Further explanation and retraction of atheistic stance.
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:12 am
This is a cross-post from my blog but I figured you all would be interested and it is worth the feedback regardless of stance on what is presented.
Below is a continuation of my earlier rant which included Richard Dawkin's calling out the hypocrites, liars, and the irrationals. I had a comment from Ryan that was well thought out and more importantly framed it in a way that I had not intended when I wrote it. So, I wrote a response to clarify the situation.
Below is a continuation of my earlier rant which included Richard Dawkin's calling out the hypocrites, liars, and the irrationals. I had a comment from Ryan that was well thought out and more importantly framed it in a way that I had not intended when I wrote it. So, I wrote a response to clarify the situation.
Below this is another post about my experiences in the work force in northern Virginia.In order to further develop the “Calling out of hypocrites, the liars, and irrationals” that I spoke of earlier here, we must examine those words and their meanings more carefully then within context else we confuse the issue.
To be an atheist or a theist, as it currently stands is an interesting position to take considering the labels we receive for explaining ourselves. Our disbelief or belief is our own, however until proof is found in either that God exists or does not exist we are liars and irrationals, we are sometimes hypocrites based on the situations and circumstances.
Let us begin by going through the words, their meanings, then explanation on why we are liars, hypocrites, and irrationals.
According to the Heritage Dictionary the word Liar is someone who lies[1]. The most commonly accepted definition of 'lie' is as follows.
Let us make true and false the conditions and ask the question, does God exist? Before you answer yes, prove it true. Step beyond belief, and prove it. If you can't prove it, but still say that God does or does not exist, then you are a liar.lie (lī)
n.
1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Currently, we can not empirically prove God's existence but we cannot disprove it either. So, while you can believe that God does exist does not bother me. What bothers me is when anyone presents God as existing or not existing without proof to me. I call that person a liar, because without proof then the statement is a false one deliberately presented as being true.
Interestingly enough, this leads us to hypocrites. A hypocrite is one given to hypocrisy[2] which is also defined here:
An appropriate example of hypocrisy is the professing of faith because of some external pressure, be it because of survival or just to fit in. So hypocrites are also liars, but worse in that they knowingly do so in order to deceive and derive some benefit from it.hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē)
n.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.
Lastly we come to 'irrationals', to be irrational as described by the AHD is:
Most humans (barring impairments) are rational creatures, the use of reason explains why the sky is blue and why there are maggots where there was once old meat. This plays into the belief or disbelief because of the nature of God. If we can neither prove nor disprove God then to claim either is irrational.ir·ra·tion·al (ĭ-rāsh'ə-nəl)[3]
adj.
1.Not endowed with reason.
2.Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
3.Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
Theists and atheists either believe in something beyond as in a God, God(s), Karma, and etc or believe all of it does not exist. If they try to tell you one way or the other without proof, that makes them liars and their arguments about the subject irrational.
Where does this leave me? I must confess that I'm changing my mind on atheism because I can't sanely argue against the existence of God. I can't argue for the existence of God either for the same reason. Where do I fall? It was suggested by my wife that I'm neither and that I fall under another group, Agnostic.
I had heard the term before so researched more and the AHD also sums it up:
I'll tackle agnosticism another time, but this is where my current self-learning is taking me.ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.
1.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Hopefully this also goes into greater detail why I think Professor Dawkins is my hero in that he is calling out these people, theists and atheists alike. I'm a hypocrite for trying to fit in. I'm a liar for doing so. I try my best to be rational, and I apologize to those who I've lied to.
[1] lies. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved December 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies
[2] hypocrisy. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved December 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy
[3] irrational. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved December 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational
[4] agnostic. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved December 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic