Beliefs in general or certainty. I was an atheist. I thought I knew that Bigfoot was a hoax. Now I’m more open minded. Doesn’t mean I really believe the opposite now. Kinda like in the movie Dogma, Rufus talks about ideas vs. beliefs. In conclusion:
Welcome to agnostic atheism! Realize that atheism isn’t the denial of any god existing. Atheism is a response to theism. It’s hearing someone say “this god exists, and there’s no proof” and responding “I don’t believe you.”
I wouldn’t even say “I don’t believe you” because that is just as much a blind conviction as belief. People have all sorts of experiences, some hard to believe. I don’t need to believe or disbelieve somebodies experience in order to relate. It’s like watching a movie based on a true story. Do the facts matter or does the story? I think every story has a bit of truth to it, even complete fiction. So when somebody tells me something I’m not concerned about the truth or believing it - it is simply someone else’s experience and it may or may not prove useful to me.
I think I see what you’re getting at, but I take issue with saying that a response of “I don’t believe you” is blind conviction.
All it is, at the core, is rejecting claims that have no evidence. It’s less a dismissal of someone’s experience than a rejection of the conclusion they draw from it. There is no conviction in not accepting a claim without supporting evidence.
So I think it’s not correct to say I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t reject the concept of God. Many people have had religious experiences (especially near-death experiences), and I don’t think they’re all lying. I don’t take one persons account as gospel, but in aggregate they tell an interesting story. A story that I have no direct experience or evidence to support but I need not reject or accept the stories as truth.
Same for Sasquatch. Thousands of years of stories on every inhabited continent. Who am I to discount them all as fiction. I don’t need to decide which camp I’m in - believer or non-believer. It makes no difference. It doesn’t become part of my identity. I don’t need to be right or wrong.
I have however seen a UFO, when I was young. It really doesn’t matter whether you believe me. It’s your choice. But dismissing anything for which there’s no evidence is a big presumption. You don’t have direct evidence of many things you believe to be true.
The theory of plate tectonics was once ridiculed. We have pretty good evidence now but it started as a theory.
I don’t really believe in god, or bigfoot, but I do believe that I’m a tiny person with a small brain and a very limited education in a big world that even scientists don’t fully understand and so if tomorrow they announced that they conclusively proved the existence or non-existence of god it would not rock my world because I have chosen to believe that anything, no matter how improbable, is possible until proven otherwise.
Beliefs in general or certainty. I was an atheist. I thought I knew that Bigfoot was a hoax. Now I’m more open minded. Doesn’t mean I really believe the opposite now. Kinda like in the movie Dogma, Rufus talks about ideas vs. beliefs. In conclusion:
Welcome to agnostic atheism! Realize that atheism isn’t the denial of any god existing. Atheism is a response to theism. It’s hearing someone say “this god exists, and there’s no proof” and responding “I don’t believe you.”
I wouldn’t even say “I don’t believe you” because that is just as much a blind conviction as belief. People have all sorts of experiences, some hard to believe. I don’t need to believe or disbelieve somebodies experience in order to relate. It’s like watching a movie based on a true story. Do the facts matter or does the story? I think every story has a bit of truth to it, even complete fiction. So when somebody tells me something I’m not concerned about the truth or believing it - it is simply someone else’s experience and it may or may not prove useful to me.
I think I see what you’re getting at, but I take issue with saying that a response of “I don’t believe you” is blind conviction.
All it is, at the core, is rejecting claims that have no evidence. It’s less a dismissal of someone’s experience than a rejection of the conclusion they draw from it. There is no conviction in not accepting a claim without supporting evidence.
So I think it’s not correct to say I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t reject the concept of God. Many people have had religious experiences (especially near-death experiences), and I don’t think they’re all lying. I don’t take one persons account as gospel, but in aggregate they tell an interesting story. A story that I have no direct experience or evidence to support but I need not reject or accept the stories as truth.
Same for Sasquatch. Thousands of years of stories on every inhabited continent. Who am I to discount them all as fiction. I don’t need to decide which camp I’m in - believer or non-believer. It makes no difference. It doesn’t become part of my identity. I don’t need to be right or wrong.
I have however seen a UFO, when I was young. It really doesn’t matter whether you believe me. It’s your choice. But dismissing anything for which there’s no evidence is a big presumption. You don’t have direct evidence of many things you believe to be true.
The theory of plate tectonics was once ridiculed. We have pretty good evidence now but it started as a theory.
I don’t really believe in god, or bigfoot, but I do believe that I’m a tiny person with a small brain and a very limited education in a big world that even scientists don’t fully understand and so if tomorrow they announced that they conclusively proved the existence or non-existence of god it would not rock my world because I have chosen to believe that anything, no matter how improbable, is possible until proven otherwise.
Exactly! It’s not necessary to believe, nor is it necessary to disbelieve.
Bigfoot is big guy named Jake in a monkey disguise
A monkey wouldn’t be very convincing it would have to be an ape.
that’s why he’s always so blurry