Atheist or Agnostic?

[Silicon]

Which word do you describe yourself as?



Previous to now, I've described myself as Agnostic. As in the common idea of someone sitting on the fence with an open mind about God's existence. I still feel that way, but I've been starting to call myself an athiest. First off, I don't like the apologetic use of the word agnostic, as if It's my job not to piss off believers. And second off, I don't think there's anything inacurate about calling myself an atheist.

I follow no Gods. I am an Atheist. What's wrong with that?









I'm the number 2 definition below. I believe that the number 1 definition below is the result of believers writing our definition for us:



atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. A godless person. [Obs.]





ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a-1 + Gnostic.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ag·nosti·cal·ly adv.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

[Yahweh]

I have no religious beliefs, I'm also very negative and cynical, that makes me an atheist. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Silicon
Which word do you describe yourself as?


How about 'a theist', said in a speed such that people don't know if I'm saying 'atheist' or 'a theist'. That probably expresses my stance the best.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Atheist.

I went through a period of calling myself agnostic for most of my teenage years. I think that was mostly to cushion the blow to my theistic friends that I thought their beliefs were silly. Eventually, I started calling myself atheist when asked, and felt I was being more honest.

(as an added bonus, few of my theistic friends cared that much what I believed)

[Prospero]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I have no religious beliefs, I'm also very negative and cynical, that makes me an atheist. :)

Great! That means I'm an atheist, too!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think this topics been done to death and a search would find what the majority of us consider ourselves to be.

For the record, my full user ID is UnrepentantSinnerAtheist. And no, I'm not a Baptist trying to be ironic. ;)

[Jon_in_london]

The original gnostics were the Cathars (from catharsis) who were scrubbed out in the third century as their beliefs were thought to be heretical.

Remeber god loves you!

[Lord Kenneth]

Atheist, just like my disbelief in the tooth fairy or flying purple cows.

[Samus]

I remember, way back when, my "soft" versus "hard" atheism thread (which was a spirited discussion, I might add).

What I got out of that thread is that there really isn't much of a distinction between agnostic and atheist. In fact, there really isn't any. By being unsure of the existence of any type of god(s), you are, in essence, lacking a belief in any type of god(s).

My thought journey when I came to these forums was to ascertain if there was any definition of "god" that was both logically consistent and plausible. I never really believed in the "big babysitter in the sky" god, even when I was a Catholic. I was very interested in learning what different people thought god was, and how the story of god(s) developed in cultures over time.

Now, this is strictly opinion not backed up with any sort of statistics, I believe most theists have their own personal definition of god, and it's something they use to complete their world view. There's a relatively small (but vocal) number of people that actually take every word of their holy book literally.

So, my next step was to determine whether belief in a personal god was necessary for a logically consistent world view. I found (and again, this is opinion) that it's not.

So, while I could continue to call myself an agnostic, in that I don't purport to know all the answers, I'm basically an atheist. Because there is no difference between the two.

[Tricky]

I call myself an atheist when speaking with knowledgeable people, but if I'm talking with deeply religious people (like a lot of my family) I call myself an agnostic, simply because I don't want to have to try to teach them what an atheist is. They aren't going to believe it anyway.

[LuxFerum]

no, I am LuxFerum.

[whitefork]

Onanist.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Secular Humanist!

Or Humanist for short.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

[mindless]

Im an atheist, and thats the way I expect I will stay.

Remember, we are all born as atheists, its the way nature intended

[jimmygun]

Start out as an agnostic about the existence of Superman. Search everything available, read books, see movies, talk to people, visit fan clubs, do all the things you need to do to form an opinion as to whether or not Superman really exists or is the creation of someone's mind.

How long will you search before coming to a conclusion? Will you be open minded when the next issue of Superman comics comes out? Will you search the latest tv show to see if it gives you more insight into the existence of Superman? Sooner or later you must come to the conclusion that a rational person would have...there is no real Superman.

Why is the search for God so much different than the search for Superman? Perhaps it is the same for agnostics as it is for believers... a wish for it to be true. The believer wishes it so strongly they are willing to put aside any argument against god. The agnostic is appreciative of the arguments against god but still deep inside wishes it to be true. Dispite all evidence to the contrary, dispite no evidence to support it, the agnostic still refuses to admit there is no god.

Is it fear? Peer pressure? Hedging a bet? One thing it is not is logical.

[EdipisReks]

i am an atheist and a secular humanist.

[Silicon]

That settles it. I'm putting the word "agnostic" to bed.

Sorry Huxley.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Silicon
Which word do you describe yourself as?


Having just come out of Christianity this year, I am still trying to figure out what I am. I feel like I have been freed from some awful prison.....anyway..........I am sort of in an agnostic/unitarian/secular humanism frame of mind. I might be on my way to Atheism...but then again, I might not...I just don't know for now.

[Nyarlathotep]

I would say I am an atheist. While it is true that I can not say there is no god with 100% certainty, I also cannot say that Elvis is dead with 100% certainty or that ancient astronauts didn't build the pyramids with 100% certainty. However, it doesn't mean I think those things are even remotely likely either. So by the same logic that I say that I do think that Elvis is dead and that aliens did not build the pyramids, I feel safe saying that there is no God and thus I can call myself an atheist.

[jan]

From what I have learned from this forum, the correct term is probably "God-Hating Evil A-Theist".

:wink:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by mindless
Im an atheist, and thats the way I expect I will stay.

Remember, we are all born as atheists, its the way nature intended

Mindless (heh), that is a poor argument IMO. It reminds me of the ultra-religious arguments who say that we were born in God's image, just the way nature intended.

Hey, we were also born not able to feed or wipe ourselves, without any knowledge, maybe that is what nature intended?

And just how do you know what nature intends? :) And what does it mean for nature to intend? It seems by saying that you are personifying nature.

:arrow:

[tedly]

IANAM - but - flipping through a book of lay mathematics this example (used in a totally different and over my head context) struck me.

To save me typing let's call the number 10^1000 erth. let's use e in its normal Napierian sense.


Take the statement "The erth digit of e is 4'" This is just engineering or computer science.

Take the statement " In the expansion of e there exists a string of erth 4's." This is true or false and one leg can be shown to be true, although we don't know how long it will take. The false leg cannot be proven by grunt work, we would need some knowledge to say that the statement is false. I think this is mathematics.

Take the statement " the number of 4's in the expansion of e is finite." I don't think there is any way of proving this either true or false.

I think this last statement is religion. To state that either leg is true is a matter of belief, and faith is choosing one option in the absence of evidence, which option for the believer comes to have the force of fact.
So I end as an agnostic, which I have been from the age of 15, since I just cannot jump one way or the other.

When asked I usually tell people that I don't believe in belief, because if an idea is so bizarre that only one person in a million could fall for it, 6,000 people hold that as a tenet of their faith. That said, I do believe in Sidney, AU in Texas, in condors and in the New South Wales Social Sippers.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Mindless (heh), that is a poor argument IMO. It reminds me of the ultra-religious arguments who say that we were born in God's image, just the way nature intended.

Hey, we were also born not able to feed or wipe ourselves, without any knowledge, maybe that is what nature intended?

And just how do you know what nature intends? And what does it mean for nature to intend? It seems by saying that you are personifying nature.


I'm pretty sure that was a joke, T'ai. Though it would have been funnier if he had said, "I was born an atheist just as God intended."

[jan]

Originally posted by tedly

Take the statement " the number of 4's in the expansion of e is finite." I don't think there is any way of proving this either true or false.


[OFF-TOPIC]
It is conjectured that e is an "absolutely normal" number. Although this is not proven yet, it is one of those claims that should have a proof (not having a proof for this is very annoying). A trivial consequence of e being a normal number would be that there are infinite many 4's in its decimal expansion.
[/OFF-TOPIC]

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

**** both! Blainetology is better!

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
So, while I could continue to call myself an agnostic, in that I don't purport to know all the answers, I'm basically an atheist. Because there is no difference between the two.

I like this approach to what you are talking about...

http://atheism.about.com/

There are basically three types of "atheist/agnostics" according to this guy. And, this is the way I would paraphrase it:

1) Agnostic - "I'm not sure if there is or is not a God as has been laid-out in any of the various tomes, and I'm not willing to reject any of those paradigms off-hand. I can't decide, so won't worry about it until I get more data. The Bible or Koran (etc.) may or may not turn out to be true, but I'm content to ride the fence even though I may lean one way or the other from time to time."

