reaading your response, this seems to be your
main point), but denying the possibility of God, in mind as well as action, seem
s
to be a position backed up with little fact.  That is blind faith.

Like I said though, it seems to me you are living under the assumption that ther
e
is no God, haven't really drawn a conclusion, and are still open to suggestions.

I'm the same way.  There's no way I'm going to devote a large portion of my life
to something with no evidence to back it up.

It seems that to be a true atheist, you have to believe it is nearly impossible
for there to be a God.  An atheist friend said that his reason was that a perfec
t
being would have no need or compulsion to create a universe and would be
intellectually self-sufficient.  I think that's an interesting idea; anyone want
to post an article about it?

Jon NEwton