[xtc2d6u8]

The following are some common meanings of atheist:
(AT1) A person who believes that no gods exist.
(AT2) A person who knows that no gods exist.
(AT3) A person who believes that a specific god (or number of specific gods) does not exist.
(AT4) A person who knows that a specific god (or number of specific gods) does not exist.
(AT5) A person who lacks a belief in regards to the existence of gods.
(AT6) A person who lacks a belief in regards to the existence of a specific god (or number of specific gods).

The following are some common meanings of agnostic:
(AG1) A person who lacks knowledge in regards to the existence of gods.
(AG2) A person who lacks knowledge in regards to the existence of a specific god (or number of specific gods).
(AG3) A person who lacks knowledge in regards to the existence of gods, but knows such knowledge is possible.
(AG4) A person who lacks knowledge in regards to the existence of gods, but believes such knowledge is possible.
(AG5) A person who believes that knowledge in regards to the existence of gods is impossible.
(AG6) A person who knows that knowledge in regards to the existence of gods is impossible.
http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html

Hmm...so what do you think? How close are these to the way you see these groups?

[Peertantyb]

That looks about right to me. I kind of consider myself agnostic. I think there probably is a god but I can't prove it. So I don't worry about it.

[MilenaJaf]

An agnostic is a person who won't admit to being an athiest because they are afraid "someone up there" might hear them.

[bunkalapa]

An agnostic is a person who won't admit to being an athiest because they are afraid "someone up there" might hear them.

LOL...very succinct William! You made short work of the definitions...

[POMAH_K]

An agnostic is a person who won't admit to being an athiest because they are afraid "someone up there" might hear them.

Hi William,

You reminded me. Back when I was in my search for a path and journey I had decided to just call myself an atheist until I was guided toward a path. Whenever I told people I was an atheist they became very indignant and almost threatening. After a while I decided to call myself an agnostic figuring that most people didn't understand what that really was. It worked. People never wanted to bother an agnostic.

Peace & Love!

[Adamdjeffe]

I wish I knew what I was...I usually say I am an agnostic with atheistical leanings or an atheist with agnostical leanings...or somewhere in between....or outside !!...where it's cold ...brrrrrrrrr !!!!..

[bettingonosports]

I'm an Agnostic because:
The glass is not half full nor half empty. The glass, and the water, may or may not even exist.


That's not the point.




JUST DRINK THE WATER!!!!!

[QvhhbjLy]

I love water...it's my favourite H2O orientated drink !!..I usually have to dilute it though !!

[pBiRXp8u]

I do not wish to offend here, but I was once met with an arguement that proposed the belief that there is no such thing as a true athiest.
The arguement went a little like this:-
There is many definitions of God not just the traditional one.
God is therefore difficult to define.
There is things that we know and things that we do not know.
It is fair to say that there is more things that we do not know than that which we know.
It may be be that within that vast unknown that there is a being that some may refer to as God.
If one supports this possibility (even if only a little) then one is more agnostic than athiest.
If one does not support the possibility, then one has beliefs about the structure of the vast unknown in the same way as a religion has i.e. unprovable. As either stance is thought to be unscientific then most would bend towards agnostic rather than Athiest.

I do not offer this as a challenge but I would like to hear what reply one would give to this arguement.

[zlopikanikanza]

This is my reply:

Athiests are no different than anyone else.

They believe there is no God.

As a matter of fact, they would be the most hard pressed to show proof, as one cannot prove a negative. (This is often used by Athiests as an argument as to why the burden of proof lies on thiests, not on them.)

But, as it is, the Athiest outlook on religion, etc, is still based in "faith".

"Faith" that there is no God.

To continue, one could argue that everyone is in fact an Agnostic, regardless of their "Faith", because everyone is basing their spiritual nature on "belief", not on "fact".
That means that they choose to live as if their "ideas about God" are "facts", when in fact, they are only "beliefs".
In other words, no one "knows", they only choose to live as though they "know".
Therefore, all people, of every path, "don't know".
Agnostics choose this as their path.
Agnostics are ok with saying 'I don't know'.
Every other path, including Athiests, are saying to themselves: "I don't know, but this seems the most plausable, and fits my lifestyle the best, so this is what I'll choose to 'believe'."
That statement still begins with "I DON'T KNOW".


Unless of course they 'believe' they 'know', but that is too close to psychological disorder for me.

I'm an Agnostic, because "I DON'T KNOW".

Not one group can show me how their 'fairy tale' is more 'real' than the next.
In fact, all statements about God are purely opinion.

That being said, why would anyone want to take someone else's opinion and say to themselves: "I don't know, but this seems the most plausable, and fits my lifestyle the best, so this is what I'll choose to 'believe'"?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make your own opinion?

