NationStates Jolt Archive

Obvious what the question is.

Atheist: Does not believe in a god, or any other supernatural powers.

Christian: Religion founded in Judaism, believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and Son of God, died for their sins and rose again. Middle Eastern origin, Monotheistic.

Islamic: Followers of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Middle Eastern origin, Monotheistic.

Buddhism: A complex blend of different theologies. Fundamentally centered around the teachings of Siddhartha who later became the Buddha, on reaching inner peace. There is either no God in Buddhism, or Buddha himself is now a God, depending upon the branch of Buddhism. South Asian in origin.

Judaism: Followers of Abraham and Moses, strong oral and written traditions passed down in the form of the Torah. Middle Eastern in origin, Monotheistic.

Wicca/Paganism: Not a unified belief set, instead terms are being used to describe several quite similar belief sets. Similar beliefs can be found throughout the world. Often polytheistic.

Hinduism: Polytheistic religion originating in South Asia. Not a single, well defined religion. Oldest known religion.

Marxism: While not traditionally classified as a religion, it contains many of the basic elements of religion. Northern European in origin, Atheistic.

Other: Duhrrrrrrrrrr

Thar gunna be a poll then, dag-blammit?

Thar gunna be a poll then, dag-blammit?
Ten options, and Jolt is going as slow as it feels like it.

None ob your bidness!!!!!
Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.
Oh, ands you done left out "undecided" :p
eta: ooops! It's in da poll. Good work!

Christian, Roman Catholic.

Other: non-religious agnost/deist. I believe it to be possible that God or gods exist, but I see no reason to worship them.

Other: non-religious agnost/deist. I believe it to be possible that God or gods exist, but I see no reason to worship them.

But if you don't then they'll cast you into Hell! :p j/k.

Well, I clicked other, but I ought to explain.

I was born and raised as a Methodist, the most mild-mannered version of Christianity you can find. The Pastor at the Church I was raised in I found truly inspiring, and, his views regarding folks of different faiths were some of the most tolerant I'd ever heard. Then, just at the crux of the matter, the moment when I could have been cemented into Christianity by someone like Dr. Kimber, he was diagnosed with cancer, and he decided to move to California to be with his children. Shortly thereafter, the conference appointed quite the dissapointing replacement, a fellow who had spent the last decade in administrative work, and was just going to be marking time for a few years until retirement. I slowly slipped away from the strong religious beliefs I once held, and I now find myself in a sort of limbo. I really don't know what I believe spiritually.

But if you don't then they'll cast you into Hell! :p j/k.
Possibly - but I don't respond well to blackmail.

I worship science.

Possibly - but I don't respond well to blackmail.

Very few people do. That why there's leg breaking.

I AM ZINTHYR, Grand General of the Galactic Confederacy! I am here to destroy all Scientologists, only some select few of scientologists know who I am. You will all die in a horrible scenario of ice and snow. There will be blood and your thetans shall be used as a new weapon we have just developed! And you will become no more, and the planet Earth shall be relieved by scientologists!

HAIL XENU!!!
-ZINTHYR

I AM ZINTHYR, Grand General of the Galactic Confederacy! I am here to destroy all Scientologists, only some select few of scientologists know who I am. You will all die in a horrible scenario of ice and snow. There will be blood and your thetans shall be used as a new weapon we have just developed! And you will become no more, and the planet Earth shall be relieved by scientologists!

HAIL XENU!!!
-ZINTHYR

All Hail Xenu!

I AM ZINTHYR, Grand General of the Galactic Confederacy! I am here to destroy all Scientologists, only some select few of scientologists know who I am. You will all die in a horrible scenario of ice and snow. There will be blood and your thetans shall be used as a new weapon we have just developed! And you will become no more, and the planet Earth shall be relieved by scientologists!

HAIL XENU!!!
-ZINTHYR

*looks at self*

*decides that whatever I just drank wasn't something I should have drank*

Atheism is not a religion, yadda yadda yadda...

Edit: Neither is Marxism, by the by.

Atheism is not a religion, yadda yadda yadda...

Edit: Neither is Marxism, by the by.

Both are positions within the religious debate, tho.

Atheism is not a religion, yadda yadda yadda...
Yes it is. All followers must believe that they are not religious.

Atheism is not a religion, yadda yadda yadda...

Edit: Neither is Marxism, by the by.
Neither is agnosticism, and Buddhism is more akin to a philosophy than a religion. All the same, they're included. Can you think of a better term than religion that encompasses all of my options? In my current state of insomnia I sure can't.

Yes it is.

What's that old saying... oh, yeah: "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour."

All followers must believe that they are not religious.

First of all, there are no followers as there is nothing to follow. Secondly, not having a religious belief does not equal having a religious belief.

I dont believe in isms i just believe in me....

I dont believe in isms i just believe in me....
That's called meism.

Neither is agnosticism,

Agnosticism has religious aspects. Atheism is the actual absence of religion. Simply not believing.

and Buddhism is more akin to a philosophy than a religion.

There is nothing about religion that precludes philosophy, and Buddhism is a religion; it has boddhisattvas, and sacred texts, and moral guide lines, and supernatural belief systems and so on.

All the same, they're included. Can you think of a better term than religion that encompasses all of my options? In my current state of insomnia I sure can't.

What your option for atheism should have been is: "I don't have a religion." Your heading is fine - the options you chose to put under it aren't.

That's called meism.

Or solipsism if taken to extremes.

Atheist, no religion.

That's called meism.


meh, i was just quoting ferris bueller. its on tv right now....

meh, i was just quoting ferris bueller. its on tv right now....

Channel?

Channel?


some local GA channel i think. i have no cable....

some local GA channel i think. i have no cable....

Well, I won't get it, then. Thanks anyway.

Well, I won't get it, then. Thanks anyway.

no problem.

I don't have a religion.

Roman Catholic Christian that has dabbled in Atheism.

Christian-Southern Baptist

Lutheran upbringing.
Now staunch atheist.

And why does Atheism and a lack of belief in the supernatural have to be inclusive?

Who says I cant adhere to both?

None of the above. My views on the spiritual transcend mere religious affiliation. And I think you'll find many on here who have similar stances.

I don't know what religion I am but it involves drinking a lot of tea..

I think I might be british..

Atheism is not a religion, yadda yadda yadda...

Edit: Neither is Marxism, by the by.

Buddhism, however, and in contrast to Andaluciae's assertions, is.

And agnosticism is not per se a religion, anymore than unsure is a hair color. ;)

Christian-Southern Baptist

Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915? </j/k> ;)

Catholic by birth...AGNOSTIC by choice! I believe that God may exist but that's about the extent of it!!! I've given myself the title of 'Shadow Athiest'!!!

Not this crap again!

Buddhism, however, and in contrast to Andaluciae's assertions, is.

And agnosticism is not per se a religion, anymore than unsure is a hair color. ;)
its spelled colour, not color.

What about Generalitism? Is that something I made up?

its spelled colour, not color.

Err... no. Color is equally correct.

I worship the Great Old Ones.

I worship the Great Old Ones.

WHO WILL BE EATEN FIRST? (http://tsat.transform.to/i.34/cmc.34.mr.html)

Cthulhu fhtagn.

WHO WILL BE EATEN FIRST? (http://tsat.transform.to/i.34/cmc.34.mr.html)

Cthulhu fhtagn.


Where's Ash?

A "world-as-myth" paganism increasingly influenced by Taoism as a source of moral principles, along with a bunch of other didactic elements from various traditions as well as self-developed religious and philosophical ideas.

Agnostics are discriminated against in this polll :(

Agnostics are discriminated against in this polll :(
Nope, third from the bottom.

Where's Ash?

Off in his own mythos I presume.

Agnostics are discriminated against in this polll :(

No. 1) Agnosticism is there. 2) Agnosticism is not a religion.

In terms of what I actually believe, I'd call myself some kind of earth-revering neopagan, but it'd be hard to get more specific than that.

Agnostics are discriminated against in this polll :(
Only in the OP. They made the poll ;)

Off in his own mythos I presume.



No. 1) Agnosticism is there. 2) Agnosticism is not a religion.
So, uncertainty is not a belief?

So, uncertainty is not a belief?

Bingo.
Nor is it a religion. (Religion =/= belief. Unless you want to argue that "step on a crack, break your mother's back" is a religion.)

Bingo.
Nor is it a religion. (Religion =/= belief. Unless you want to argue that "step on a crack, break your mother's back" is a religion.)
Interesting . . . so, you discount the idea that choosing to not decide is still a choice?

