Apatheism - the only logical position

Face it, there is no evidence for God, but for that very reason there is no clear reason to say an entity like God cant exist. It is illogical to take a definitive stance either way because its just no clear. One cannot be a theist or an atheist with complete certainty, and they never are. Atheists don't arrive at the position there is no God because they find evidence he doesn't exist - they arrive at that position because they see the concept of God as defined within religion, is irrational, flawed and thus not worthy of believe. But when they go from saying, correctly, that religion is flawed to saying God doesn't exist, then they have become just as deluded as religious folk. That being said then, it is clear religious folk also base their sense of morality on the unsubstantiated position there is a God - they can never prove that.

Logically then it makes no sense to say there is or is not a God. When we consider religion, the existence of God should not be determinate of religion;s value to us. Religion generally is not to bad in that it does do good as well as evil. People complain about its history but such events in question had as much to do with general socio-political development of humans as it did with religious institutions, who really arose as an extension of the wider world, not a religious creed specifically.

Advocates of religious ideology, and those that oppose it, should do so without a resort to an attack on the concept of God because its unwinnable. Not only this, but the morality of religion should be able to stand independent of God. If what God commands us to do is moral, then it must be considered so objectively. Some theists say we should do what God says simply because he's God but that isn't a reason, nor is it a logical or valid one.

But getting back to atheists, it is illogical to take the position God doesn't exist - because you don't know for certain. Given that religion is flawed within its metaphysical basis and rational application etc, and given the fact God clearly does not care about what we humans do, what we think, the existence of suffering etc, given all this, it is more rational to contend God simply does not care about us, whether he is alive or not. Along with the fact religion has no rational basis to be followed outside of the arbitrary notion through the appeal to authority that 'its right because God says so', we can devise another stance with regard to religion - apatheism.

Apatheism:
"An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life."

It is similar to...

Apathetic agnosticism:
"Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) is the view that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities (gods). This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest."

Since God doesnt do anything to improve or sway the lives of humans, and given that religion as an ideology has been revealed as flawed and incomplete, the most logical stance to take is essentially one of apathy - who cares whether God is real? The question of his existence is IRRELEVANT to our lives.

The key to this stance is that "unlike theists, atheists, etc., the unique feature of an apatheist is that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their beliefs and behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.[1]"

Thus I am an apatheist. I cant see why most atheists, and theists for that matter, would not also, logically and rationally, take this position as well.

All quotes taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

 

Interesting approach.

Gotta a questeeeon'o:


if we changed the description of 'god' from being some dude on a thrown, to 'goddess' like in mother nature herself.............

directly; if the 'god' of reality is nature, the universe we live within........... which requires no worchipp, no begging, no giving coins in a hat, requiring nothing but YOUR own personal responsibility of being responsible for what you do.......

could mother nature be a good women to be in love with? (a goddess)

(i dont do fignewtons of the imagination, either but i have come to realize all that stuff people want, seek, wishfor and dream a god is going to give them; we standing within it)

i mean, i am thankful every morning just to wake up

 

MDF, I think your post is absolutely correct. I've made the exact same argument here in the past, and was vehemently attacked by the the atheists for exposing the faults within their supposed logic.

If nature itself is a god, then we are not standing within it, but are truly a part of it. We don't need to worship some greater entity; we are an integral part of that greater entity.

 

ie.... we are ONE.

that would make you A 'son/daughter' of god................

the hesus guy said something that made sense:

john 14:20 in that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you;


'we are ONE"



hey doooooooood, that kind of cooooool............


and then, if mother nature is da boss (then he is a she, giggle giggle), then it means, the name of da boss is da math describing how it works



kind of stupid easy, aint it?

 

I agree, however you are not going to find very atheists who are gnostic atheists. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, people who disbelieve in the existence of god however would probably be swayed into believing should they be presented with definitive evidence to support the notion of such a being.

That is a far cry from your typical theists who are certain they are right without being granted any evidence to support such a notion of existence.

 

That is nonsense logic. Just because you can't disprove a fantastic claim is no reason to give it credence.

Atheists lack a belief in god--they do not believe there is no god. It's a subtle but important distinction. It's a very rare atheist that positively asserts that god does not exist, and almost all of them are people trying to get attention or make money on book sales.

Apatheism denies that the question is important, which is just as absurd as proposing that god does not exist. If a deity does exist, it would be quite important to know.

 

Hey, I got a swell idea, it might sound crazy, but seriously, hear me out for just a second...

How about people just keep their religion to themselves? You know, stop lording over the fact that 'my religion (or lack thereof) is the real answer'.

As the OP said, 'there is no evidence for God, but for that very reason there is no clear reason to say an entity like God cant exist.'

So, rather than pretend 'my beliefs are the one, true answer', how about people just keep their beliefs to themselves, you know, not force them onto others?

