Not agnostic, not an atheist just an unbeliever

[truethat]

I found these quotes attributed to Alan Alda on his wiki site.

Quote:

For a while in my teens, I was sure I had it. It was about getting to heaven. If heaven existed and lasted forever, then a mere lifetime spent scrupulously following orders was a small investment for an infinite payoff. One day, though, I realized I was no longer a believer, and realizing that, I couldn’t go back. Not that I lost the urge to pray. Occasionally, even after I stopped believing, I might send off a quick memo to the Master of the Universe, usually on a matter needing urgent attention, like Oh, God, don’t let us crash. These were automatic expulsions of words, brief SOS messages from the base of my brain. They were similar to the short prayers that were admired by the church in my Catholic boyhood, which they called “ejaculations.” I always liked the idea that you could shorten your time in purgatory with each ejaculation; what boy wouldn’t find that a comforting idea? But my effort to keep the plane in the air by talking to God didn’t mean I suddenly was overcome with belief, only that I was scared. Whether I’d wake up in heaven someday or not, whatever meaning I found would have to occur first on this end of eternity.


Speaking further on agnosticism, Alda goes on to say:

"I still don't like the word agnostic. It's too fancy. I'm simply not a believer. But, as simple as this notion is, it confuses some people. Someone wrote a Wikipedia entry about me, identifying me as an atheist because I'd said in a book I wrote that I wasn't a believer. I guess in a world uncomfortable with uncertainty, an unbeliever must be an atheist, and possibly an infidel. This gets us back to that most pressing of human questions: why do people worry so much about other people's holding beliefs other than their own?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Alda


It was refreshing to see someone comment about lack of faith in a way that reflects my personal views.

I'm well versed in faith, I understand the religion pretty well, understand the philosophies and the differences of dogma in various religions and so I am an unbeliever.

This seems to cause a great deal of confusion. Some people act as though I fell off the faith wagon and that it is their job to get me back on. Some people argue about is there a "GOD" and try to corner me into an "I don't know" so they can label me an agnostic. Others want to cast me into the atheist oven (a leap I've often made myself with vigor) and treat me as though I've joined a group against God.

Nope not that either. I've been a Universist and a Bright which seemed to me a way of religiousizing lack of faith and all and all at the end of the day I just don't "believe" in any of it. That doesn't mean I don't see it.

Just like people see a man in a Santa Claus outfit and chime out "All I want for Christmas!" or feel some sort of nostalgia, doesn't mean that they really believe that Santa is a real person.

That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the sentiment of Santa and what he means to our society. It is only when people start trying to argue with me that Santa is real and here is Santa's naughty and nice list, does it get ugly.

Some of my friends have gotten upset with me and wanted me to explain if I thought they were delusional for believing in God, and I think, no not at all, little children believe in Sanata, I don't castigate them as fools or idiots, I don't treat them poorly for their faith. I don't even want to be patronizing to them. Would you? Would you want to go up to an excited little child who was waiting for Santa and say "Hey you stupid bozo, Santa isn't real you moron, you are holding them cookies like a fool!"

Of course not, it is only when a Child perhaps goes to school and starts making fun of Mohammed or Levi for not getting presents from Santa that you want to yank the kid aside and say "Listen fool.........."

And so that's how I feel about believers. One day you will find out that this God, the one in your book, isn't real. No more so than Zeus is real. And maybe one day there will be another version of God to prove us all wrong. But all I know is that this one doesn't exist, and the reason you can't see it, is you don't want to see it. God is an amazing sort of fantasy, who would want to give it up?

But I'm not an atheist, or an agnostic, I'm just a non believer, but if in passing I see a man dressed up in a God costume doing a random act of kindness I might thank him just the same.

[Darat]

Which god or gods do you believe in?

[truethat]

I don't believe in any god or gods. But before you try to label me an atheist, don't. I don't call myself "anything" when it comes to God or religious beliefs because I believe that response to God theory by categorizing oneself in a way that relates to faith, is just playing the game. I don't wish to be part of the paradigm.