I had my annual religious experience this summer, which garuntees another year of semi-believing in Buddhism. I was a part of the Japanese Obon holiday, a holiday to honor your deceased ancestors by washing their grave, bringing their spirit home, feeding them, and praying to them. I don't know if I actually believe in it, but my family in Japan is deeply religious and I don't want to offend them, because I respect them a great deal. I know that I will continue going to Japan to celebrate Obon, even after they pass away, because I want to make sure that if there is any truth to their belief, that their spirits are well-cared for. I think I am more agnostic than anything, but I will continue going through the motions until my mind is made up for sure.

So, uncertainty is not a belief?

Strictly speaking strong agnosts are not uncertain. They firmly believe that questions like "Does God exist" cannot be meaningfully answered by man, since the concepts are too far beyond us.

I believe my statement that I wish I had a word that worked better for my purposes here than 'religion' still holds. You must know what I mean when I use that word in this instance.

WHO WILL BE EATEN FIRST? (http://tsat.transform.to/i.34/cmc.34.mr.html)

Cthulhu fhtagn.

Excellent. Spread the word. :D

its spelled colour, not color.

we will start spelling it that way, IF you start pronouncing this word like this (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?alumin07.wav=aluminum)

Strictly speaking strong agnosts are not uncertain. They firmly believe that questions like "Does God exist" cannot be meaningfully answered by man, since the concepts are too far beyond us.
True, some do. Others just see no empirical evidence for or against any religion, hence "uncertainty."

we will start spelling it that way, IF you start pronouncing this word like this (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?alumin07.wav=aluminum)
You mean This word? (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aluminium)

You mean This word? (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aluminium)
Shorter words are happy words, thank you very much :D

You mean This word? (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aluminium)

we will compromise, we will spell it your way but pronounce it ə.ˈlu.mɪ̆.ˌnēəm

half our way, and half your way

we will compromise, we will spell it your way but pronounce it ə.ˈlu.mɪ̆.ˌnēəm

half our way, and half your way
From religion to aluminium in only 5 pages. Nice.

From religion to aluminium in only 5 pages. Nice.
Seems like an obvious transition to me. Religion, State, Control, Aluminium hats.

Now, getting from here on to the consistency of man-made fabrics, thence on to a discussion on Clothes, Shopping and Personalised Birthday Cakes and we'd be... erm...

... Actually, I've completely lost the plot of the point I was trying to make.

by religion i am roman catholic.

i am also an atheist but thats not a religion.

raised catholic
"every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is good,
and if a sperm is wasted,
god gets quite irated".

i'm pagan(ish), but i dont like that wicca bullshit.

Vile therianthrope and part-time Unicronian.

Don't look at me like that. Next time Earth is about to be devoured by an enormous robot-planet, you'll wish you'd been worshiping him too.

Yes it is. All followers must believe that they are not religious.
No.

I don't have a religion - nobody worships me. ¬_¬

Seriously though, I'm not religious. Agnostic ftw.

Mexican.

No.
You know, Religious topics just aren't stereotypical enough these days. It's as well we have people like BAWAA here to correct our forum's severely deficient discussion habits.

You know, Religious topics just aren't stereotypical enough these days. It's as well we have people like BAWAA here to correct our forum's severely deficient discussion habits.
*yawn*

Whiners in this forum just aren't stereotypical enough. It's a good thing there are people like you who are here to correct that and fill a much-needed void.

*yawn*

Whiners in this forum just aren't stereotypical enough. It's a good thing there are people like you who are here to correct that and fill a much-needed void.
On the contrary. There're more than enough people who dislike your approach. I'm just one of them. The one word arrogance that fills your every utterance is a trademark of yours that none other would use, and with good reason.

To be blunt, your character is such that it has rendered your opinions worthless. Your presence in a discussion is a sign of its inevitable death at the hands of pointless bickering. And you need to be told this, regardless of fear of heightening your superiority complex.

There. I have said my piece. Report me if you will, deride me for lack of personal integrity if you prefer, but I have done my part. And will, of course, discuss any backlash of yours should you wish me to do so.

Religion seems like such a waste of time and nonsense to me..








Myrthism.

I've said it before, I'm a neo-pagan agnostic with Taoist leanings.

Yes it is. All followers must believe that they are not religious.
Belief does not a religion make.

I believe in Myrth and Darknovae the pancake. :p :cool:

I am a Pastafarian.

RAmen.

Officially I'm a Sikh. Unofficially I'm Atheist

Agnosticism and very a apathetic one at that

On the contrary. There're more than enough people who dislike your approach.
You say that as if I'm supposed to give a shit.


I'm just one of them. The one word arrogance that fills your every utterance is a trademark of yours that none other would use, and with good reason.
No, there is no good reason not to when the response calls for it.

And the response called for it.

To be blunt, you're just whining. If you want to whine, there's a wall next to you that's going to care a shitload more than I do about your candy-assed opinion.

out of interest, is candy-ass someone with massively high sugar levels?

Atheist myself, none of those skybeards for me my healthy apreciation for science tends to get in the way, not that some form of heaven isn't a nice idea but it's by current scientific understanding impossible.

You say that as if I'm supposed to give a shit.
Well, yes, I would assume you did. What is a discussion forum if you are unwilling to discuss?

No, there is no good reason not to when the response calls for it.

And the response called for it.

To be blunt, you're just whining. If you want to whine, there's a wall next to you that's going to care a shitload more than I do about your candy-assed opinion.
Whether or not you care, I have given you an honest assessment of your character. It is your choice to decide whether or not you wish to do anything about it.

We shall not interact again. I hope you enjoy life without my presence.

Christian, unsure which denomination.

Agnostic...in keeping with my general tendency to be unsure about everything. Well not everything, but quite a lot of things. Maybe. I think:D

Well, yes, I would assume you did. What is a discussion forum if you are unwilling to discuss?
Fine. Let's discuss whether or not 1 + 1 = 2.

After all, what's a discussion forum if you're unwilling to discuss, right?

Agnostic.

I grew up Catholic, but drifted away from it. I got the final push away from any form of religion and especially Christianity when discussing religious topics with Christians on this forum, really. Thanks for that :D

Non-religious christian.

Non-religious christian.
The only kind I like.

by religion i am roman catholic.

i am also an atheist but thats not a religion.
you can't be both catholic and atheist. pick ONE.

I am a Pastafarian.

RAmen.
LOL! Where's a pic of that spaghetti-head guy?

you can't be both catholic and atheist. pick ONE.
Ash can be whatever she wants, so there! :p

you can't be both catholic and atheist. pick ONE.

Actually, you can. It's technically more or less what I am, too.

Actually, you can. It's technically more or less what I am, too.
We need to form a Catholic Atheist Society!

We need to form a Catholic Atheist Society!

Catholic atheists and agnostics tend to be loners, though...

Catholic atheists and agnostics tend to be loners, though...
Like hitmen?

Actually, you can. It's technically more or less what I am, too.
Hi CW! :fluffle: Yeah my g/f was trying to explain that one to me. She said that the RC church never considers you to have left the church regardless of what you say or do once you've had Communion and Confirmation. That the worst you are is a lapsed Catholic unless you get excommunicated or something. Is that about right?
I must confess that I wasn't sure I grasped it fully at the time and didn't ask her to elaborate. Not really interested in any religion that tells her what we do is wrong.

Like hitmen?
I think you're onto something.

*a curtain twitches, a light goes out. The sound of a garotte tightening follows swiftly. When the lights come back on, Tribes is dead*

...see?

Acolyte of the Chaos Bringer.

Hi CW! :fluffle: Yeah my g/f was trying to explain that one to me. She said that the RC church never considers you to have left the church regardless of what you say or do once you've had Communion and Confirmation. That the worst you are is a lapsed Catholic unless you get excommunicated or something. Is that about right?
I must confess that I wasn't sure I grasped it fully at the time and didn't ask her to elaborate. Not really interested in any religion that tells her what we do is wrong.

Well, that's one thing. You're considered Catholic from the day you're baptised till the day you die, really.

The other thing is that growing up as a Catholic will shape your personality in a certain way. It's a certain view of the world that you're getting, and that you can't just drop along with the religion itself. I think it's very subtle and almost impossible to explain...

Well, that's one thing. You're considered Catholic from the day you're baptised till the day you die, really.

The other thing is that growing up as a Catholic will shape your personality in a certain way. It's a certain view of the world that you're getting, and that you can't just drop along with the religion itself. I think it's very subtle and almost impossible to explain...
Probably the biggest difference between religion and spirituality is that religion relies on words, whereas spirituality transcends them.

you can't be both catholic and atheist. pick ONE.
i most certainly can. i am baptised and confirmed catholic. you cant undo that. all i have to do to be a member of the highest standing is to go to confession, communion and never miss mass again.

its the atheism thing that keeps me from doing so.

Ash can be whatever she wants, so there! :p
thank you very much!

we catholic atheists (or is it atheist catholics?) need to stick together even if we are loners.

LOL! Where's a pic of that spaghetti-head guy?
:eek: It's Flying Spaghetti Monster, not spaghetti-head guy!

Here y'are:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/fsm.jpg

Christian, Roman Catholic.

I am delighted to see a poll with atheist and agnostic as individual options! Yay!

I am delighted to see a poll with atheist and agnostic as individual options! Yay!

But... the problems it will cause for the Agnostic Atheist...!?

Like me. I consider myself an Atheist... I don't 'believe' in any 'gods'... but I believe that it is impossible to know.

The problem is - Agnosticism shouldn't be on the poll, at all - since it isn't actually a position on belief.

But... the problems it will cause for the Agnostic Atheist...!?

Like me. I consider myself an Atheist... I don't 'believe' in any 'gods'... but I believe that it is impossible to know.

The problem is - Agnosticism shouldn't be on the poll, at all - since it isn't actually a position on belief.


I'd also like to know why a belief in the supernatural, and athiesm have to be mutually exclusive.

I'd also like to know why a belief in the supernatural, and athiesm have to be mutually exclusive.

They don't... an Atheist could believe in fairies, angels, ghosts, whatever... they would just lack belief on the subject of 'gods'.

Of course - given how broad a spectrum 'gods' covers, it's almost possible to argue away the supernatural under the 'atheism' banner.

I mean, really... a goddess of drains? (Cloacina, or something like, I seem to recall).

But - there are certain assumptions, that are not completely logical... like, if you are an Atheist, you cannot believe in an afterlife.

But... the problems it will cause for the Agnostic Atheist...!?

Like me. I consider myself an Atheist... I don't 'believe' in any 'gods'... but I believe that it is impossible to know.

The problem is - Agnosticism shouldn't be on the poll, at all - since it isn't actually a position on belief.
It is possible to be agnostic without being atheist or theist, so I think agnostic belongs on such polls.

However, I share your predicament as an agnostic atheist. I feel that my beliefs are more defined by my agnosticism than by my atheism, so that is the option I picked, but perhaps other agnostic atheists will feel otherwise.

They don't... an Atheist could believe in fairies, angels, ghosts, whatever... they would just lack belief on the subject of 'gods'.

Of course - given how broad a spectrum 'gods' covers, it's almost possible to argue away the supernatural under the 'atheism' banner.

I mean, really... a goddess of drains? (Cloacina, or something like, I seem to recall).

But - there are certain assumptions, that are not completely logical... like, if you are an Atheist, you cannot believe in an afterlife.


I would tend to think so as well.
However, on this forum, it seems that Christians think that to be an Atheist, you cant do these things.
They seem to prefer an "all or nothing" avenue.

It is possible to be agnostic without being atheist or theist, so I think agnostic belongs on such polls.

However, I share your predicament as an agnostic atheist. I feel that my beliefs are more defined by my agnosticism than by my atheism, so that is the option I picked, but perhaps other agnostic atheists will feel otherwise.

Like me. I think that my Atheism is a logical aspect of my Agnosticism... if I don't know if I can know if there is a god or not, how can I make a decision on whether I believe in her/him/it?

But then - I could be Agnostic and still be some manner of Theist... so it isn't the only logical deduction... so my Atheism must be the determining factor in my answer, no?

How could one be Agnostic without being either 'Theistic' or 'Atheistic'?

Like me. I think that my Atheism is a logical aspect of my Agnosticism... if I don't know if I can know if there is a god or not, how can I make a decision on whether I believe in her/him/it?

But then - I could be Agnostic and still be some manner of Theist... so it isn't the only logical deduction... so my Atheism must be the determining factor in my answer, no?

How could one be Agnostic without being either 'Theistic' or 'Atheistic'?
By being uncertain.

I would tend to think so as well.
However, on this forum, it seems that Christians think that to be an Atheist, you cant do these things.
They seem to prefer an "all or nothing" avenue.

Ah, yes... but that is because we are dealing with what other people have decided is 'true' of Atheism.

A relation (through my wife) asked me recently, if I worship Satan... you know, since I'm an 'Atheist'. According (it seems) to the Southern Baptists, there is no difference between the Atheist and the Satanist.

And this is why, though I will take all pains to explain the perspective of the Atheist... I don't lose ANY sleep over what other people might think my beliefs might be.

How could one be Agnostic without being either 'Theistic' or 'Atheistic'?

I could be wrong, but it sounds as if the word literally means "Without Knowledge", or basically "undecided".

So in this case, they would have to be positve about thier own uncertainty.

i most certainly can. i am baptised and confirmed catholic. you cant undo that. all i have to do to be a member of the highest standing is to go to confession, communion and never miss mass again.

its the atheism thing that keeps me from doing so.
Heh, exactly.

I'm technically Catholic but was never exactly religious to begin with (neither was my family). More like going to mass on, hmm, maybe Christmas, but mostly not even then.

I'd call myself an agnostic. Though I guess I just really don't care one way or another, i.e. religion simply doesn't play any role in my life. Not because I make a conscious effort to not let it but simply because it, well, doesn't.*shrugs*

By being uncertain.

And - if one is uncertain, then one doubts. And, if one doubts, then one is not a believer. Thus - the uncertain person is an implicit atheist.

Or - if you think it is possible to have doubts and yet still honestly call what you have 'belief'... then the doubter is an implicit theist.

Ah, yes... but that is because we are dealing with what other people have decided is 'true' of Atheism.

A relation (through my wife) asked me recently, if I worship Satan... you know, since I'm an 'Atheist'. According (it seems) to the Southern Baptists, there is no difference between the Atheist and the Satanist.

And this is why, though I will take all pains to explain the perspective of the Atheist... I don't lose ANY sleep over what other people might think my beliefs might be.

Try living in a town that consists of more churches per capita than any other city in the world, and being a staunch atheist.

Can you say, "Unpopular"?

I could be wrong, but it sounds as if the word literally means "Without Knowledge", or basically "undecided".

So in this case, they would have to be positve about thier own uncertainty.

Yes - 'without knowledge'... or maybe 'against knowing', might be closer.

The basis is - one cannot know for sure if there is/are god/gods. Thus - one is only recognising the ability to KNOW... not to believe. I don't see that Agnsoticism is a 'belief', on it's own - although it might be a salient point in the theism/atheism of the individual.

Like me. I think that my Atheism is a logical aspect of my Agnosticism... if I don't know if I can know if there is a god or not, how can I make a decision on whether I believe in her/him/it?

But then - I could be Agnostic and still be some manner of Theist... so it isn't the only logical deduction... so my Atheism must be the determining factor in my answer, no?

I find that I have more in common with agnostic theists than with non-agnostic atheists. It's got something to do with the line of reasoning, I think...for me, it's more about the process of how one becomes godless than it is about being godless.


How could one be Agnostic without being either 'Theistic' or 'Atheistic'?
Why, one can be undecided! :)

I was in that very position for a brief time. Some people will conclude, as you (and I) have done, that they should not believe in God if they have no possible way of knowing whether God exists or not. Other people will conclude that their lack of knowing should have no bearing on whether or not they choose to believe. Some people take their time in sorting out what they think.

Try living in a town that consists of more churches per capita than any other city in the world, and being a staunch atheist.

Can you say, "Unpopular"?

Heh... you'd like my neck-of-the-woods. Indeed... what you are describing sounds just like my neck-of-the-woods.

Why, one can be undecided! :)

I was in that very position for a brief time. Some people will conclude, as you (and I) have done, that they should not believe in God if they have no possible way of knowing whether God exists or not. Other people will conclude that their lack of knowing should have no bearing on whether or not they choose to believe. Some people take their time in sorting out what they think.

But - surely, in that process, one is an agnostic theist until one is an agnostic atheist? (Or, vice-versa).

That is - if I start out a believer, but I have doubts... I am still a theist if those doubts don't kill my belief, and I am an atheist if they do... no?

And - if one is uncertain, then one doubts. And, if one doubts, then one is not a believer. Thus - the uncertain person is an implicit atheist.

Or - if you think it is possible to have doubts and yet still honestly call what you have 'belief'... then the doubter is an implicit theist.
It is quite possible to have doubts yet still be a believer. It is also possible to have doubts and not be a believer. It is possible to have doubts about what, exactly, one believes in.

I don't classify people's beliefs until they do. A lot of people simply haven't thought about the subject enough to have formed clear beliefs one way or the other, and I think it would be premature to label them as theist or atheist until they've done so.