2) Agnostic-Atheist: "I don't believe any of the books have gotten it right. Still, it's not that I 'actively disbelieve' in what they say, I just simply refuse to accept them based upon what we now know from observable science. However, the stories in those books are silly and clearly not really what happened. No one can really know whether or not there is a God, and the currently posited and widely accepted attempts to codify and definitively state that as a true fact (e.g., Bible, Koran, etc.) are wrong without a doubt."

3) Atheist: "There is(are) no God(s). Period."

I think most of us would probably fall under number (2), or am I wrong?

-TT

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm a 3

[gnome]

In a previous discussion we came up with the idea that "atheist" and "agnostic" actually are somewhat divergent concepts...

one is a statement of belief, the other is a claim of knowledge.

It is possible to believe one way or the other without claiming knowledge...

Many claim knowledge to go along with their belief. In the strictest technical sense, unless someone has gleaned the nature of the entire universe, or contrarily stood in the presence of a god... everyone should be agnostic. However, that's not terribly practical and I suppose many will be gnostic if they reach what is to them an appropriate level of certainty.

I also suspect... that many hold followers of an opposing belief to a higher standard of certainty than they observe themselves.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by traveller
**** both! Blainetology is better!

!@

[Faithkills]

I think agnostic suits me best.

My take is it does not matter if there is a god or not if he cannot be shown to exist. I can amuse myself with thinking about what he must be like if he did exist and how sick a ************ he must be if he does.

If there were some line of logic or research which would prove a god I would be very intrigued.

Gods may exist. Gods may not exist. I can't disprove god either. But there's a TON of things that MAY exist. It just doesn't make sense to believe everything that may exist.

Show me evidence I'll be a theist tomorrow.

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

My take is it does not matter if there is a god or not if he cannot be shown to exist.


I feel the same way about multidimensional theories of the origin of the universe, and other exotic space dogma thingies.


I can amuse myself with thinking about what he must be like if he did exist and how sick a motherf**ker he must be if he does.


Edit Police, please take note.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Silicon
I follow no Gods. I am an Atheist. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except that Zeus will smite you for neglecting your political duties. The thunderbolt steers all.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Mother f**kers better watch out!

http://www.thatwasrandom.com/random/images/163.jpg

[Abdul Alhazred]

Did a uniquely self-existent being will the universe into existence?

Yes to that was my position, so I suppose I was a Deist.

I can't prove or disprove the above proposition.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic.

I am getting comfortable with calling myself an atheist.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Did a uniquely self-existent being will the universe into existence?

Yes to that was my position, so I suppose I was a Deist.

I can't prove or disprove the above proposition.

I suppose that makes me an agnostic.

I am getting comfortable with calling myself an atheist.

This is a tired question, but you sound like one who might give a straight answer for once:

If a uniquely self-existent being can exist, why not a uniquely self-existent universe?

Or at least, what would the argument be if you still go for the idea?

[Brown]

"Hard" Atheism, "Soft" Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism, Secular Humanism....

There are distinctions among these views, but I believe the distinctions are lost on many people.

And yet, I submit that the distinctions among these views are not nearly as numerous or subtle or trivial as the distinctions among the various denominations, sub-denominations and individual churches of the "Christian" religion. Ask a Presbyterian sometime about the doctrinal differences between his church and a Lutheran church. Or ask an ELCA Lutheran about the doctrinal differences between his church and a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. Best of all, ask a member of one Missouri Synod Lutheran church why his congregation can't stand to worship with members of another Missouri Synod Lutheran church that's only a couple of miles away. See what sorts of responses you get.

[diddidit]

Agnostic Atheist, with the emphasis on the latter. I'm open to being shown indisupatable proof of the existence of god or gods of most any definition.

But I ain't holding my breath waiting for it.

did

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by gnome


This is a tired question, but you sound like one who might give a straight answer for once:

If a uniquely self-existent being can exist, why not a uniquely self-existent universe?

Or at least, what would the argument be if you still go for the idea?

The universe had a definite beginning in time and there is no reasonable explanation of why it should come into existence at all.

I was once very religious but I had to keep backing off from it. I am now an atheist.

I still don't have an explanation for the universe, but I'm OK with that.

There is no God!

[Faithkills]

"I feel the same way about multidimensional theories of the origin of the universe, and other exotic space dogma thingies." - TC

You feel.

Ahh systematic determined ignorance. I am impressed.

Complicated == you can't understand it == Same as religion

So then by what criteria do you judge which lies to believe and which not?

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understandable.

FK