Oh and one more thing, The atheist's desire to convince me that I'm actually "atheist" and the agnostic's desire to convince me that I'm actually "agnostic" is no different than a Christians desire to convince me that I actually believe in God if I say "thank God for small favors!" or send out those "ejaculations" that Alda speaks of. Not it does not.

And like he said:

Quote:

This gets us back to that most pressing of human questions: why do people worry so much about other people's holding beliefs other than their own?"

[Rodibidably]

Originally Posted by truethat

But I'm not an atheist, or an agnostic, I'm just a non believer

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

There really are no other options:
You believe
You don't believe
Or you calim an inability to know

I believe you (and Alan Alda) are reading too much into the word "atheist". It means nothing more or less than a lack of belief in dieties...

[paximperium]

This is nonsense. The term Atheist or Agnostic is nothing more than a description or label. It carries with it significant historical baggage so I understand if people don't like that label.

However your denial is just plain silly. You are not somehow exempt from a descriptive label just because you refuse to accept it. Is as silly as a white person refusing to be labeled white or Caucasian because you don't like it.

Your refusal to accept the commonly used description has no bearing on the validity of it as it applied to you.

[Rodibidably]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Is as silly as a white person refusing to be labeled white or Caucasian because you don't like it.

Damn, that means I am WHITEY?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

Damn, that means I am WHITEY?

"I'm not white or black, I'm just a human being!!! Stop labeling people" Real quote from and old college friend who was a little too into her activism.

[chefpeon]

Quote:

a⋅the⋅ist
  –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

By the above definition, I am an atheist. But I don't go around calling myself that, because for some reason, people attach evil and incorrect connotations to that word. To a lot of folk, "atheist" is synonymous with "evil". So I don't call myself agnostic either because that doesn't fit me. I am an unbeliever, but because that seems to shock so many people, if asked, I say, "I believe in doing my moral best upon this earth." Which is true. As in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", I believe in "being excellent to each other". I don't need a mythical being to tell me that. I'm intelligent and aware enough to know right from wrong and don't fear any kind of punishment in an afterlife will prevent me from doing the wrong thing.

I hate it when people say atheists are "against" God. We're not. We just don't believe in him. Proof that God exists is what we need. And if that proof should ever make itself known, I'd be saying, "Dude, what took you so long?"

To me, what "God" really is, is ancient man's way of explaining to themselves phenomenon that was unexplainable at the time. And there are still some things that are unexplainable, but in time, science and knowledge will explain what we need to know......not religion.

[paximperium]

Quote:

Ignosticism, or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "Ignosticism" was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine. It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God.
The first view is that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Sun Countess]

Quote:

I don't call myself "anything" when it comes to God or religious beliefs because I believe that response to God theory by categorizing oneself in a way that relates to faith, is just playing the game. I don't wish to be part of the paradigm.

I don't have anything to do with smoking, but when asked I'd label myself a "non-smoker" and not feel that I'm playing the game or making myself part of that paradigm. When it comes to smoking, I don't partake and that label -- non-smoker -- identifies me clearly.

When it comes to religion, or theism, it's simple. I'm an atheist. I have no part of it; I live without theism. Were I to call myself a "non-believer" then I'd feel as though I were elevating god beliefs above all other beliefs. I do believe in lots of things, so why would I call myself a non-believer? A non-believer in what? If you ask me specifically about a god or gods, I could say, "No, I don't believe." or "I'm an atheist." as equivalent answers.

But I don't consider belief in god to be the ultimate or only belief out there, so I'd only use the label "nonbeliever" if the context were included. The "atheist" label is clear whatever the context.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by truethat

I don't believe in any god or gods. But before you try to label me an atheist, don't.

...snip...

The definition of an atheist is simply (Encarta) "unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities" so if you answer my question with "none" then you are an atheist.

I think what you are struggling with is that people keep trying to pile more onto the word than that (and the confusion about what agnostic should mean).

Come and join me on the dark-side and help reclaim the word "atheist" and proudly shout out "None!!"