 

The only ones forcing it are the theists.

As for being totally agnostic, that is nonsensical. There is nothing preventing a god from existing, yes, there is also nothing preventing an invisible pink unicorn from existing as well. The consideration of a god, demonstrating the same lack of evidence as the invisible pink unicorn, should be on a the same level.

Atheists do not say that a god absolutely does not exist, there so there is no evidence and therefore no reason to consider it as being a fact.

 

This doesn't compute. I know with 100% certainty that I have no theistic beliefs. Hence, I can with complete certainty be an atheist.

On a related note, it's not really me who call myself an atheist, it is those who have a need to identify an absence of their own faith. I'm happy with not having names for all the things that we aren't.

For example, if people believe in Santa Claus and they need to identify people who don't share that belief then chances are that they will call them asantaclausists. And if they ask me if I'm an asantaclausist then I'll of course say yes, just like I now say yes to not sharing the various theistic faiths of some people.

Of course, those who thus learn of my lack of belief in Santa Claus will inadvertently say that my lack of belief means that I positively assert that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and I will then have to explain that this is not so; I merely don't believe in the myth. But that's part of the game, I guess, once the faithful realizes that his faith can be absent for no apparent reason.

Bottom line, if you want to call yourself an apatheist then by all means you should do so. But if it is about an absence of someone's faith then it is not you who govern these things, it is he who has a need to identify you through your position to his particular faith that does. All you can do is try to keep him from making up stuff about you because of your position to his faith.

This is impossible. Rejecting a claim a posteriori can be done on evidence. It is not a big deal. We do it all the time and most often with gratitude, even. However, rejecting a claim a priori is always an attack of the person making the claim because there exists no evidence, only the persons own conception. This is why a word like sacrosanct exists and why rules can be made against things like blasphemy.

Again impossible. "Morality of religion" is of course dependent upon religion. Just as it spells out.

Morality that is not of religion, though, which must be morality in general as opposed to such special moral positions as tithing, reverence of deities and religious martyrdom, is of course never dependent upon religion.

 

Actually, your whole position is logically flawed because of one thing. You failed to define what "god" is. What are you referring to when you use that word?

The only logical position is theological noncognitivism, which posits that you must be able define words like "god" and "soul" before you can debate whether they exist or not.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Athiests are just as likely to spout their beliefs and argue their superiority as much as a theist is. Consider the pink unicorn analogy. Atheists are just as likely to compare the existence of a creator God to a freaking invisible pink unicorn. It's mocking the beliefs of others due to a belief in the superiority of one's beliefs.

 

Sincere question: Why do you feel drawn to label yourself something?

 

Probably because most people feel the need to identify with a group. It's safe.

 

My guess is that you're right. But, that should say something to the OP. That should give him something to reflect on introspectively.


As for the term Apatheism...

A group that "doesn't care" (apathy) about "no God" (atheism)? Seem like a doubled double negative to me. Kinda silly, imo.

 

Not really. It's only human to want to connect to a group, thanks to evolution of course where being a part of the group or tribe was what one did.

I do believe that it would be split apa + theism, or, don't care about God.

 

Atheism is not a definite stance. Atheism is not the position that there are no gods but the position that the atheist does not believe in any.

 

I don't know about that. I think that there are some atheists who would argue that god or gods do not exist, while others would say that they simply do not believe in them. But again though, there is no clear definition. I think each person takes what they feel best suits their views.

 

I have to disagree with you, OP. It is perfectly rational to assume something doesn't exist if you've never observed any evidence for its existence.

 

I do. That is the only definition that all atheists can agree on. All atheists lack a belief in deities, but not all atheists believe there are no gods. Therefore, the belief that there are no gods is obviously something different from atheism. Antitheism, maybe.

 

That's essentially what I was saying. I just didn't care to add a secondary term to define those who believe believe gods don't exist.

 

What is the difference, then?

I'm asking with all honesty. The only difference I can see between a god and an invisible pink unicorn is that people genuinely believe in one. But why should mere belief mandate respect? I do not respect the beliefs of people who believe a triangle has four sides, I merely draw them a triangle and ask them to count to three.

 

No, and you also don't respect the Nazis because of a feeling of superiority, nothing else.

 

That's your belief then.

To answer your question, however, I'll say this: The difference between God(s) and an invisible pink unicorn is that you made up the unicorn on the spot. Deities tend to have rich mythos and, whilst I can accept that many of them may be earlier people trying to explain the nature of the world they live in, there have been many inexplicable occurrences, and other events that lend me creedence to my belief.

 

Well, going by your question, given mother nature is a bit of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), I'd say my position doesnt much change.

 

Indeed, it is quite annoying. In the end they become as irrational as the theists they seek to expose.

Well said.