Or learn to be o.k. with the FACT that you 'don't know'?

Case in point:
How did Jimi Hendrix die?
Common stories are that he overdosed and drowned in his own vomit.

In actuality, Jimi was never much of a drug user. Because his career came during the 'Hippie Era', people assumed that he was a heavy drug user. He did use, lots of people did in those times.

According to his family, friends, and the coroner's report, which I have personally read, he died because he had been drinking, and had a headache. An aquaintance gave him sleeping pills instead of asprin. As we all know, sleeping pills and alcohol don't mix well. His heart stopped in his sleep and he died.

What does this have to do with 'faith', 'knowledge' and choices in religion?

Jimi Hendrix died in the 70's. That was only 40 some years ago. As you can see, it didn't take very long for the story to get warped, in fact, the reports that Hendrix overdosed began within days of his death. Made more outrageous and strikng by people who wanted to sensationalize somethinand commit the falsified story to collective memory. It makes a better story.

And here we have religions, most well over 2000 years old, who want you to believe that their stories are all true. In fact, most get very upset when you suggest that maybe, just maybe, the stories have gotten warped over the years.

We humans have spent our entire existance trying to explain things we can not understand. I Say can not, because in all the years we've put into it, we are not one step closer to finding the (capital T) Truth. We've gotten many 'ideas', beautiful ones in fact, but none are any closer to proving anything.

That is why I happen to think it is better to say a fact, than 'believe' in something someone else wants me to accept as truth.

That is why I can say, and know I'm speaking the (capital T) Truth, "I don't know".

If 'someone up there hears me' then they need to get thier butt down here and prove it, so we can stop all of this idiotic arguing over things our feeble primate brains are having so much trouble with.

"Belief allows the mind to stop functoning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead.
Believe in nothing"- Bill Hicks

That is all.

[gogona]

Very well stated Greyface. I have never understood ANY comparison of atheist and agnostic.


Tuka (the grey hair)

[jimmy28]

Thank you for your very honest reply, Greyface.
I may believe in a God but I agree the only evidence I have is my opinion and my personal experience as a believer. Yet, the more I have found out about the testaments my faith is based upon, the more I find questions about the testimony. I have to admit I do not know what really happened and after 2000 years I guess I am not going to either. This has led me to have a lot of re-evaluating of my faith and the more I have, the more I realise that I am no different to anyone else in my not knowing. What you say is honest and open.
I am happy to have my faith. I may be thought of as mad but its my choice.
I just do not like the way it has developed with some into an exclusive and judge mental tradition. ie do as the book says or be damned for ever.
That to me is not an enlighted revelation. So I believe and let others believe what they will too. I believe that any God that may exist must realise we are just doing the best we can in not knowing and if an exact code of belief was wanted then all God would have to do is show themselves to convince people.
My questions earlier was not meant as any challenge to anyone else. I just wanted to know what the counter arguement might be. I was impressed with some of the debates that I have seen on this forum and I was just interested, thats all.

[Ztcgtqvb]

Thanks Tukaram!


Pete, I too have a 'faith' that I follow.

Even though I am an Agnostic, I am also a Discordian. (Well, as much as any Discordian. My religion is a joke disguised as a religion. Or maybe a religion disguised as.... Ok, I won't do that again)

In other words, knowing that I don't know, I have chosen a path that suits my personality, and my psychological make up. One that allows me to say 'I don't know" and still explore my spiritual side, and mybe one day actually discover the (Capital T) Truth. Just like anyone else. The only difference is that I know my bull is bull, with out trying to make it look and smell like roses.
After all it's what makes the roses grow.

I wan't trying to say that everyone should say 'I don't know' and leave it at that.
In fact, I think Spirituality is the gateway to true knowledge, and the building of a real beautiful future.

But I think 'Religion' is the silliest thing mankind has had the misfortune of conjuring from the depths of his feeble mankey brain.

Telling someone that their fairy tale is more correct, and trying to get them to see it their way or not at all is rediculous. Especially when all of us know that we don't know squat...

That is why I typically refer to 'religion' as 'Corporate Spirituality"

It ends up being a way to get everyone thinking the same on an individually derived thing.

We all have our own ideas about 'God, the universe etc..."

Ask two Jehovahs Witnesses what color God's beard is, and you'll get seven different answers. Despite the fact that Jehovahs Witnesses are taught that even Jesus himself cannot understand the face of God.

