Dear Luciferase,

Thanks for your reference to great talk on cosmology.

I'm not sure why you have resorted to insult, Luciferase.

>>The existential atheist is Pericles, wandering, not wondering, not inquiring, merely an organism responding to stimuli.<<

I made it perfectly clear that my line of enquiry into matters surrounding our presence on earth is via physics and chemistry, as opposed to metaphysics and blind conjecture.

You seem to be stuck in this half-light, between theism and whatever you deem to be non-theism, posing "questions" such as:

>>"How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom?<<

The "by whom" part of this is not within my vocabulary, though it clearly remains part of yours. The fact that I don't wander around with my head up my... my head in the clouds getting all mystical, does not indicate any lack of interest in the cosmos. Your assertion that this renders me "merely an organism responding to stimuli" is fundamentally rude.

I am even more convinced now that you are playing some kind of game here, posing as an atheist merely in order to attempt to sow confusion, and score a few points for the otherwise absent Christian community.

Because your arguments are not cogent, nor do they exhibit the thought patterns of one who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being.

>>the "main event" Pericles sees coming, not sure what that is, holy war?<<

The "main event" is simply where Christians pop their heads up on this forum, levelling accusations that atheism is a subset of religious belief.

Holy Wars are waged between religions. E.g. Northern Ireland.

Apologies if you felt insulted, Pericles. It was definitely not intended but as I review what I wrote in a bit of a rush on my way out I can see what you mean. It was abrupt.

More politely now, I hope, I felt your claim that you have never once pondered the question of an afterlife to be completely disingenuous. "...I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it".

The only way that claim could be true is if one was nothing more than a sentient being. Even trying to live existentially is a conscious act. To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me. One would have to have one's head up one's..er..in the clouds to fail, as more than a sentient being, to consider to the question.

As such, I felt you made the claim simply as a device to fortify your militantly atheistic position. Either that or, I felt, just which of us should be implied as being blond here?

When I was eleven or twelve (45-ish years ago) science provided absolutely nowhere even near the knowledge and understanding it now has. Amazing progress has been made over the last decade, in particular. For me to expect of science, at eleven or twelve, to provide a case for the existence of the universe and myself, would have simply been a giant leap of faith. I congratulate you on the precocious and well placed faith in science you displayed at such a tender young age, Pericles.

Bugga! I've used that darned "F" word. No offence, OK?

Dear Luciferase,

I have never pondered the question of an afterlife.

You wrote: "More politely now, I hope, I felt your claim that you have never once pondered the question of an afterlife to be completely disingenuous. "...I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it".

The only way that claim could be true is if one was nothing more than a sentient being. Even trying to live existentially is a conscious act. To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me. One would have to have one's head up one's..er..in the clouds to fail, as more than a sentient being, to consider to the question."

I don't regard an afterlife as the deepest question. I don't know why you do. I had a Jewish religious education, but I don't remember an afterlife ever being discussed. When I heard of the concept it just seemed pointless. We don't live before we're born, and we don't live after we die.

For a time I was very religious and thought about religious questions. However, an afterlife was never part of it.

great david speaks for pericules
anyhow we are born ignorant[as a generalisation]

but jesus apparently defended his mothers honour...when she presented him..[to the unimpressed family]..[source somewhere in the koran]..

so clearly the christ...was born aware
[just like pericules]..i allways visualised a steady inclination of knowledge...but i suppose regression of knowl;edge...must also allow its opinioning..

anyhow i was a science nut...[my athiest[reformed the-ist]father
had judged his beliefs and found them wanting..so i was a science loyalist..[having fath in science]..till as i grew up i realised it was badly flawed

as much ax religeonn is flawed..if not more
that the mindless put theirfaith bin others
[be they priests in black dress's..or balding nurds..in lab coats]

i found the peer revieuw system's [both obseved]
was badly flawed..[both see a kind of rule playing
that ends up in absolutist stasis...as like a immaculate teruth[peers]..authority...[interpritating the holy texts..and revieuwing studies][

filtering them for the faithfull flock]
too ignorant or lazy to reason things out for themselves..
thus flocking to sit at the feet of these 'man gods'..idols..
supping on the current trend..in their specialised idio-ology

they of course arnt alone
we got them lawyers wearing dresses and wigs
you got them docters..in lab coated whiter than whitie
not to mention the beuro-rock-rats...in sheeps cloathing
and criminals with the clothing of mass murder..[just-ifi-able war mob]

anyhow
immaculate knowledge..[now there a conception]
jesus i could agree..but pericules...wow im honoured

forgive my ignorances oh master
as you forgive the ignorances of those not in the leraast curious..re this life or the next..[such a fixed narrow means of thought]..

i like to think i dont limit my thought..but those who never considerd the possability..[can they really validate any opinion..beyond a first impression or generality]

do they concieve life..as sans [without]..energy
[energy that cant be created..nor destroyed]

[energies of such use
but with huge karmic comeback..when handled carelessly[mindlessly]..

Hey AJ,
I was referring to Atheism, too. In fact, I'm fairly sure T.H. Huxley was referring to Atheism when he coined the term. I thank ye kindly for the links provided, here is a quote from one of them:
“In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God”
Still sounds like middle-ground to me.
It seems we're still stumbling over the question of whether “disbelieve” is a neutral stance (zero) or a negative stance. Pericles seems to feel disbelief is zero, making him an Agnostic by the above definition. Luciferase (and I tend to agree) appears to believe disbelief has a negative value, ie Dawkins strongly believes there is no god (negative value).
In which case, Atheism is quite clearly a belief system.
Consider these statements (apologies for taking thy name in vain, Pericles, you're just a useful example):
“Pericles believes there are no Gods” - belief.
“Pericles strongly believes a god or gods do not exist” -belief.
Or this:
“Pericles enjoys (as do I) a system of beliefs (intellectual, social, ethical, rational) which does not require the existence -or putative existence- or any supernatural deities” -non belief.

I would suggest the first two propositions are classical “atheism” (and therefore a belief system), whereas the last is classical Agnosticism, (and therefore a non belief system).
In company with Dawkins, I describe myself as a “de facto” atheist, but for significantly different reasons. Dawkins is de facto, because he strongly believes, but stops just short of 'knowing' (“6.9 out of seven”).
I'm de facto, because I don't give a rats. I have no idea whether God exists or not, nor do I care (except as a matter of curiosity). I honestly don't think proof either way would change my life. I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated, and if God doesn't like that, tough cookies.