Atheist or Agnostic?

I think the question of whether or not I'm an atheist or an agnostic is purely
a matter of perspective. When a believer asks me whether I believe in the
existence of god, I say no, so from his perspective I'm an atheist. But when
someone asks me whether I can prove that god does not exist, I also say no,
so from that perspective I'm an agnostic (since I don't have definite
knowledge of god's non existence).
Out of these two perspectives, however, I lean towards the first (i.e. I'm an
atheist because I do not believe in the existence of god) because the second
perspective, i.e. requiring me to prove the non existence of god, is a both a
logical fallacy and an unfair burden. To elaborate what I mean, let's change
the topic from existence of god to the existence of the Invisible Pink
Unicorn (IPU). I claim that the IPU exists because no one can prove that it
doesn't. This proposition of "true unless proven otherwise" is clearly a
logical fallacy, i.e. if "X is true because there is no proof that X is
false", then it can be argued that not only that the Invisible Pink Unicorn
exists, but so does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, dragons, aliens, flying
saucers, and what not. My defense of the IPU's existence ("true unless proven
otherwise" is also an unfair burden on you because if I make an outlandish
claim, then the burden of proof obviously lies on me, not you. Now back to
god. This outlandish claim needs to be proven by those who claim it, not me,
and the defense that it's true because I can't prove otherwise is nonsensical
and fallacious. I thus can not see how I can consider myself an agnostic,
because the perspective that makes me look like an agnostic is bunk. In
conclusion....

I'm an atheist.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"

Obi Wan Kenobe

quote:

---

I think the question of whether or not I'm an atheist or an agnostic is purely a matter of perspective.

---

And I would disagree based on your premise and context.

quote:

---

When a believer asks me whether I believe in the
existence of god, I say no, so from his perspective I'm an atheist.

---

No, the idiot hearing your answer may assume this, but that means nothing.

To say no does not exclude the possibility, but should you attempt to exclude the possibility, than atheist you would be, and the dunce hat would be yours to share with the believer, which is all you would be, a believer in a self asserted fact regardless of the obvious inability to prove such an assertion.

quote:

---

I'm an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of god

---

This could be stated by an agnostic. It's when you claim god does not exist as a fact that you become an atheist. A stupid posistion because you know you cannot know this.

Of course, the question that always must arise in this subject is the definition of god and your posistion on that, are you denying a specific iteration of god or all possible entities or creative forces greater than yourself, therefore basically calling yourself god, etc.

quote:

---

i.e. requiring me to prove the non existence of god

---

Not at all. To be agnostic requires no such thing. The burden of proof falls on those who claim belief in god or belief in no god, not in the posistion of accepting you do not know.

As for your hypothetical creatures, here's a thought. Do thoughts and ideas exist? Do pictures and words exist? Then a flying spaghetti monster exists as soon as you say it does.

Does that mean it is tangible, sure, even if barely due to our limited sensory capability, such as in an electro chemical thought form, perhaps on paper if written or drawn, maybe stored as memory on a computer, perhaps we will make one of paper mache.

Now if you said this monster was likely to appear and destroy the world or save mankind. Then ya, we could laugh at you, but it wouldn't mean it was impossible.

What if I made a device that accidentally, or purposefully, turned the moon into living spaghetti that then crashed into earth destroying it.

A believer's god does exist, be it as a fable or an idea. Does it exist in the sense that the believer would claim, I could not say. I cannot be sure that our thoughts are not manifestations in another dimension.

All I could say is that they don't know either and that they are just making claims, looking like a fool.

Both "believers" and atheists are indeed believers in that they believe they hold an absolute knowledge that they do not.

Which makes both posistions bunk.

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.

Behold! The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/

What the hell?

Is that for real?

Pastafarianism! These guys obviously have far too much time on their hands man!!!!

FSM is pretty popular in Colorado, so I don't know if Ironwood's comment was intentional or coincidental, but either way it does raise a very important point: The more people believe in something, the more it manifests itself into reality.

Sure FSM is a joke, but it appears awfully real and it very well could be to somebody out there.

what the fuck were they smoking when they came up with that one?! the only good thing about that is that it proved Ironwood's point.sorry for staying off subject,but that was to damn funny to ignore.