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

There really are no other options:
You believe
You don't believe
Or you calim an inability to know

I believe you (and Alan Alda) are reading too much into the word "atheist". It means nothing more or less than a lack of belief in dieties...

Bah should have read your post first of all - and you made it so pretty!

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by chefpeon

By the above definition, I am an atheist. But I don't go around calling myself that, because for some reason, people attach evil and incorrect connotations to that word. To a lot of folk, "atheist" is synonymous with "evil".

Which is precisely why, when asked, I do call myself an atheist.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Which is precisely why, when asked, I do call myself an atheist.

Amen sister. You tell em.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

See, I would disagree with that. I consider myself an agnostic but if someone asked me my position on metaphysical claims, I would never say that they are impossible to prove or disprove. I would simply say "we currently don't know of the existence of any metaphysical phenomena". But I wouldn't say they are impossible to prove or disprove.

On the other hand, there are things that, while not metaphysical, are impossible to prove or disprove such as: what I'm thinking right now.

There are also claims, such as reason1's claim, which have been intentionally designed by the person so that they are impossible to prove or disprove: He wants to claim that he can detect when someone is staring him, but when such staring involves sincere feelings of wanting to stare at him. He cannot prove or disprove that and he knows it.

[SimpleIrony]

This debate reminds me a of a group of guys I used to work with. Some are gay, some are queer, some are fags (although at least one of the fags is gay when he is at work), and at least one doesn't want to define himself by his sexual preference. The latter isn't ashamed of the fact that he sleeps with men, he just doesn't want to be labled for it.

What I found amazing is that they would actually have fights over what to call themselves. Not being gay, I had nothing at stake, and I called everyone what they wanted to be called. Interestingly, this also made some of the men angry. They thought their term was more correct than the one that I was requested to use.

I also worked with a number of people that were Indian, Native, and First Nations. Again, I referred to the people the way that they requested.

Why do people care how someone who doesn't believe in God or gods wants refers to their lack of belief? If I want to be a teapot agnostic, then why can't I be a teapot agnostic? Or a naturalist, bright, atheist, agnostic, humanist, anti-theist, post-theist, apathytheist, Spinozan Deist, pragmatist, materialist, skeptic, sceptic, or even a dyslexic who doesn't believe in dogs?

I can understand when the terms are inaccurate. I'm not pro-abortion, for instance, I'm pro-choice. The two terms mean different things. But even then, if I want to call myself pro-abortion, why can't I? If people don't understand because how I've chosen to self-identify is vague, then that's my problem, not theirs.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably

There really are no other options:
You believe
You don't believe
Or you calim an inability to know

Really, though, the question of "knowing" is different than the question of "believing".

I think we're all agnostics. I'm an agnostic who also doesn't believe in the existence of God (atheist).

I think theists are also all agnostics. Most admit that their belief is a matter of faith and not knowledge. (Those who claim to "know" are just abusing the language, IMO.)

In fact, I often go stronger than that wrt to most defined and named Gods and say that I know they don't exist the same way I know a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by truethat

Others want to cast me into the atheist oven (a leap I've often made myself with vigor) and treat me as though I've joined a group against God.

Do you think being an atheist means you're someone who has joined a group against God? Or are you saying that's what others sometimes think?

Either way, it's a bad reason to reject the term "atheist". An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or God, so it's logically inconsistent to say an atheist is "against God". It's as silly as saying atheists "hate God".

I'm a juggler, and some people think that means I'm a clown. I'm not a clown, but I certainly wouldn't tell people that because of their misunderstanding, I'm not a juggler.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by SimpleIrony

This debate reminds me a of a group of guys I used to work with. Some are gay, some are queer, some are fags (although at least one of the fags is gay when he is at work), and at least one doesn't want to define himself by his sexual preference.

This isn't really an analogous situation. All these words mean the same thing (homosexual). This is more like the changing fashions in what is the acceptable term for referring to African-Americans. At one time Negro, at one time Afro-American, then Black, and now it seems either Black or African-American.