Even people who have thought about it will often find themselves needing to re-settle their thoughts after they arrive at agnosticism. Remember, there are a ton of people who start out as atheist or theist but then later become agnostic...and the agnoticism will often shake up their fundamental thought process on the subject. So they kind of have to start from scratch, and see whether their pre-existing atheism or theism is actually compatible with their agnosticism. I think of such people as in a kind of limbo when it comes to belief, until they've worked out what they believe.

And - if one is uncertain, then one doubts. And, if one doubts, then one is not a believer. Thus - the uncertain person is an implicit atheist.

Or - if you think it is possible to have doubts and yet still honestly call what you have 'belief'... then the doubter is an implicit theist.
Don't tell me what I think, punk!
I am "uncertain" because there is NO empirical evidence one way or the other, nothing to base a decision upon, therefore I choose to not choose ;)

Heh... you'd like my neck-of-the-woods. Indeed... what you are describing sounds just like my neck-of-the-woods.

Its crazy, really.

Ive gotten looks ranging from pity, to fear, to hatred all from one group of people, all at the same time, when they discovered im an atheist.

Ive had a religious Stalker, who was bound and determined to "save my soul".

If you like Agent Orange, plastic wrap for your food, silicone titties, Jesus, and George Bush, you'd love my town.

It is quite possible to have doubts yet still be a believer. It is also possible to have doubts and not be a believer. It is possible to have doubts about what, exactly, one believes in.

I don't classify people's beliefs until they do. A lot of people simply haven't thought about the subject enough to have formed clear beliefs one way or the other, and I think it would be premature to label them as theist or atheist until they've done so.

Even people who have thought about it will often find themselves needing to re-settle their thoughts after they arrive at agnosticism. Remember, there are a ton of people who start out as atheist or theist but then later become agnostic...and the agnoticism will often shake up their fundamental thought process on the subject. So they kind of have to start from scratch, and see whether their pre-existing atheism or theism is actually compatible with their agnosticism. I think of such people as in a kind of limbo when it comes to belief, until they've worked out what they believe.

But again - at least as I see it - Agnosticism isn't a position 'on it's own'... it doesn't speak to the question of belief, at all... only to whether it is possible to KNOW.

Thus - and again, this must be 'as I see it'... the atheist is still an atheist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

Just as the theist is still a theist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

I just can't see Agnosticism as an answer to the question of faith... at least, not as a standalone, it must be the modifier for another term, if it is used at all, in the question of 'belief'.

Don't tell me what I think, punk!
I am "uncertain" because there is NO empirical evidence one way or the other, nothing to base a decision upon, therefore I choose to not choose ;)

Okay - let me set out my stall....

If you do not believe in god/gods, for whatever reason - you are an atheist.

If you question your faith... you are either an atheist or a theist, depending on whether or not you still 'believe' it.

There is no objective, empirical evidence for any god/gods... but Atheism doesn't require empirical proof... only the LACK of belief in the Theist position.

They are not opposites on a spectrum - one is just the absence of the other.


So - your position is 'implicit atheism', if you feel there is insufficient evidence to embrace some form of theism.

But again - at least as I see it - Agnosticism isn't a position 'on it's own'... it doesn't speak to the question of belief, at all... only to whether it is possible to KNOW.

Thus - and again, this must be 'as I see it'... the atheist is still an atheist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

Just as the theist is still a theist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

I just can't see Agnosticism as an answer to the question of faith... at least, not as a standalone, it must be the modifier for another term, if it is used at all, in the question of 'belief'.
Nope. See my post # 125. Agnostic as an empirical position :)

But - surely, in that process, one is an agnostic theist until one is an agnostic atheist? (Or, vice-versa).

I can't speak for anybody else's experience, but I honestly went through a period where I was neither atheist nor theist. I really just didn't know what I thought.


That is - if I start out a believer, but I have doubts... I am still a theist if those doubts don't kill my belief, and I am an atheist if they do... no?
I don't usually stick people with "default" belief labels. If they haven't figured out where they fall yet, I don't feel comfortable saying that they are theist or atheist simply because they may have started out on one "side" or another. I think beliefs like atheism or theism should only be tagged with those labels when they are actual conscious beliefs, as opposed to just sticking people in one camp or the other by default.

But again - at least as I see it - Agnosticism isn't a position 'on it's own'... it doesn't speak to the question of belief, at all... only to whether it is possible to KNOW.

Thus - and again, this must be 'as I see it'... the atheist is still an atheist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

Just as the theist is still a theist until/unless their agnosticism moderates their position on the question of belief.

I just can't see Agnosticism as an answer to the question of faith... at least, not as a standalone, it must be the modifier for another term, if it is used at all, in the question of 'belief'.


I suppose I see Agnosticism as more like an additive to the political scale.

You can be a Conservative Republican, or a Conservative Democrat.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist.

I suppose the two opposite, and far more finite groups would be Theist/Atheist..

You do..or do not.....not both.

Uncertainty can be applied to either camp.

Ah, yes... but that is because we are dealing with what other people have decided is 'true' of Atheism.

A relation (through my wife) asked me recently, if I worship Satan... you know, since I'm an 'Atheist'. According (it seems) to the Southern Baptists, there is no difference between the Atheist and the Satanist.

And this is why, though I will take all pains to explain the perspective of the Atheist... I don't lose ANY sleep over what other people might think my beliefs might be.
I have had sooooooo many people ask me, "If you don't believe in God, what stops you from stealing stuff or killing people?"

Talk about disturbing. I always have to reply, "Is God-belief the only thing stopping you from killing people?"

Okay - let me set out my stall....

If you do not believe in god/gods, for whatever reason - you are an atheist.

If you question your faith... you are either an atheist or a theist, depending on whether or not you still 'believe' it.

There is no objective, empirical evidence for any god/gods... but Atheism doesn't require empirical proof... only the LACK of belief in the Theist position.

They are not opposites on a spectrum - one is just the absence of the other.


So - your position is 'implicit atheism', if you feel there is insufficient evidence to embrace some form of theism.
You're loading in a bunch of crap that isn't there. Take out all the "belief," "faith," and "spectrum" nonsense. None of it applies.

I suppose I see Agnosticism as more like an additive to the political scale.

You can be a Conservative Republican, or a Conservative Democrat.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist.

I think that's a good parallel, since some people find their conservative-ness to be their defining quality (politically speaking), while other people find their Republican-ness or Democrat-ness to be the key aspect of their political self.

Its crazy, really.

Ive gotten looks ranging from pity, to fear, to hatred all from one group of people, all at the same time, when they discovered im an atheist.

Ive had a religious Stalker, who was bound and determined to "save my soul".

If you like Agent Orange, plastic wrap for your food, silicone titties, Jesus, and George Bush, you'd love my town.

Again - so much like my town, it's scary. :)

For me - the only good thing about leaving my video-store job (aside from the poverty-wages I escaped), is the fact that I am no longer as obvious a mission-target now... why, some days pass where no one attempts to convert me, 'save' me, or argue the unreasonableness of my belief with me, at all!

I have had sooooooo many people ask me, "If you don't believe in God, what stops you from stealing stuff or killing people?"

Talk about disturbing. I always have to reply, "Is God-belief the only thing stopping you from killing people?"


Fallacy #2:

"Belief in Jesus is necessary for morality."

Wich by that logic makes the Dahli Llama, and Ghandi, killers.

Its crazy, really.

Ive gotten looks ranging from pity, to fear, to hatred all from one group of people, all at the same time, when they discovered im an atheist.

Ive had a religious Stalker, who was bound and determined to "save my soul".

*Shudder* I had a religious stalker, too.

Funny enough, the same guy also was a "heterosexual stalker" for one of my lesbian friends. He was convinced he could "turn her straight" if she'd just give him a chance. Odd lad.

Nope. See my post # 125. Agnostic as an empirical position :)

I see the post - but it doesn't explain how Agnostic can be an answer to the question of belief.

Agnosticsm never addresses the issue of belief... only whether or not one thinks it is possible to KNOW... different issue.

Try watching "Constantine"... the scene where Constantine is asking why he is condemned to hell, is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make.

*Shudder* I had a religious stalker, too.

Funny enough, the same guy also was a "heterosexual stalker" for one of my lesbian friends. He was convinced he could "turn her straight" if she'd just give him a chance. Odd lad.


Well, they dont call it "The Missionary Position" for nothing you know....

I can't speak for anybody else's experience, but I honestly went through a period where I was neither atheist nor theist. I really just didn't know what I thought.


I don't usually stick people with "default" belief labels. If they haven't figured out where they fall yet, I don't feel comfortable saying that they are theist or atheist simply because they may have started out on one "side" or another. I think beliefs like atheism or theism should only be tagged with those labels when they are actual conscious beliefs, as opposed to just sticking people in one camp or the other by default.

But, there IS a default.

