Religion: For those who voted other. Please reead before voting in the other poll

[Shadylookin]

Unless of course you want to have a less psecific poll in order to see which type of religion people are.

it's so he can tell what we all meant by other(from the one religion poll where he didn't bother to put anything but christian sects, islam, hindu, a couple others I think and Other)

Don't take "ignorance" the wrong way. I was simply saying that us agnostics don't claim to know the existance, or lack thereof, of a god.

sounds better last night I was reading an article where a christian was trying to argue against freethinking and just called agnostics lazy minded fence sitters. Then had the nerve to try and debunk agnostism(which has all but killed any respect I ever had for christianity)

 

[Birdjaguar]

It should be atheist, not atheism. This is because there is no atheist religion, it is the lack of religion.

Atheism is a system of belief that denies the existance of god. Atheists believe that there is no god. For many Atheism is a religion. While it is less organized than most traditional religions and allows its followers a great deal of freedom, it does have a cosmology, doctrine, an "end of things", a source of knowledge, and a defined position on afterlife. Some atheists are anti-religion, but being anti-religious is not a prerequiste for being an atheist.

 

[andrewgprv]

Atheism is a system of belief that denies the existance of god. Atheists believe that there is no god. For many Atheism is a religion. While it is less organized than most traditional religions and allows its followers a great deal of freedom, it does have a cosmology, doctrine, an "end of things", a source of knowledge, and a defined position on afterlife. Some atheists are anti-religion, but being anti-religious is not a prerequiste for being an atheist.

I'm an Apumpkinist I don't believe a Giant Pumpkin rules the universe. Therefore I believe there is no Giant Pumpkin Man, this is my religon. Though it is less organised then most traditional religons and allows its follwers a greater deal of freedom, it does have a cosmology, doctrine, an "end of things", a source of knowledge, and a defined position on afterlife. Some apumpkists are anti-pumpkin, but being anti-pumpkin is not a prerequiste for being an apumpkinist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And since you are the first of your kind, you should decare youself a messiah and founder of your religion. Once you have a few converts, then you can start a church. This church will set you apart from other religions and begin a long series of religious wars. I hope you win.

 

[KaNick]

For many Atheism is a religion. While it is less organized than most traditional religions and allows its followers a great deal of freedom, it does have a cosmology, doctrine, an "end of things", a source of knowledge, and a defined position on afterlife.

That's news to me. Where did you get this stuff? If someone has religious beliefs, they are, by default, not atheist.

 

[WillJ]

I'm an Apumpkinist I don't believe a Giant Pumpkin rules the universe. Therefore I believe there is no Giant Pumpkin Man, this is my religon. Though it is less organised then most traditional religons and allows its follwers a greater deal of freedom, it does have a cosmology, doctrine, an "end of things", a source of knowledge, and a defined position on afterlife. Some apumpkists are anti-pumpkin, but being anti-pumpkin is not a prerequiste for being an apumpkinist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't logically claim with absolute certainty that something doesn't exist, yes, even Giant Pumpkin Man, Creator of Pumpkin and Earth. Sure, you can dismiss the idea due to lack of evidence, falsifiableness, and usefulness, but you can't conclude it's untrue. And it's the same with a god.

Oh, and @Birdjaguar: I wouldn't call atheism a religion, since to me a religion is a belief in a creator/god or something similar (the Force, etc.); atheism is obviously the very opposite of this. Of course, you might have a different definition of religion.

 

[andrewgprv]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't logically claim with absolute certainty that something doesn't exist, yes, even Giant Pumpkin Man, Creator of Pumpkin and Earth. Sure, you can dismiss the idea due to lack of evidence, falsifiableness, and usefulness, but you can't conclude it's untrue. And it's the same with a god.

Exactly the dis-belief in something is not a religon. I'm sure non of us here believe a giant pumpkin rules the universe, but that doesn't mean we all share a common religon of apumpkinism. The same is true with Atheism I do not have faith in god's non existence. I simply assume it is not true since I do not have sufficient reason to believe it is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's news to me. Where did you get this stuff? If someone has religious beliefs, they are, by default, not atheist.

Your definition of religion is to narrow. It limits your thinking. Religion and god are not necessarily connected. God's existence or non existence is independent of any human religion. Religion has no need of a god. All a religion needs is a system of beliefs that defines the "world" and some believers. To be noticed you need lots of believers or you need to do outrageous things.

 

[KaNick]

Your definition of religion is to narrow. It limits your thinking. Religion and god are not necessarily connected. God's existence or non existence is independent of any human religion.

Your comprehension is poor. It is a simptom of a limited thinking capability. I never mentioned god, or its relationship to religion. Atheism is indepentant of any human religion.

Religion has no need of a god. All a religion needs is a system of beliefs that defines the "world" and some believers. To be noticed you need lots of believers or you need to do outrageous things.

So Physics is a religion. I think that you have a poor definition of religion.

 

[WillJ]

Exactly the dis-belief in something is not a religon. I'm sure non of us here believe a giant pumpkin rules the universe, but that doesn't mean we all share a common religon of apumpkinism. The same is true with Atheism I do not have faith in god's non existence. I simply assume it is not true since I do not have sufficient reason to believe it is.

Well then you're really an agnostic by my definition, not an atheist.

Of course, with my definition of atheism, there are about three atheists in the world. The first is CurtSibling, and the other two are DLs.

