![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think it might be accurate for me to claim the label theological noncognitivist. At the very least, I've never encountered a god concept about which I feel there could be rational discussion - the terms are always redefined mid conversation, or never defined at all. However, according to that bastion of spiritual knowledge and advice, Wikipedia, to be consistently noncognitivist conflicts with atheism.
I have recently decided that I can proudly claim the label atheist, rather than agnostic, because of calculus.
I think that the existence of God is unprovable in either direction. Some definitions state this in their dogma; others lack a coherent definition, which in itself makes the concept unprovable. I totally concur with Russel's Teapot -- if I am given no reason to believe in something outlandish, I'll disbelieve it, rather than suspend judgement.
Does everyone remember calculus? I'm thinking of the limit concept -- that even if you can't get to an exact point, you can get close enough for all intents and purposes (this is a very rough rephrasing). In this function, x is approaching atheism, so we might as well call it that.
My main label happily remains humanism, but it doesn't enter into discussion here because it is not a theistic or atheistic epithet, but an ethical one, which I believe to be far more important, since it actually has a bearing on life and human interaction.
Standard Disclaimer:
1. No, this does not mean I'd like to have lunch with Christopher Hitchens. Sharing a lack-of-belief does not nessecarily bring people into the same camp, and no belief system or lack there of is free of assholes.
2. I have not now, nor have I ever, killed anyone, maimed/tortured anyone, stollen, committed arson, etc. If you believe that ethics can not exist outside of religion, please consider me and all the other perfectly moral atheists you know as contrary exhibit A.
Obviously, none of this applies to my fervent belief in Clarence, who art above us, and doth occasionally call on the phone.
I have recently decided that I can proudly claim the label atheist, rather than agnostic, because of calculus.
I think that the existence of God is unprovable in either direction. Some definitions state this in their dogma; others lack a coherent definition, which in itself makes the concept unprovable. I totally concur with Russel's Teapot -- if I am given no reason to believe in something outlandish, I'll disbelieve it, rather than suspend judgement.
Does everyone remember calculus? I'm thinking of the limit concept -- that even if you can't get to an exact point, you can get close enough for all intents and purposes (this is a very rough rephrasing). In this function, x is approaching atheism, so we might as well call it that.
My main label happily remains humanism, but it doesn't enter into discussion here because it is not a theistic or atheistic epithet, but an ethical one, which I believe to be far more important, since it actually has a bearing on life and human interaction.
Standard Disclaimer:
1. No, this does not mean I'd like to have lunch with Christopher Hitchens. Sharing a lack-of-belief does not nessecarily bring people into the same camp, and no belief system or lack there of is free of assholes.
2. I have not now, nor have I ever, killed anyone, maimed/tortured anyone, stollen, committed arson, etc. If you believe that ethics can not exist outside of religion, please consider me and all the other perfectly moral atheists you know as contrary exhibit A.
Obviously, none of this applies to my fervent belief in Clarence, who art above us, and doth occasionally call on the phone.