If you are a believer in a god or gods... no matter what the flavour... you are, by extension, a form of theist.

If you don't... you are, by definition, a form of atheist.

Thus - the point where you were not a theist... you were, definitively, an atheist. You just didn't apply the term to the state.

I see the post - but it doesn't explain how Agnostic can be an answer to the question of belief.

Agnosticsm never addresses the issue of belief... only whether or not one thinks it is possible to KNOW... different issue.

Try watching "Constantine"... the scene where Constantine is asking why he is condemned to hell, is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make.
I believe that I don't know. What could be clearer than that?
Good movie, Constantine, btw.

I suppose I see Agnosticism as more like an additive to the political scale.

You can be a Conservative Republican, or a Conservative Democrat.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist.

I suppose the two opposite, and far more finite groups would be Theist/Atheist..

You do..or do not.....not both.

Uncertainty can be applied to either camp.

Okay - and - if the question is 'Which Party do you vote for"... should 'conservative' be on the list of options, if the Parties are "Democrat" and "Republican"?

No - because 'conservative' has nothing to do with the question asked... although it may inform your choice on which of the two parties you support.

The problem with the parallel, of course, is that the 'religion' question is essentially a one-party-state (although the party has a lot of different representatives of different shapes and colours).

Thus - the question is - do you vote for THE Party, or not.

"Conservative" still doesn't answer the question... but you can see that all who do not vote FOR the party, automatically fall into the 'other' category.

But, there IS a default.

If you are a believer in a god or gods... no matter what the flavour... you are, by extension, a form of theist.

If you don't... you are, by definition, a form of atheist.

Thus - the point where you were not a theist... you were, definitively, an atheist. You just didn't apply the term to the state.
I believe it's possible to be undecided on the subject.

It's like if somebody asked me if I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink, or not. There are only two options: either I believe it is, or I don't believe it is. Right now, I have no opinion one way or the other; I lack the necessary information to decide whether or not I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink. I don't think it is fair to say that, by default, I must believe Quirzak is NOT the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it is) or that I must believe it IS the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it isn't).

A lot of agnostics are in this position with God. Given that there is no universally accepted definition of the word "God" to begin with, I think it's quite reasonable for somebody to say that they have no way of determining whether or not they believe in the existence of God.

I have had sooooooo many people ask me, "If you don't believe in God, what stops you from stealing stuff or killing people?"

Talk about disturbing. I always have to reply, "Is God-belief the only thing stopping you from killing people?"

Which is exactly what prompted me to run that "Can you be religious AND moral" thread, a while back... :)

I believe it's possible to be undecided on the subject.

It's like if somebody asked me if I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink, or not. There are only two options: either I believe it is, or I don't believe it is. Right now, I have no opinion one way or the other; I lack the necessary information to decide whether or not I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink. I don't think it is fair to say that, by default, I must believe Quirzak is NOT the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it is) or that I must believe it IS the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it isn't).

A lot of agnostics are in this position with God. Given that there is no universally accepted definition of the word "God" to begin with, I think it's quite reasonable for somebody to say that they have no way of determining whether or not they believe in the existence of God.
Thank you, Bottle!

Okay - and - if the question is 'Which Party do you vote for"... should 'conservative' be on the list of options, if the Parties are "Democrat" and "Republican"?

No.
I agree that "Agnosticism" itself, is not a belief system as the other two are.


Well, you can be what I claim to be.

A Liberal Independant.

I dont belong to, nor vote exsclusively for any party.

In the same sense, a person who is Agnostic, could neither be a Theist, or an Athiest, and simply have not made up thier minds as to what they believe.
In this case, "agnostic...no suffix" might be applicable.

Its a simple way to say "i dont know".
Even if agnosticism isnt really quite that simple.

Which is exactly what prompted me to run that "Can you be religious AND moral" thread, a while back... :)
A thread I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way.

Fluffles.

I believe it's possible to be undecided on the subject.

It's like if somebody asked me if I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink, or not. There are only two options: either I believe it is, or I don't believe it is. Right now, I have no opinion one way or the other; I lack the necessary information to decide whether or not I believe that Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink. I don't think it is fair to say that, by default, I must believe Quirzak is NOT the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it is) or that I must believe it IS the best flavor (since I'm not ready to assert that it isn't).

A lot of agnostics are in this position with God. Given that there is no universally accepted definition of the word "God" to begin with, I think it's quite reasonable for somebody to say that they have no way of determining whether or not they believe in the existence of God.

But, don't you see the parallel here to the divide between Implicit and Explicit Atheism?

If you don't choose Quirzak as the best flavour... that doesn't mean you are saying that another type of Siffleplink is better... you are just not embracing THAT particular 'story'.

You are an Implicit Siffleplink Atheist.

What you have stated, would be the Explicit position... and isn't the only logical response.

Look at what you said earlier: "There are only two options: either I believe it is, or I don't believe it is..." But - "I don't believe it is" is not exactly equal to "I believe it is not[i]".


The question is moot, anyway... Quirzak is [i]obviously the best flavour of Siffleplink.

Thank you, Bottle!
You know, I really love this forum. I get to spend hours talking about my favorite subject (my opinions) and people THANK me for it!

:) Any time!

No.
I agree that "Agnosticism" itself, is not a belief system as the other two are.


Well, you can be what I claim to be.

A Liberal Independant.

I dont belong to, nor vote exsclusively for any party.

In the same sense, a person who is Agnostic, could neither be a Theist, or an Athiest, and simply have not made up thier minds as to what they believe.
In this case, "agnostic...no suffix" might be applicable.

Its a simple way to say "i dont know".
Even if agnosticism isnt really quite that simple.

I see what you are saying... but I still run into the same problem...

You can't be neither theistic NOR atheistic. The fact that you are not 'theistic' automatically makes you 'atheistic'.... at least Implicitly.

Explicit Atheism may be the denial of Theism, but Implicit Atheism is just it's absence.

If you don't believe in god/gods... it doesn't matter if you have run all the way to the opposite 'side', to proclaim there ARE NO GODS... it is the simple lack of that belief that renders you automatically an Implicit Atheist.

You know, I really love this forum. I get to spend hours talking about my favorite subject (my opinions) and people THANK me for it!

:) Any time!


I like the fact that I can enter a religious debate with the likes of Bottle and Grave_n_Idle, and hold my own.

A thread I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way.

Fluffles.

:D

I have my moments. :)

But, don't you see the parallel here to the divide between Implicit and Explicit Atheism?

If you don't choose Quirzak as the best flavour... that doesn't mean you are saying that another type of Siffleplink is better... you are just not embracing THAT particular 'story'.

You are an Implicit Siffleplink Atheist.

What you have stated, would be the Explicit position... and isn't the only logical response.

Look at what you said earlier: "There are only two options: either I believe it is, or I don't believe it is..." But - "I don't believe it is" is not exactly equal to "I believe it is not[i]".

Ahhhhh, I see what you're saying.

The thing is, the "implicit atheist" you describe would also be an "implicit non-atheist" at the same time.

See, they would be saying, "I don't believe Quirzak is the best flavor," but also saying "I don't believe Quirzak is NOT the best flavor." They lack belief in BOTH options.

So they are implicitly non-atheist as much as they are implicitly atheist.

If, as you seem to be saying, there are only two options (atheist and theist), then the implicit non-atheism is--by default--implicit theism.


The question is moot, anyway... Quirzak is [i]obviously the best flavour of Siffleplink.
It is not possible to know whether Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink! You're just another brain-washed sheep bowing down before some silly 2000-year-old Cook Book!!

I like the fact that I can enter a religious debate with the likes of Bottle and Grave_n_Idle, and hold my own.

Hey, I offered to hold it for you, and you snubbed me...

:o

Hey, I offered to hold it for you, and you snubbed me...

:o


You said I had to wash it first, and I was afraid to get it wet!

I like the fact that I can enter a religious debate with the likes of Bottle and Grave_n_Idle, and hold my own.
I like that about myself too, but I could be imagining the "holding my own" part.

You said I had to wash it first, and I was afraid to get it wet!
It might shrink *nods*

Ahhhhh, I see what you're saying.

The thing is, the "implicit atheist" you describe would also be an "implicit non-atheist" at the same time.

See, they would be saying, "I don't believe Quirzak is the best flavor," but also saying "I don't believe Quirzak is NOT the best flavor." They lack belief in BOTH options.

So they are implicitly non-atheist as much as they are implicitly atheist.

If, as you seem to be saying, there are only two options (atheist and theist), then the implicit non-atheism is--by default--implicit theism.


Well - I do allow for Implicit Atheism and Implicit Theism.... what I consider to be flipsides of the same coin.

Theism is the assertion of god or gods, Atheism the denial.