The terms atheist, agnostic and non-believer really have different meanings. (There are people here who are theists but are skeptics--that is non-believers in homeopathy, acupuncture, astrology, etc.)

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

I don't have anything to do with smoking, but when asked I'd label myself a "non-smoker" and not feel that I'm playing the game or making myself part of that paradigm. When it comes to smoking, I don't partake and that label -- non-smoker -- identifies me clearly.

Excellent point. This is a good analogy. (In some cities, all restaurants are non-smoking, and the label is unnecessary. I don't see that happening with atheism in my lifetime, but it's fun to imagine that the assumed default position is atheism!)

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Darat

The definition of an atheist is simply (Encarta) "unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities" so if you answer my question with "none" then you are an atheist.

I think what you are struggling with is that people keep trying to pile more onto the word than that (and the confusion about what agnostic should mean).

Come and join me on the dark-side and help reclaim the word "atheist" and proudly shout out "None!!"

I'm not struggling with anything. Seems like other people struggle with my refusal to be labeled with words that are part of the God Theory paradigm. I don't consider myself a participant in that arena, agnostic, atheist or otherwise.

All those words are related to God Theory.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by paximperium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Why is it that the Rabbi coining a phrase somehow gives validity to a word, or any other word that is used in such a manner. And why is that me refusing to be labeled by all of these man made constructs designed to label people as to where they stand regarding the God Theory is somehow considered wrong? It is part and parcel participating in the great ruse. You might be unwilling to shake off other people's labels because you afford them an authority simply because they have been used a great deal and caused a bit of controversy.

To me they are just words, made up by man, not that much different than God Theory.

Me refusing a label is the same as refusing to be called "WHITE" because I am not "WHITE" I don't identify myself by the color of my skin (which by the way is peachy sort of sallow) and not white after all.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by truethat

I'm not struggling with anything. Seems like other people struggle with my refusal to be labeled with words that are part of the God Theory paradigm. I don't consider myself a participant in that arena, agnostic, atheist or otherwise.

All those words are related to God Theory.

Do you also refuse to use words such as Thursday?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by SimpleIrony

This debate reminds me a of a group of guys I used to work with. Some are gay, some are queer, some are fags (although at least one of the fags is gay when he is at work), and at least one doesn't want to define himself by his sexual preference. The latter isn't ashamed of the fact that he sleeps with men, he just doesn't want to be labled for it.

What I found amazing is that they would actually have fights over what to call themselves. Not being gay, I had nothing at stake, and I called everyone what they wanted to be called. Interestingly, this also made some of the men angry. They thought their term was more correct than the one that I was requested to use.

I also worked with a number of people that were Indian, Native, and First Nations. Again, I referred to the people the way that they requested.

Why do people care how someone who doesn't believe in God or gods wants refers to their lack of belief? If I want to be a teapot agnostic, then why can't I be a teapot agnostic? Or a naturalist, bright, atheist, agnostic, humanist, anti-theist, post-theist, apathytheist, Spinozan Deist, pragmatist, materialist, skeptic, sceptic, or even a dyslexic who doesn't believe in dogs?

I can understand when the terms are inaccurate. I'm not pro-abortion, for instance, I'm pro-choice. The two terms mean different things. But even then, if I want to call myself pro-abortion, why can't I? If people don't understand because how I've chosen to self-identify is vague, then that's my problem, not theirs.

Because conformity is authoritative, and usually the ones that are most fervent on the attack of another person's wrongness of belief are usually just as vigilant about the validity of their own.

If the whole concept of God theory is tossed in the crapper, all the agnostic, atheist, and other labels go right along with it.

[SimpleIrony]

Originally Posted by truethat

Because conformity is authoritative, and usually the ones that are most fervent on the attack of another person's wrongness of belief are usually just as vigilant about the validity of their own.

Sorry... I can be a little slow sometimes... this is a joke right?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Do you also refuse to use words such as Thursday?

What is your point? That you refuse to accept my point? Ok duly noted.

