I used to think that I was an atheist when I was young. After a few years, I decided that I was agnostic, since I disliked the dogmatic denial of atheism. On reading some of the answers on this site, I am no longer sure what I am! I find the firm denial of atheism unscientific - there is always doubt.... there could conceivably be a God. To take such an uncompromising approach is to be as rigid in opinion as a believer. On the other hand, I don't BELIEVE in a God. What am I?!

A friend of mine claims that the Iraq war was not 'illegal' as there are (and were) no laws in place that could allow it to be defined as such. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, is there an agreed set of philosophical principles that allow for war to be defined as 'legal/illegal' (and not just moral/immoral)? How might we go about discussing the legalities of war on an international scale? Alastair

I'm currently studying the indirect approach to philosophical scepticism, and I'm struggling as to how you can say anything useful in this particular area of philosophy without dragging yourself into solipsism? For example, the philosophical sceptic may argue 'How can we know there are other people that have minds?'. It seems impossible to go anywhere with this point - what conclusion could you possibly arrive from it? I find it very difficult to understand because of two conflicting notions - whilst it seems impossible to prove that there are people that have minds, it would seem an absurd and ridiculous life to lead assuming that there are no other minds except my own. So what is one to do?

As a response to question 758 Nicholas D. Smith said, "Even the atheist grants that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, even for the atheist, God exists at least in the imagination (indeed, the atheist claims that God exists only in the imagination). But things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist only in the imagination. So, if God existed only in the imagination, then God would not be that being than which no greater can be conceived--for we can conceive a greater being: one that existed in reality as well as in the imagination). Hence, as God is that being than which no greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality." However, in question 26, Mitch Green says, "Many contemporary philosophers infer from the so-called Paradox of the Stone that omnipotence is not a matter of being able to do anything, but only a matter of *being able to do anything it is possible to do*. That observation suggests another possible insight. Consider the Problem...

Personally, I think that through careful rational analysis we can go out and discover the way the Universe actually is and, although we might make many blunders and mistakes along the way, we do get closer to finding out the truth. However, I have been told this is an old fashioned view (I think Enlightenment rationalism was the term used), that I should go and read Richard Rorty (still meaning to do) and that what we really do as individuals is to make truths which are unique to ourselves and only true for us and hence the Universe is subjective. So my question is this, is there 'a way things are' or 'the truth' so to speak, that we can go out and find (or at least try to) or do we rather 'make truths' which are only 'true for us'?

A barman is asked by a more senior member of staff who is currently off duty, but noticeably intoxicated, for a drink. The law states the illegality of serving to someone who is intoxicated, but the managers not only insist upon the bartender serving the member of staff but also state that they will serve him if the bartender refuses. Given this situation, how might one attempt to address the problem of 'the right thing to do'?

Are theism and atheism mutually exclusive positions? This would seem to be the case if theism is understood to be the presence of a belief in god and atheism is the absence of a belief in god - there is no middle ground. So where does agnosticism fit in? Even Bertrand Russell sometimes couldn't decide whether to call himself an atheist or an agnostic.

Can it still be called love if one loves someone but that person does not love one back? Or does love need the equal affection of two people in order to be considered genuine and whole?

I have never studied or even read much about philosophy but am very interested in it. The thing that I have always wondered is this: Has the study of philosophy over the centuries actually made the world a better place, in terms of practical everyday living for average people, or is it just a luxury subject that some people enjoy thinking about? If it has improved the world, in what tangible ways? Or does anyone think philosophy has any negatives or that we'd be happier and less worried if we didn't think about it? I used to be a Christian and at that stage of my life I confused philopsophy with religion. But now I am an atheist and, taken overall, I think religion has made the world a worse place to live. Its contribution to art and other positives such as its acts of charity are outweighed by the wars it has caused and acts of inhumanity done in its name and by its need to control peoples' minds and actions. Now I understand the difference between philosophy and religion, but I am not sure...

I have no belief in a god or gods or an afterlife. I often struggle with the question of being. Why are we here, is there a reason or purpose or is it just chance? Tony Ross