Atheist or Agnostic?

Silicon · 28th October 2003, 10:28 PM

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 · 28th October 2003, 10:56 PM

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

T'ai Chi · 28th October 2003, 11:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 29th October 2003, 12:24 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 12:43 AM

Quote:

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 · 29th October 2003, 01:50 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 02:04 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 05:06 AM

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

Samus · 29th October 2003, 05:11 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 05:19 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 05:21 AM

no, I am LuxFerum.

whitefork · 29th October 2003, 05:24 AM

Onanist.

DangerousBeliefs · 29th October 2003, 05:29 AM

Secular Humanist!

Or Humanist for short.

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

mindless · 29th October 2003, 06:08 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 06:14 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 08:08 AM

i am an atheist and a secular humanist.

Silicon · 29th October 2003, 08:21 AM

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

Sorry Huxley.

Ruby · 29th October 2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

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 · 29th October 2003, 08:48 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 09:32 AM

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

T'ai Chi · 29th October 2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

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.

tedly · 29th October 2003, 10:55 AM

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 · 29th October 2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

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 · 29th October 2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

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! · 29th October 2003, 01:01 PM

**** both! Blainetology is better!

Dr. Imago · 29th October 2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

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 · 30th October 2003, 06:18 PM

I'm a 3

gnome · 30th October 2003, 07:38 PM

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! · 30th October 2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

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

!@

Faithkills · 30th October 2003, 10:11 PM

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 · 30th October 2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 30th October 2003, 10:53 PM

Quote:

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! · 30th October 2003, 11:47 PM

Mother f**kers better watch out!

Abdul Alhazred · 31st October 2003, 04:04 AM

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 · 31st October 2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

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 · 31st October 2003, 07:42 AM

"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 · 31st October 2003, 09:36 AM

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 · 31st October 2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

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 · 31st October 2003, 12:23 PM

"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

28th October 2003, 10:28 PM	#1
Silicon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,644	Atheist or Agnostic? 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.
Silicon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,644

28th October 2003, 10:56 PM	#2
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	I have no religious beliefs, I'm also very negative and cynical, that makes me an atheist.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

28th October 2003, 11:37 PM	#3
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Re: Atheist or Agnostic? Quote: 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.

29th October 2003, 12:24 AM	#4
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	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)
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

29th October 2003, 12:43 AM	#5
Prospero Thinker Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 176	Quote: 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!
Prospero Thinker Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 176	__________________ Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.

29th October 2003, 01:50 AM	#6
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,363	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.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

29th October 2003, 02:04 AM	#7
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	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!
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

29th October 2003, 05:06 AM	#8
Lord Kenneth Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,623	Atheist, just like my disbelief in the tooth fairy or flying purple cows.
Lord Kenneth Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,623

29th October 2003, 05:11 AM	#9
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003	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.
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003

29th October 2003, 05:19 AM	#10
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	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.

29th October 2003, 05:21 AM	#11
LuxFerum Augustus Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 5,417	no, I am LuxFerum.
	__________________ Jos kad bih znala sta pametno da napisem! Eh, nikad se ne zna. Mozda me netko i razumije. - Tanja Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? - George Carlin

29th October 2003, 05:24 AM	#12
whitefork None of the above Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: aka kullervo Posts: 2,339	Onanist.
	__________________ Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies - Nietzsche

29th October 2003, 05:29 AM	#13
DangerousBeliefs Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,304	Secular Humanist! Or Humanist for short. http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

29th October 2003, 06:08 AM	#14
mindless Scholar Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 114	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 Scholar Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 114	__________________ Gir: I need tacos! I need them or I will explode... that happens some times. Belief is not proof, your God does not exist.

29th October 2003, 06:14 AM	#15
jimmygun Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,589	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.
	__________________ Jimmygun I have been referred to as a non-believer. I prefer the term 'Non-pretender'

29th October 2003, 08:08 AM	#16
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	i am an atheist and a secular humanist.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

29th October 2003, 08:21 AM	#17
Silicon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,644	That settles it. I'm putting the word "agnostic" to bed. Sorry Huxley.
Silicon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,644

29th October 2003, 08:38 AM	#18
Ruby Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,043	Re: Atheist or Agnostic? Quote: 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.
Ruby Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,043

29th October 2003, 08:48 AM	#19
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	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.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

29th October 2003, 09:32 AM	#20
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601	From what I have learned from this forum, the correct term is probably "God-Hating Evil A-Theist".
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601

29th October 2003, 09:54 AM	#21
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Quote: 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.

29th October 2003, 10:55 AM	#22
tedly Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Soviet Canickistan Posts: 380	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.
	__________________ When asked why he kept enlisting, Cpl. Francisco Gomez told his uncle 'someone has to protect the children from the bullets' Believe half of what you see, a quarter of what you read, and absolutely nothing that you hear - Dad

29th October 2003, 10:55 AM	#23
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	Quote: 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."

29th October 2003, 11:56 AM	#24
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601	Quote: 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]
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601

29th October 2003, 01:01 PM	#25
!Xx+-Rational-+xX! ! skeptiscientisuperioristism Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 876	**** both! Blainetology is better!

29th October 2003, 07:03 PM	#26
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,051	Quote: 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
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,051	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.

30th October 2003, 06:18 PM	#27
Johnny Pneumatic Corpuscle Clay Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 2,089	I'm a 3

30th October 2003, 07:38 PM	#28
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	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.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	__________________

30th October 2003, 07:42 PM	#29
!Xx+-Rational-+xX! ! skeptiscientisuperioristism Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 876	Quote: Originally posted by traveller **** both! Blainetology is better! !@

30th October 2003, 10:11 PM	#30
Faithkills Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 429	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

30th October 2003, 10:48 PM	#31
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Quote: 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. Quote: I can amuse myself with thinking about what he must be like if he did exist and how sick a motherfker he must be if he does.** Edit Police, please take note.

30th October 2003, 10:53 PM	#32
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Re: Atheist or Agnostic? Quote: 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.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

30th October 2003, 11:47 PM	#33
!Xx+-Rational-+xX! ! skeptiscientisuperioristism Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 876	Mother f**kers better watch out!

31st October 2003, 04:04 AM	#34
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Re: Atheist or Agnostic? 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.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

31st October 2003, 07:27 AM	#35
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	Re: Re: Atheist or Agnostic? Quote: 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?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	__________________