Implicit Atheism is the lack of belief in the assertions of Theism... so, Implicit Theism would be a 'lack of belief in the assertions of' Atheism.

By which token - I would be an Implicit Theist, myself - since I do not accept the assertion there is NO god, any more than I accept the assertion there IS a god.

But - one of these positions is a default, and the other it's denial... Explicit Atheism denies Theism.

In our 'one-party-state' we have (Theism) the Party, we have the outspoken opponents of the party (Atheism), and we have the voters. If they cast their votes for the party - they are supporters (and thus, theists). If they do not cast their vote, even if they are not in the 'opposition', they [i]are 'opposed' - these are our Implicit Atheists.

It is not possible to know whether Quirzak is the best flavor of Siffleplink! You're just another brain-washed sheep bowing down before some silly 2000-year-old Cook Book!!

Not at all! I may have only tried one flavour of Siffleplink, but I find it hard to believe any other flavour could top it... and I've NO intention of trying others... so my position cannot be proved false!

I like that about myself too, but I could be imagining the "holding my own" part.

Come now, my friend... you know you acquit yourself admirably.

Unless, you also were using 'holding my own' as a euphemism... :o

I like that about myself too, but I could be imagining the "holding my own" part.
Ahh, Smunkee, you always make me smile :)

Well - I do allow for Implicit Atheism and Implicit Theism.... what I consider to be flipsides of the same coin.

Theism is the assertion of god or gods, Atheism the denial.

Implicit Atheism is the lack of belief in the assertions of Theism... so, Implicit Theism would be a 'lack of belief in the assertions of' Atheism.

By which token - I would be an Implicit Theist, myself - since I do not accept the assertion there is NO god, any more than I accept the assertion there IS a god.

Fair enough...


But - one of these positions is a default, and the other it's denial... Explicit Atheism denies Theism.

But now we've switched to talking about explicit atheism. What about those who are NOT explicit atheists, and do not deny theism? Implicit theism is as much a "default" as implicit atheism, I think, and you yourself admit that a person can be both implicit atheist and implicit theist.

Implicit atheism is the 'assertion' that the individual lacks belief in god. Implicit theism would then be the implicit rejection of the implicit atheist "default."


In our 'one-party-state' we have (Theism) the Party, we have the outspoken opponents of the party (Atheism), and we have the voters. If they cast their votes for the party - they are supporters (and thus, theists). If they do not cast their vote, even if they are not in the 'opposition', they [i]are 'opposed' - these are our Implicit Atheists.

The attitude of "you're either with us or against us" is such a turn-off for me. It is quite possible for somebody to dislike both the opposition AND The Party (I do it all the time!). It is quite possible for them to like both. And it is quite possible for somebody to vote or not vote and fall into either of these camps, or neither.


Not at all! I may have only tried one flavour of Siffleplink, but I find it hard to believe any other flavour could top it... and I've NO intention of trying others... so my position cannot be proved false!Curses, foiled again...

Come now, my friend... you know you acquit yourself admirably.
interesting choice of words, I like.

Unless, you also were using 'holding my own' as a euphemism... :o
not so much today........ I am in a "grown up" mood :(

*Shudder* I had a religious stalker, too.

Funny enough, the same guy also was a "heterosexual stalker" for one of my lesbian friends. He was convinced he could "turn her straight" if she'd just give him a chance. Odd lad.
I've had one of those. A kick in the groin with combat boots and a promise to sue for harassment if I ever saw him again finally convinced him.:D

interesting choice of words, I like.


:)


not so much today........ I am in a "grown up" mood :(

Yeah... that happens sometimes... :(

Fair enough...


But now we've switched to talking about explicit atheism. What about those who are NOT explicit atheists, and do not deny theism? Implicit theism is as much a "default" as implicit atheism, I think, and you yourself admit that a person can be both implicit atheist and implicit theist.

Implicit atheism is the 'assertion' that the individual lacks belief in god. Implicit theism would then be the implicit rejection of the implicit atheist "default."


I haven't switched to talking about Explicit Atheism... except in as much as we seem to be dealing with 'poles' of belief... Explicit Atheism is the 'polar opposite' of Theism... and it is entirely possible to fall between those two camps.

Implicit Atheism on the other hand, is just what you are left with when Theism is gone... or before it arrives. I can't see how you can fit a wedge between Theism and Implicit Atheism that is any wider than the division between "I believe/I don't believe".


The attitude of "you're either with us or against us" is such a turn-off for me. It is quite possible for somebody to dislike both the opposition AND The Party (I do it all the time!). It is quite possible for them to like both. And it is quite possible for somebody to vote or not vote and fall into either of these camps, or neither.


I don't like the idea that you are with us or against us, either... but look at that example... if you do cast votes for the One Party, you have supported them - even if you don't agree with every one of their policies.

On the other hand, if you didn't cast votes for the One Party, it doesn't matter your reason, or your own peculiar leanings... you ARE in the 'against us' crowd, to the Party statistician.

If you are lucky, the statistician might file you under 'non-voter' or 'wasted ballot', rather than under 'Enemy of the State'... but the fact remains, you are on one side of the line, or you are on the other.


Curses, foiled again...

:D

I haven't switched to talking about Explicit Atheism... except in as much as we seem to be dealing with 'poles' of belief... Explicit Atheism is the 'polar opposite' of Theism... and it is entirely possible to fall between those two camps.

Okay, so far so good. I'm with ya.


Implicit Atheism on the other hand, is just what you are left with when Theism is gone... or before it arrives. I can't see how you can fit a wedge between Theism and Implicit Atheism that is any wider than the division between "I believe/I don't believe".

I'm not trying to fit a wedge between implicit atheism and implicit theism. I'm saying that they can very easily coexist, after all.

Some people are implicitly atheist OR implicitly theist, but it is also possible for a person to be implicitly atheist AND implicitly theist. If a person is both implicitly atheist and implicitly theist, I don't think it is right to classify them as a "theist" OR an "atheist" exclusively. It would not be accurate to put them into one camp or the other, since they belong to the one as much as they do to the other.


I don't like the idea that you are with us or against us, either... but look at that example... if you do cast votes for the One Party, you have supported them - even if you don't agree with every one of their policies.

On the other hand, if you didn't cast votes for the One Party, it doesn't matter your reason, or your own peculiar leanings... you ARE in the 'against us' crowd, to the Party statistician.

If you are lucky, the statistician might file you under 'non-voter' or 'wasted ballot', rather than under 'Enemy of the State'... but the fact remains, you are on one side of the line, or you are on the other.

And what about somebody who simply hasn't chosen whether or not to vote yet? That's the kind of person I'm talking about. The vote has not yet occured, so we don't yet know if they support The Party or do not support The Party. Until they cast their vote, it would be silly of us to simply assume that they must be one thing or the other.

Pancakes and band camp. Were you trying to draw me into this thread? :p

Anyway, I would have to say Agnostic but very interested in Paganism.

Sikh, Sikh I say it really is the only way to go!

Sikh, Sikh I say it really is the only way to go!
Sikh and ye shall find?

You can't be neither theistic NOR atheistic. The fact that you are not 'theistic' automatically makes you 'atheistic'.... at least Implicitly.
Seems like my cue. Can I roll the old "Neutrality by Semantics" argument by you?

Suppose (in some wild scenario) I believe that we are all governed by a consciousness inherent within reality. However, this consciousness is itself part of the universe rather than external to it.

Suppose then that I feel that whenever people are referring to God, they are in fact referring to this thing. However, this thing does not fit the definition of what God is. Therefore, I must conclude that the thing people call God exists, but God as we define it does not exist.

So, am I a Theist, since I believe in something that people call God, am I an Atheist, since I do not believe that God as we define it exists, or am I something else?

it is the simple lack of that belief that renders you automatically an Implicit Atheist.


What defnition of Atheism are you operating on?

Atheism usually has within it's definition the DENIAL of existance of God or gods. It is the position of belief that there is NO God.

Simple lack of belief is not enough to be Atheist.

Discordianism

Discordianism
Shhhh!

Okay, so far so good. I'm with ya.


I'm not trying to fit a wedge between implicit atheism and implicit theism. I'm saying that they can very easily coexist, after all.

Some people are implicitly atheist OR implicitly theist, but it is also possible for a person to be implicitly atheist AND implicitly theist. If a person is both implicitly atheist and implicitly theist, I don't think it is right to classify them as a "theist" OR an "atheist" exclusively. It would not be accurate to put them into one camp or the other, since they belong to the one as much as they do to the other.


And what about somebody who simply hasn't chosen whether or not to vote yet? That's the kind of person I'm talking about. The vote has not yet occured, so we don't yet know if they support The Party or do not support The Party. Until they cast their vote, it would be silly of us to simply assume that they must be one thing or the other.