 

[Shadylookin]

There are actually 4 divisions in agnostism as I can see it

George Smith, the author of "Atheism" divides agnostics into two types:

Agnostic theists: those who believe that a deity probably exists;

Agnostic atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists. 5

Another category of Agnostic is "empirical Agnostics." They believe that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them.

Still another category are "Agnostic Humanists." These individuals are undecided about the existence of God. Further, they do not really consider the question to be particularly important. They have derived their moral and behavioral codes from secular considerations. Their ethical behavior would not be altered if a deity were proven to exist.

I'd say I am the 2 latter ones, but ultimately I don't think it really matters so I'm more of an agnostic humanist(although I sort of dispise the word humanist) and wouldn't really change the way I do things even if I believed god were proven. Actually I kinda know I wouldn't change because I haven't changed my behavior since I was a christian only the way I see the behavior. (like cussing up a storm is now seen as alright, instead of me having a slight guilt for it back when I was a christian. There are other things, but I'm not going to discuss them here )

 

[andrewgprv]

Well then you're really an agnostic by my definition, not an atheist.

Of course, with my definition of atheism, there are about three atheists in the world. The first is CurtSibling, and the other two are DLs.

The word Agnostic was originally used to refer to someone who believed in a philosephy that nothing can be proven to be true or false.

What we are really arguing about is a term and how it is used. It's my oppinon that the word Agnostic is horribaly misused making the word atheist seem dogmatic.

If someone claims they are master of the universe and I shall bow before them I do not say. "you may be right" "you may be wrong" "I just don't know" I instead assume their claim is false untill they can provide me with evidence to the contrary. This is what I do with God and what most all atheists do, we assume a god does not exsist untill it is proven otherwise.

 

[WillJ]

The word Agnostic was originally used to refer to someone who believed in a philosephy that nothing can be proven to be true or false.

What we are really arguing about is a term and how it is used. It's my oppinon that the word Agnostic is horribaly misused making the word atheist seem dogmatic.

If someone claims they are master of the universe and I shall bow before them I do not say. "you may be right" "you may be wrong" "I just don't know" I instead assume their claim is false untill they can provide me with evidence to the contrary. This is what I do with God and what most all atheists do, we assume a god does not exsist untill it is proven otherwise.

You're right, both atheist and agnostic are troublesome words. Some consider thinking proof (at least of the existence of a god) is impossible a fundamental part of agnosticism; I don't.

Perhaps I should start using the terms "hard" atheist and "soft" atheist (hard atheist being my definition of atheist, soft atheist being my definition of agnostic), and leave agnosticism to its original definition of the belief that absolute truth is unattainable (which would not be mutually exlusive nor inclusive with soft atheism).

 

[Johann MacLeod]

Agnostic or Deist, im not too sure yet

 

[Shadylookin]

You're right, both atheist and agnostic are troublesome words. Some consider thinking proof (at least of the existence of a god) is impossible a fundamental part of agnosticism; I don't.

Perhaps I should start using the terms "hard" atheist and "soft" atheist (hard atheist being my definition of atheist, soft atheist being my definition of agnostic), and leave agnosticism to its original definition of the belief that absolute truth is unattainable (which would not be mutually exlusive nor inclusive with soft atheism).

a strong/hard/positive/no prefix at all atheist is one who believes that there is no god(depending on definition)

a weak/negative/agnostic atheist is one who has no belief in a god.

Atypical agnostic could also be described as a weak atheist having no belief in a god. Then again most agnostics believe in a possiblity of their being a god. As I stated in my previous post some agnostics think one side is more probable, but neither can be proven. The english language changes and adapts, so who really cares if we stole a dead man's 144 year old word.

 

[aaminion00]

I am agnostic, but not by your definition. WillJ has a more correct definition, though I disagree with the ignorance part I just like to accept that modern science can neither confirm or deny any gods so why should I close my mind on the issue. Though even if we realized there was a god I would not change the way I live, he has never asked for worship, never done anything to me or for me, so I wouldn't go out of my way to pay my respects to said deity.

10 character limit

 

[Birdjaguar]

Your comprehension is poor. It is a simptom of a limited thinking capability. I never mentioned god, or its relationship to religion. Atheism is indepentant of any human religion.

Atheism is a belief system that is based on the premise that god does not exist. As humans we tend to institutionalize our beliefs and add layers of thought that build on our foundation (whatever that is). So you begin with god does not exist. When you have added a cosmology (described the universe), a little doctrine, acceptable sources of knowledge, an end of all things, and what happens after death, you have built a religion. Religions are the systems of belief that organize the thinking about the world for a group of people. You want to assign all religious people to a category that also includes god. "Godless communism" has been a religion for many people during the past 100 years. Humanism is another religion that organizes peoples lives around a set of beliefs.

So Physics is a religion. I think that you have a poor definition of religion.

Physics is not a religion, but you could base a religion on physics. You would have to add the layers of institutionalized thinking that organizes the edges of what is acceptable.

 

[zjl56]

Everyone is in a religion for a religion is basicly a system of beliefs.

 

[Duddha]

I guess the closest way to define me is Pantheism, huh, I wasn't actually familiar with that word.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Everyone is in a religion for a religion is basicly a system of beliefs.

I won't disagree with you, but I think many of the atheists here would like to think that their atheism is something more than a "belief". They like to associate "belief" with religion and "reason" with atheism. The bigger and badder the religion the better. As a group they are no different than the believers in god.

Since neither the existence of god nor the non existence of god can be proven (through reason), both premises are merely beliefs.