The last post

[merlinofchaos]

My point, by the way, which I was too tired to make is...

In this country (and probably others), it's almost required for politicians to be Christian. For those that truly believe in religious tolerance, it's ok for politicians to be Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindi.

But atheists? Get out of town. Apparently having some belief is better than having no belief at all.

The problem is, atheism isn't a lack of belief. It is specifically disbelieving in God. And I don't think those are the same thing, not by a long shot. It isn't coming across two paths (or fifty paths) and simply choosing not to pick one. That's agnosticism. That's saying you don't know. Atheism is saying you do know, and you do believe...that God or Gods do not exist.

Comments

[evilmagnus]

Well, to be fair, I was repeating Richard Dawkin's contention. Rather than try to argue the point with you I suggest you borrow/buy The God Delusion, wherein Dawkins goes through all this far better than I could hope to.

[merlinofchaos]

I've read a bunch of Dawkins on the net, and I still agree with branna.

branna, thank you very much for that extremely well-written commentry on agnosticism. Before I decided (based largely on faith) that God does not, in fact exist as part of my personal belief system, I considered myself agnostic for the very good reasons you state. Atheism -- or at least my atheism -- is a leap of faith. Or perhaps cynicism. Take your pick. =)

[wildpaletz.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm enjoying reading, and agree with, your arguments.

Chris sometimes laughs at me because I believe in God via a redefinition of God. He's said something like, "It's like saying that you believe pigs can fly, and by 'pigs can fly,' you mean "the sky looks blue to me'!" Which is, honestly, a fair critique of my beliefs.