My point is that people who use these words (not Thursday) are identifying themselves as to how they relate to God theory, as if it is part an parcel of the human condition.

It is this insistence that one must take a position, that in doing so adds to the relevance of God Theory.

You say "Thursday" and Thursday is not a fallacy, rather it is an identification used by the general English Speaking public to indicate a day of the week.

However if I lived in Korea, I don't think I'd use the word "Thursday" in fact I think the word "Thursday" would have absolutely no meaning for me whatsoever.


IF you want to discuss it this way

"Do you believe that Harry Potter is a horcrux for Lord Voldemort"

If you say "Yes" then you are a Horcruxian

If you say "No" then you are an antihorcruxian

If you say "I don't Know" then you are an "Uncertain"

Which one of these labels apply to you? And you MUST accept a label because society is filled with people who are certain that "Harry is a Horcrux"

IF I say "I don't believe that Harry Potter is a real story." You say AHA then you are an "antihorcruxian, you just don't want to admit it!" I am not. You are forcing me into parameters that are not a true representation of my beliefs.

I don't believe in any of the nonsense so none of those labels apply to me. It seems amusing to me that people who are so wrapped up in the Jesus Sheets controversy, that they don't realize that they have gotten sucked into believing in something that is a made up story to begin with. By choosing a label I am actually validating the authority of the paradigm.

As such, who are you to tell me I must take a position in the fantasy land story or I am lying to myself?

Now I ask ya, who is the one who is really lying to themselves here?

[Professor Yaffle]

Just because I have brown hair, it doesn't mean you can label me a brunette. I refuse to be labelled in terms of my hair colour.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Just because I have brown hair, it doesn't mean you can label me a brunette. I refuse to be labelled in terms of my hair colour.

Hair color actually exists. God does not. Or are you confused here?

All of the examples that have been given, "White," "Thursday" and "Brunette" are labels in reference to tangible things that are used to identify things that actually exist in reality.

All of you are bolstering God theory as valid by equating the word atheist with that.

To me it is a double negative. It is foolish and a waste of time.

It is like saying "I don't believe in nothing."



God theory represents nothing that is real, it is interesting in some regard, but telling me I must take a position as to whether I believe in God is just a really weird thing to me.


I suppose I'm not explaining it well. I though the Horcrux theory did it rather well.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by truethat

What is your point? That you refuse to accept my point? Ok duly noted.

...snip...

What on earth are you going on about? I asked you what I thought was a rather straight forward question.

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by truethat

Hair color actually exists. God does not. Or are you confused here?

All of the examples that have been given, "White," "Thursday" and "Brunette" are labels in reference to tangible things that are used to identify things that actually exist in reality.

All of you are bolstering God theory as valid by equating the word atheist with that.

To me it is a double negative. It is foolish and a waste of time.

It is like saying "I don't believe in nothing."



God theory represents nothing that is real, it is interesting in some regard, but telling me I must take a position as to whether I believe in God is just a really weird thing to me.


I suppose I'm not explaining it well. I though the Horcrux theory did it rather well.

But the words theist and atheist are about belief and belief most certainly does exist.

[truethat]

Your question was irrelevant. But go on snipping the relevant parts out. LOL


I don't think you understood what I'm saying. So I'm explaining it further.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

But the words theist and atheist are about belief and belief most certainly does exist.

No

You don't call yourself an "atheist' when you are talking about "belief in Harry Potter" do you?

You don't call yourself an "atheist" when you are talking about belief in CTs do you?


It is a word that is used in relation to "belief in God." If you accept the paradigm and take a position in relation to the paradigm you are validating the paradigm itself.


I am sure that I am not the only one who feels as though God theory is a bunch of nonsense. You don't see people saying that they are "atheist" when they are talking about ancient Greek Mythology because so much time has passed that it is just a story. No one "takes a position" with regard to those stories so why should biblical stories be any different?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by truethat

Your question was irrelevant.

...snip..

My question was irrelevant to what?

