Current mood:	calm
Current music:	"Gunsmoke" in the background. Dad's got the TV. ::groan::

Well, perhaps I should explain myself. Mostly for those that are upset when I say I'm an atheist. I'm not doing this to offend, just...to explain.

I would go so far to say I am a "radical atheist", but I use the term 'radical' very loosely. Just for emphasis. You use the term atheist by itself, and people will say, "don't you mean agnostic?" I have to reply that I really do mean atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not one shred of evidence that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it is an opinion I hold seriously.

Some people will then often say, "but surely it's better to remain agnostic, just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers, hair splitting worship impressed him, I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know. Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc, as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all, I don't really think that belief has anything to do with it. I believe or don't believe my thirteen-year old sister when she tells me that she did the dishes. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know how to acheive them...). I believe that England should enter the Euro. I am not remotely enough of an economist to to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, tells me that it's the right course. I could easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. But anyways, these seem to be legitimate uses of the word believe. As a carapce for the preotection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is totally different and takes me to point number two.

I do not accept the currently fashionable assertaion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof. In the case of god and the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amont of explaining. SO I don't think that being convinced there is a god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for evenhandedness at all.

Hope that explains it.