I see where you are going... but I don't see the image of the vote not having happened. Effectively, the vote is ALWAYS happening, and you can change your vote at any point.... but you will always either HAVE a tick in the 'One Party' box, or you won't.

Seems like my cue. Can I roll the old "Neutrality by Semantics" argument by you?

Suppose (in some wild scenario) I believe that we are all governed by a consciousness inherent within reality. However, this consciousness is itself part of the universe rather than external to it.

Suppose then that I feel that whenever people are referring to God, they are in fact referring to this thing. However, this thing does not fit the definition of what God is. Therefore, I must conclude that the thing people call God exists, but God as we define it does not exist.

So, am I a Theist, since I believe in something that people call God, am I an Atheist, since I do not believe that God as we define it exists, or am I something else?

If it is not 'god', then you are an Atheist.

'God' is the semantic determination... it is what defines the debate.

As an Atheist, I can happily agree there could be a uniting force that is equal to the sum of the universe.. a guiding force, maybe. But - if it isn't 'god'... I'd still be an Atheist.

What defnition of Atheism are you operating on?

Atheism usually has within it's definition the DENIAL of existance of God or gods. It is the position of belief that there is NO God.

Simple lack of belief is not enough to be Atheist.

I actually explicitly stated, in the very post that you responded to... that I was talking about "Implicit Atheism".

The difference between Implicit and Explicit Atheism being, Explicit is a belief in the lack of 'god', and Implicit is a lack of belief.

Shhhh!

Why shush? I'm not an Illuminatus. I openly profess my faith to disturb as many as possible.

What defnition of Atheism are you operating on?

Atheism usually has within it's definition the DENIAL of existance of God or gods. It is the position of belief that there is NO God.

Simple lack of belief is not enough to be Atheist.
Actually, it is.

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god + belief

What defnition of Atheism are you operating on?

Atheism usually has within it's definition the DENIAL of existance of God or gods. It is the position of belief that there is NO God.

Simple lack of belief is not enough to be Atheist.

How would you call someone who simply does not believe in god(s) because the idea never occured to him ?
yes, those people will be very rare, but still.

How would you call someone who simply does not believe in god(s) because the idea never occured to him ?
yes, those people will be very rare, but still.

Evolved? :)

Evolved? :)

Well.. they could have other silly ideas ;)
Then again, evolution does not require humans to become smarter and smarter...

I actually explicitly stated, in the very post that you responded to... that I was talking about "Implicit Atheism".

The difference between Implicit and Explicit Atheism being, Explicit is a belief in the lack of 'god', and Implicit is a lack of belief.

If we have Implicit and Explicit, then what is the defiition of the word unmodified?

When I look up Atheism, I see things like:

atheism 1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness 2 : a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

atheism The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

atheism Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

atheism: 1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness; 2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity 2b: the doctrine that there is no deity.

These seem to be the same as what you describe as Explicit Atheism, so why the need to modify it with Explicit at all?


Agnostic shows up as:

agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

agnostic: 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.

And Agnostic seems to encompass your Implicit Atheism (as well as the stricter philosophical usage regarding what is knowable) so again, why do we need these modifiers?

On a thread determining which religious belief, if any, people hold to, why do we need these modifiers to muddy the issue?

How would you call someone who simply does not believe in god(s) because the idea never occured to him ?
yes, those people will be very rare, but still.


Clueless?

OK, more seriously, Agnostic I guess, but they would be a peculiar sub-class of agnostics.

Pancakes and band camp. Were you trying to draw me into this thread? :p

Anyway, I would have to say Agnostic but very interested in Paganism.
Pancakes is admittedly an implicit reference to you, but BAND KAMP (realm of 100% humidity and 11 hours of daily marching) is of my own personal origin :D

If we have Implicit and Explicit, then what is the defiition of the word unmodified?

When I look up Atheism, I see things like:

atheism 1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness 2 : a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

atheism The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

atheism Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

atheism: 1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness; 2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity 2b: the doctrine that there is no deity.

These seem to be the same as what you describe as Explicit Atheism, so why the need to modify it with Explicit at all?


Agnostic shows up as:

agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

agnostic: 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.

And Agnostic seems to encompass your Implicit Atheism (as well as the stricter philosophical usage regarding what is knowable) so again, why do we need these modifiers?

On a thread determining which religious belief, if any, people hold to, why do we need these modifiers to muddy the issue?


Curious - you chose to look to 'lay' definitions, but the more exact definitions I use "muddy the issue"?

Au contraire, mon ami - you muddy the issue (which IS a theological debate, of sorts) by trying to delineate the talkingpoints into 'lay' terms.

Clueless?

OK, more seriously, Agnostic I guess, but they would be a peculiar sub-class of agnostics.

How could they be agnostic?

They would not be unsure as to whether it was possible to know if there was a god or not... since the question would be an irrelevence to them.

They WOULD, however, be Implicit Atheists... since they would LACK what is required for them to be Theists.

Partially rastafarian,

personally pastafarian

but officially agnostic (only from fear of absolutes)

so other

Curious - you chose to look to 'lay' definitions, but the more exact definitions I use "muddy the issue"?

Au contraire, mon ami - you muddy the issue (which IS a theological debate, of sorts) by trying to delineate the talkingpoints into 'lay' terms.

It's a 'lay' discussion amongst 'lay' people so I use 'lay' definitions.

If this thread is a theological debate, then what issue is to be debated?
The thread is simply, "What's your religion?"
How can that be debated?
Can I rebutt Smunkee and tell her she is not Baptist?

How could they be agnostic?

They would not be unsure as to whether it was possible to know if there was a god or not... since the question would be an irrelevence to them.

They WOULD, however, be Implicit Atheists... since they would LACK what is required for them to be Theists.


"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That was listed in one of the definitions of agnostic, seems to fit the situation.

Why shush? I'm not an Illuminatus. I openly profess my faith to disturb as many as possible.
It's still supposed to be a secret!

Can I rebutt Smunkee and tell her she is not Baptist?

Possibly. It is quite possible that some people on here say they are adherents of religion X, but in practice behave like adherents of Y (or do not adhere to anything at all).

To solve the atheist debate, I suggest using "nontheist" for implicit atheists - those who do not believe without that being a deliberate choice - and "atheist" for explicit atheists: those who have decided not to believe.

A man greater then I once said "I don't mind God, it's just his fanclub that I can't stand".

I'm Greek Orthodox, aka obscure Eastern-European branch of Christianity.

A man greater then I once said "I don't mind God, it's just his fanclub that I can't stand".

I'm Greek Orthodox, aka obscure Eastern-European branch of Christianity.
It's not all that obscure, is it?

A man greater then I once said "I don't mind God, it's just his fanclub that I can't stand".

I'm Greek Orthodox, aka obscure Eastern-European branch of Christianity.
It's not all that obscure, is it?

How would you call someone who simply does not believe in god(s) because the idea never occured to him ?
yes, those people will be very rare, but still.


Decidedly lucky?

To be honest I don't know what religion I am! I was baptised Catholic but think very little of the Catholic Church. I am not entirely sure if I am Christian. I don;t really believe in the whole Jesus thing. I do think there is something 'god' like and when you die, you rise to perhaps a higher level of consiousness or I do believe that something happens. I have an increasing amount of faith in the power of your own energy, the natural elements and karma etc. I suppose I have an Al a Cart religion ( pick and choose what i like)

"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That was listed in one of the definitions of agnostic, seems to fit the situation.
I think that's a very, very misleading definition. Indeed, it actually is flat out untrue of most agnostics I know. Most agnostics DO commit to either believing or not believing in God/god/gods.

An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible to know whether or not God exists. Whether or not they choose to believe in God is another decision entirely.

It's a 'lay' discussion amongst 'lay' people so I use 'lay' definitions.

If this thread is a theological debate, then what issue is to be debated?
The thread is simply, "What's your religion?"
How can that be debated?
Can I rebutt Smunkee and tell her she is not Baptist?

No - just because you wish the debate to remain at the 'lay' level, doesn't mean it has.

The thread is about which religion an individual embraces, but the debate of which I spoke, has been about the nature of Atheism versus Agnosticism... and we have progressed further than your 'lay' (and often, completely incorrect) definitions can be of any help.

If you feel uncomfortable 'coming up to speed' with the more 'technical' aspects of this current debate, you aren't being forced to be involved.

What you are doing, instead, is the equivalent of joining a debate about sports, and saying that athletes are 'wrong' talking about "going for the burn", because nothing actually combusts, like your dictionary definition demands.

"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That was listed in one of the definitions of agnostic, seems to fit the situation.