[Professor Yaffle]

If a large number of people started to believe in Harry Potter (as something other than a fictional creation) and someone wondered what my beliefs were in that matter, I would probaly use whatever word had been coined to describe a person who didn't have such beliefs.

I don't exactly go around with a big orange atheist badge pinned to my clothes, but if anyone asks me what I believe (in reference to religion) I will usually say that I am an atheist, because that is the word that has been coined for such circumstances.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

But the words theist and atheist are about belief and belief most certainly does exist.

Just to clarify, the words "theist" and "atheist' are not about "belief" they are about "GOD BELIEF." I don't even need to get there if I'm already a non believer in this story as a true thing. One only needs to take a position once you have accepted the story and then take a position.

Do you call yourself an atheist towards Zeus? It is only other people's beliefs that cause it to be an issue. Since I don't identify myself by other people's beliefs the point is irrelevant. Seems to me other people identify themselves in how they relate to other people. I guess the difference is I don't understand that way of thinking. (Shrug)

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

If a large number of people started to believe in Harry Potter (as something other than a fictional creation) and someone wondered what my beliefs were in that matter, I would probaly use whatever word had been coined to describe a person who didn't have such beliefs.

I don't exactly go around with a big orange atheist badge pinned to my clothes, but if anyone asks me what I believe (in reference to religion) I will usually say that I am an atheist, because that is the word that has been coined for such circumstances.

I used to do the same thing. What I am realizing though is too much authority is being given to God belief and the non believers seem to be people who are the worst offenders. I see the same thing in evolutionary debate. The Evolutionists will often put down God theory in discussions about Evolution. To me it is utter nonsense to do so.

God theory is a made up story. We need to render it the way of Roman Mythology and stop validating it as something "real" in society. People havea way of translating identifying what is happening to saying it is REAL and TRUE.

[Professor Yaffle]

Surely saying you are an unbeliever does exactly the same thing.

The only reason you don't use a word to define what you believe about roman mythology is because nobody believes in it, therefore such a word is redundant. If everyone stopped believing in god, there would be no need for the word atheist, but refusing to use the word is not going to stop other people from believing in god.

[Professor Yaffle]

Also, by saying I am an atheist, I AM saying I don't believe in the Zeus... because if I did believe in Zeus (as a god) then I wouldn't be an atheist.

ETA: I just looked it up, and the word unbeliever is often used to describe a person who doesn't believe in a particular religion. For example, a muslim could be described as an unbeliever by a christian. And Thomas Covenant would be an unbeliever in Lord Foul the Despiser etc. Atheist avoids that confusion.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Anyway, by saying I am an atheist, I AM saying I don't believe in the Roman gods...

Do you call yourself an atheist when discussing Roman gods or is it a non issue? Do you just "not believe" that these are true stories?

I doubt very much that when discussing the topic of Roman or Greek Mythology you feel the need to point out that you don't believe in them. This is because in general everyone seems to accept that they are just stories.

It is only, as you said, because many people believe Jesus stories are true that you feel the need to identify yourself in this way. To me it is unnecessary because I treat the stories the same way I treat Roman stories.


I think in using these words, agnositic, atheist, deist, theist, these are all words related to how one positions themselves regarding God. In order to take a position you need to first put yourself inside the parameters of God belief.

Since I recognize these stories, much in the same way you recognize Roman and Greek Mythology, I don't treat them any differently and thus don't feel the need to take a position.

I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

...
I think we're all agnostics. ....

Think what you want, but I am not agnostic, I am an atheist. I have concluded there is overwhelming evidence that supports the hypothesis, all god beliefs arise from human imagination.

The fact every scientific theory currently considered valid is subject to future reconsideration is a different principle from agnosticism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

I'm not struggling with anything. Seems like other people struggle with my refusal to be labeled with words that are part of the God Theory paradigm. I don't consider myself a participant in that arena, agnostic, atheist or otherwise.

All those words are related to God Theory.

Have you concluded, as I have, that the "god theory" as you label it, originated solely within human imagination?