Jonathan H. B. Lobl

God as the monster in the woods? It is time to face our fears.

We are now engaged in anticipating possible challenges. Atheists are told that any God that they could understand, wouldn't be God. Atheists are told that the Super Natural can't be proven by Natural means. Atheists are told to prove that there is no God. Atheists are told to define the God that they don't believe in. Agnostics are told that just because they don't know -- does not mean that nobody knows. Agnostics are told to grow a spine and take a stand. Atheists and Agnostics are both asked what they would accept as proof. You might consider which varieties of crap, that you are willing or able to cope with. Either way, you will encounter the God of the gaps. Why is there something instead of nothing? Everything has a cause. What caused the Universe? If people came from monkeys; why are there still monkeys? If there is no God -- how do you know right from wrong? How can you be good without God?

It's nuance. Not all that different. Atheist: I have no reason to believe that God exists -- so I don't believe. Agnostic: I have no facts about God -- so I don't know. Agnostic Atheist: I don't know and I don't believe. (The teacher gave you three choices. Did she say that you couldn't combine them?) Agnostic Theist: I don't know, but I choose to believe.

My best guess is that your teacher got careless with her grammar or mad a typo.

In my opinion, what people "believe" is as much Sociology as Theology. Society in general; parents beliefs, friends, teachers, etc. People like to go with the flow. More so, when non-believers are looked upon as lacking morals or ethics.

"Supreme Being" does take some options off the table. You still have a choice of two: Monotheism and Deism. The God of Deism does not answer prayers. Does not have "revelations". Does not have "Scripture". But could exist.

Suppose you do go with "belief in God". Alright, which God are we speaking of? There is Abrahamic Monotheism. If you go with this, there is the strict Monotheism of Judaism and Islam, distinct from Trinitarian Christianity. There is Deism, which is the religion of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. There is Pantheism, which is different from both. There is Hinduism/Vedanta, where the many gods are all aspects of the One God. There is Polytheism, which is again, different. It is not enough to present as a believer. Not when there are so many different varieties of belief.

It won't do you any good for your class. Still, if you are playing with labels, you might try "Apatheist". An Apatheist is someone who doesn't care whether or not God exists. There is also "Apathethic Agnostic". The motto of the Apathetic Agnostic Church is "We don't know and we don't care."

Your point was not missed. Possibly every Atheist understands Atheism a little differently.

No. I don't expect agreement. I do expect a bell curve. This seems to be the case. It's not scientific. I don't have numbers. Over the years, I have built up an impression of where the high point in the curve is. Of course, I could be mistaken.

The Atheists that I've met are not trying to kick anybody out of the club. They want Atheism to be the umbrella word.

Generally, I avoid that kind of debate. When I must, I defend Atheism by not letting the pious define it at all. That means I'm not defending against a false definition. I reject the definition. For much the same reason, that Jews don't let Vatican dictionaries define them. For the same reason that Pagans and other Polytheists don't accept Christian definitions. The time has come for the Non-Monotheists -- all the different varieties -- to stop kissing up to the dominant culture.

Defined by whom? The Atheists on You Tube -- Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dillahunty, etc. go in other directions.

1. Nonsense. If you know that something is true -- based on evidence -- you don't need belief. Take that further. Evidence can prove that belief is false. Consider the experiments of Galileo. He proved that Aristotle was mistaken about the rate at which object fall. Aristotle believed that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. Galileo proved that this belief was false. 2. Before Galileo, the Church believed that the Moon, as a Celestial object, was perfect. Galileo looked at the Moon with his telescope and discovered craters. That the Moon was not perfect. Belief had to be overcome by knowledge.

Based on this comment of yours, I think you would be more comfortable with the Agnostic label. Nuances aside, I find there is a cultural divide between Agnostics and Atheists. Go to You Tube and do a search on "Atheist". Then do a search on "Agnostic". In my opinion, the Agnostics are a much more mellow lot. More thoughtful and less passionate. Of course, there are exceptions.

I understand that. Von has to make two presentations of a possible three positions. Perhaps you could help him prepare for the belief position?

The Agnostic point is not deciding. It's knowing. Deciding without knowing is not reasonable. In science, when we don't know something -- we don't decide. We wait for more information. Further -- we don't need to "decide". In the end, God either is or is not. Belief is irrelevant. Disbelief is irrelevant. Neither changes anything. We don't know. There are no facts. Now we come to nuance. The Agnostic does not "know" -- but can still doubt. All crows are black, until we find a white crow. Without any objective facts about God's existence -- God's existence seems improbable. Not impossible. Unlikely.

Beware of a basic debater's trick. Do not let your opponent define your position for you. The Atheist position is that there is no valid reason -- no good evidence -- no proof that God exists. The believer will attempt to put words into your mouth. He will insist that your position is that God does not exist. No. You don't believe because there is no reason to believe. It is for the person making the assertion to provide the evidence. If you maintain only that you don't believe, you are not making assertions -- other than nonbelief. If you let your opponent define your position that -- "There is no God" -- you have been tricked into making an assertion and are now responsible for proof. A bad situation because you can not prove a negative. I do not believe that there are green elephants on Mars. There is no reason to believe such a thing. I can't prove it. For all I know, there are green elephants in Mars. It seems improbable. I do not believe that God exists. There is nor reason to believe such a thing. I can't prove it. For all I know, God does exist. It seems improbable. That is all you need to establish. That you don't believe due to lack of evidence. It's worth repeating -- even if the believer proves that a god exists -- Good luck with that -- it still remains to be established that it's their God

There is one more thought I have for you -- for now. Even if the believer manages to prove that there is "a god" -- by no means certain -- it remains to be proven that it's "their" God. Alright: A bonus question. The believer will challenge you. "What would it take to convince you that God exists?" The answer is simple. "I don't know -- but God would know -- and it hasn't happened."

There is an argument that you might as well prepare for. The believer will insist on talking about "objective morality". As in -- How do you know that murder is wrong? Because God said it. Keep your response simple. God did not say it. Scripture said it. People produced Scripture. People also produced morals. The believer will insist that we need God to be good. An argument based on need is irrelevant. I need to be free of Arthritis. That's not how reality works.

The Agnostic position and the Atheist position are similar, but there is nuance. Atheism is about not believing. Agnosticism is about not knowing. It is possible to combine them with Agnostic Atheism. "I don't know and I don't believe." Belief is another word for opinion. Opinions can't be argued to any purpose. I can have a serious discussion about what I know and how I know it.

To the contrary. We have no objective, verifiable facts about God. God might exist. God might not exist. In the absence of reliable information, we don't "know". Simple. In addition, the Agnostic does not need to define God. That headache goes to the believer. Without a definition for God, what is the believer even asserting? All that heat over something that can't be defined. "I don't know" is so easy.

If you want to take the Atheist position, keep it simple. An Atheist is someone who has one less god than a Monotheist. The Agnostic position is also simple. All you have to do is avoid complications.

The Good Life is an abstraction. I can only speak knowingly of My Good Life.