And that definition is wrong - just like the one claiming "Atheism" is equivalent to "wickedness".

Your dictionary can only collect usages of a word or phrase... it doesn't define the meanings... just catalogues them.

I think that's a very, very misleading definition. Indeed, it actually is flat out untrue of most agnostics I know. Most agnostics DO commit to either believing or not believing in God/god/gods.

An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible to know whether or not God exists. Whether or not they choose to believe in God is another decision entirely.


I didn't make it up. I quoted it from a dictionary.
If we need to go with the definition as you state it, then it should never have been a poll option, because it no longer has anything to do with religion, belief or non-belief.

Oh, and if anecdotal evidence is compelling for you, this definition is true of every self proclaimed agnostic I've ever known. I'm not sure if that hunderds of them, or thousands.

I didn't make it up. I quoted it from a dictionary.

The dictionary also includes "wicked or immoral" as a definition for "godless." So?


If we need to go with the definition as you state it, then it should never have been a poll option, because it no longer has anything to do with religion, belief or non-belief.

If we're going to go around quoting dictionary definitions at one another, then religion means, "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Agnosticism can have as much to do with that as any of the other listed options.


Oh, and if anecdotal evidence is compelling for you, this definition is true of every self proclaimed agnostic I've ever known. I'm not sure if that hunderds of them, or thousands.
You seem to misunderstand the point in question.

You stated that an agnostic is a person who is undecided about God-belief. I pointed out that this definition is, in fact, in direct conflict with the reality of agnosticism, since there are plenty of agnostics who are quite well-decided on that subject. I never said that agnostics are people who MUST BE decided about God-belief. It is perfectly possible for an agnostic to be undecided about God-belief...indeed, if you will flip back a page in this thread, you will find me arguing exactly that!

You are wrong because you propose that an agnostic MUST be somebody who is undecided about God-belief (as you seem to think that is the definition of "agnostic"). I simply pointed out that many agnostics do not fit with your proposed definition, and therefore it's not a good choice to try to use that definition of the term. The fact that you have met undecided agnostics doesn't make any difference, since that has no bearing on what I was saying.

I think that's a very, very misleading definition. Indeed, it actually is flat out untrue of most agnostics I know. Most agnostics DO commit to either believing or not believing in God/god/gods.

An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible to know whether or not God exists. Whether or not they choose to believe in God is another decision entirely.
So, "uncertain" is seperate from "agnostic"?

So, "uncertain" is seperate from "agnostic"?
Absolutely. I am an agnostic who happens to be quite certain that I do not believe in God. I have an agnostic friend who is quite certain than she believes in the Jewish God.

Being agnostic means believing that you cannot know whether or not God exists. For some people, this leads to the conclusion that since you cannot know you should not choose to believe. For others, it leads to a "leap of faith" in which the individual chooses to believe despite the fact that they can never know.

Absolutely. I am an agnostic who happens to be quite certain that I do not believe in God. I have an agnostic friend who is quite certain than she believes in the Jewish God.

Being agnostic means believing that you cannot know whether or not God exists. For some people, this leads to the conclusion that since you cannot know you should not choose to believe. For others, it leads to a "leap of faith" in which the individual chooses to believe despite the fact that they can never know.

You're a scientist. Absent a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God, you can't come out and say, "God exists".

Very rational.

Absolutely. I am an agnostic who happens to be quite certain that I do not believe in God. I have an agnostic friend who is quite certain than she believes in the Jewish God.

Being agnostic means believing that you cannot know whether or not God exists. For some people, this leads to the conclusion that since you cannot know you should not choose to believe. For others, it leads to a "leap of faith" in which the individual chooses to believe despite the fact that they can never know.
So, if I am "uncertain" I am not "agnostic"?

No - just because you wish the debate to remain at the 'lay' level, doesn't mean it has.

The thread is about which religion an individual embraces, but the debate of which I spoke, has been about the nature of Atheism versus Agnosticism... and we have progressed further than your 'lay' (and often, completely incorrect) definitions can be of any help.

If you feel uncomfortable 'coming up to speed' with the more 'technical' aspects of this current debate, you aren't being forced to be involved.

What you are doing, instead, is the equivalent of joining a debate about sports, and saying that athletes are 'wrong' talking about "going for the burn", because nothing actually combusts, like your dictionary definition demands.


If we are going to set up a committee and classify people rather than allow them to make their choice, then sure, I'll "come up to speed" all you want or need.

If we're ASKING people, "What are you?"
Then, out of necessity, we're going to have to go with common usage.

The dictionary also includes "wicked or immoral" as a definition for "godless." So?


So? Well. You said it was a misleading definition.
I just wanted to be clear that it wasn't a definition I spun for the thread.


If we're going to go around quoting dictionary definitions at one another,

So, we can't quote definitions? That's bad now?


then religion means, "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Agnosticism can have as much to do with that as any of the other listed options.


I think you've misunderstood.
I don't actually want Agnosticism removed from the poll. I agree with your original statement, I'm glad it was there and differentiated from Atheism.


You seem to misunderstand the point in question.

You stated that an agnostic is a person who is undecided about God-belief. I pointed out that this definition is, in fact, in direct conflict with the reality of agnosticism, since there are plenty of agnostics who are quite well-decided on that subject. I never said that agnostics are people who MUST BE decided about God-belief. It is perfectly possible for an agnostic to be undecided about God-belief...indeed, if you will flip back a page in this thread, you will find me arguing exactly that!

You are wrong because you propose that an agnostic MUST be somebody who is undecided about God-belief (as you seem to think that is the definition of "agnostic"). I simply pointed out that many agnostics do not fit with your proposed definition, and therefore it's not a good choice to try to use that definition of the term.

I stated the commn usage of agnostic.
I referenced multiple sources that support that common usage.
GnI can try and argue that common usage isn't accurate enough and while that is often a good argument, in a poll of this nature, I believe it is essential, but you telling me that I am just wrong is silly.


The fact that you have met undecided agnostics doesn't make any difference, since that has no bearing on what I was saying.

I know.
You were telling me about the agnostics you had met.

So, if I am "uncertain" I am not "agnostic"?
Not necessarily. You CAN be both uncertain and agnostic, but you can also be certain and agnostic.

You can be somebody who says, "I don't believe it's possible for me to know whether or not God exists, but I haven't yet made up my mind whether I am going to choose to believe that God exists." The first part of the sentence makes you an agnostic, since you believe you cannot KNOW. The second part indicates that, in addition to being agnostic, you are also undecided about your personal God-belief.

Not necessarily. You CAN be both uncertain and agnostic, but you can also be certain and agnostic.

You can be somebody who says, "I don't believe it's possible for me to know whether or not God exists, but I haven't yet made up my mind whether I am going to choose to believe that God exists." The first part of the sentence makes you an agnostic, since you believe you cannot KNOW. The second part indicates that, in addition to being agnostic, you are also undecided about your personal God-belief.
Okay . . . so, what am I if I believe that there is no empirical evidence for or against the existance of any gods, but it is possible that there may be someday?

Okay . . . so, what am I if I believe that there is no empirical evidence for or against the existance of any gods, but it is possible that there may be someday?
An agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. If you believe it is possible to know, you are not agnostic.

What you are, in terms of religious orientation, will depend on the other beliefs you hold. For instance, you could choose to not believe in God because there is no existing evidence one way or the other. On the other hand, you could choose to believe in God despite the lack of empirical evidence.

An agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. If you believe it is possible to know, you are not agnostic.

What you are, in terms of religious orientation, will depend on the other beliefs you hold. For instance, you could choose to not believe in God because there is no existing evidence one way or the other. On the other hand, you could choose to believe in God despite the lack of empirical evidence.
Then I guess I'm just an empiricist, because anything without empirical evidence is just wishful thinking ;)

If we are going to set up a committee and classify people rather than allow them to make their choice, then sure, I'll "come up to speed" all you want or need.

If we're ASKING people, "What are you?"
Then, out of necessity, we're going to have to go with common usage.

I'm not sure what you want from me.

I don't want to have your 'lay' debate, because the definitions are meaningless in real terms, in context of the debate already active.

We are exploring the territory of belief versus knowledge... you are exploring the Andy Warhol equivalent.

If you want to argue we should allow any definition, no matter how ridiculous, then the poll, and the debate, are meaningless - because we can have no shared definitions.

On the other hand, if you want to debate the issue I was debating, you are going to need to use a 'mature' vocabulary. The ball (by which I mean a round thing, not a dance) is in your court (by which I'm extending the metaphor to Tennis... not referring to a place of judgement, or a royal assembly).

Then I guess I'm just an empiricist, because anything without empirical evidence is just wishful thinking ;)
Or a materialist. :)