I wasn't trying to confrontational, sorry if I came off that way. I can be forceful at times.
I was only giving my typical counter-arguement to the statement you gave. I've heard it many times as well. I love to argue about religion and spirituality, if only to show everyone that they really are on the same page after all, regardless of the details of the way they see that page. And to point out that arguing about religion and spirituality is stupid.





I know, I know, it dosen't make much sense.




I'm a Discordian, though, so I don't have to make sense.....

[pataagusata]

Oh, and I happen to think that reevaluating our faiths is what we're supposed to be doing.

As as far as seeming mad goes, when it comes to religion, we're all nuts.

[phernikas]

Oh, and I happen to think that reevaluating our faiths is what we're supposed to be doing.

As as far as seeming mad goes, when it comes to religion, we're all nuts.

I never saw a challenge in anything you have said Greyface. Actually it made a lot of sense to me.
I may say I am Christian but that does not mean I can believe all that has been said from the biblical account. I believe in the love that Christ represents to me. The idea of forgiving ones enemies even though they were persecuting him. Comforting his mother whilst dying on a cross. The idea of re-birth (making renewed starts in life) all seems to me to be qualities that I can believe in. In these things I believe in Christ.
Yet, I would not then make the judgment that because someone does not believe as I do then they are less moral. Mine is a spiritual belief and not one in which I believe everything any book has to say about the subject. It maybe that the cross may or may not be a true story but I can still believe in what it represents and I am quite happy to live with that which is "I do not know". I think the problem most religions have is that they are not prepared to allow for the "I do not know factor" and then start causing conflict with every other's opinion. I believe that being agnostic is an honest approach and beliefs are one way of helping us to become the person we may wish to be. Its the qualities that the faith represents to me that are important and not the dogma. One reason that I go to a Quaker meeting is because they do not demand all should think alike.
I have a lot of respect for your comments. I love the the quote about when it comes to religion we are all nuts. Yet its sometimes our madder moments that can give us our strength.

[Buyemae]

Exactly!

[cabonuserollyo]

I don't believe in Atheists, although I am open. All atheists I have met have a problem with the various naive concepts of God. God as a kind of person etc.
However if an atheist believes in magnetism, which is an invisible force, then why would he not believe in other invisible forces. Life is an invisible force. If you change the word 'God' to 'invisible force', most atheists, agnostics and religious believers will find elements of agreement.
I am open to be pursuaded otherwise...
Blessed be!

Naked Rev

[usadatronourl]

I think that it's more a matter of there needs to be some sort of title so that there's some sort of description when communicating about it all ft. We also felt that we needed this particular forum so that nonbelievers were represented here, and ULC ordains all. There are Unitarian Universalists, as well as Discordians, who label themselves a "religion" but yet don't have a belief in deity. (Alot of the UU's anyway, some do. Greyface will have to speak for Discordians.)

WHAT???? I will not speak for other Discordians. It'd take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too long to even begin.

LOL


Actually it depends. I don't believe in Eris as a living person, as most of us. We think of her as the personification of Holy Chaos. (The nature of the Universe: the counter-push-pull of order and disorder) Then again, there are a bunch of nut-jobs who take all of this Eris garbage seriously. (If you want to have an aneurysm, try to figure that one out....) They scare the bejeebus out of me. Even more than most fundies....

[pKgGpUlF]

I don't believe in Atheists, although I am open. All atheists I have met have a problem with the various naive concepts of God. God as a kind of person etc.
However if an atheist believes in magnetism, which is an invisible force, then why would he not believe in other invisible forces. Life is an invisible force. If you change the word 'God' to 'invisible force', most atheists, agnostics and religious believers will find elements of agreement.
I am open to be pursuaded otherwise...
Blessed be!

Naked Rev

You can see what magnetism does. It attracts iron; it can create electricity in a turbine. The bomb shows us what atoms can do. And there are x-ray machines and infrared detectors. You don't need faith to believe in atoms and magnetism. God used to be the answer to the source of everything, but we have traced stars and planets back to one particular part of space which appears to be the Big Bang. So Genesis is discredited as anything more than myth. And the creator/god has been shunted back to the material before the Big Bang. Divine Providence is anecdotal experience. Heaven is a nice fantasy. Hell is sadistic.

[Olphander]

Good points all. And a good thread.

I recall an interview with a writer. I can't recall his nmae but he had written a book titled The God Part of the Brain. His theory went something like this; Humans are all born with a specific area in their brain that MAKES them WANT to belive in a supreme being. It has a great deal to do with the fear of death. In some people this part of the brain does not work and those people are atheists.

I can relate to what he meant. However I refuse to believe that people have some sort of brain damage simply beacause they don't believe in a deity. I'm very far from being an atheist but I believe they have the right, as everyone does, to believe what they wish.