NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you agnostic (maybe god is real, maybe not), atheist (god isn't real), or antitheist (actively campaigning against God/religion/belief)?

I'm not answering myself, namely because I'm Catholic.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/jesusjeez.jpg

Btw, I'm christian.

Are you agnostic (maybe god is real, maybe not), atheist (god isn't real), or antitheist (actively campaigning against God/religion/belief)?

I'm not answering myself, namely because I'm Catholic.

Actually, an agnostic would say that we don't know if God exists or not (and I think they also go further to say that we'll never know, but I'm not sure about this). An atheist such as myself could very well say that God could exist, or any form of deity, but that he doesn't find it likely based on the evidence (or lack there-of).

not really- your beliefs seem more agnostic to me. by my experiences w/ atheists (plenty), they seem utterly convinced. Agnostics are the ones who say "maybe, but we can't tell."

Actually, an agnostic would say that we don't know if God exists or not (and I think they also go further to say that we'll never know, but I'm not sure about this). An atheist such as myself could very well say that God could exist, or any form of deity, but that he doesn't find it likely based on the evidence (or lack there-of).

That's more or less my opinion, but I would call myself agnostic.

Are you agnostic (maybe god is real, maybe not), atheist (god isn't real), or antitheist (actively campaigning against God/religion/belief)?

I'm not answering myself, namely because I'm Catholic.

That doesn't mean anything. I've met a good few happy Catholic atheists in my life...

ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation [ag-nos-tik]
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

antitheist [an`ti*the"ist]
-noun
A disbeliever in the existence of God.

I thought it wouldn't hurt if a more thorough explanation of the terms was available in this thread.

Well, by that definition Dawkins would be considered agnostic based on what he says, as he claims that it might be possible for some deity to exist. But I'm not sure if I actually "disbelieve" in a deity or just don't believe in such a thing's existence, so I'm either an atheist-leaning agnostic or a "weak atheist", or whatever the terms are.

Well, by that definition Dawkins would be considered agnostic based on what he says, as he claims that it might be possible for some deity to exist. But I'm not sure if I actually "disbelieve" in a deity or just don't believe in such a thing's existence, so I'm either an atheist-leaning agnostic or a "weak atheist", or whatever the terms are.

He is an agnostic.
It's mostly irate Christian fundies who label him "atheist", and, as he pointed out once, usually in the hope that he would be so shocked by the label as to renounce all doubts about the biblical stories..

im an atheist

why do you ask?

Actually, an agnostic would say that we don't know if God exists or not (and I think they also go further to say that we'll never know, but I'm not sure about this).
Erm...Uh... Would that make ME agnostic?

Alright... So how do I know if I disbelieve in something or just don't believe in it?

Are you agnostic (maybe god is real, maybe not), atheist (god isn't real), or antitheist (actively campaigning against God/religion/belief)?

I'm not answering myself, namely because I'm Catholic.

Effectively antitheist. Technically agnostic.

To explain, I don't claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God (or anything else for that matter) <- agnostic, but I find that the burden of proof lies with the God-crowd and in the absence of sound argument for his existence the reasonable, logical conclusion (reason/logic being the axiom) is that in all probability he does not exist <- weak atheist. From that I observe that most if not all religious dogma is absolute bollocks (and even if God exists, this dogma is a human product, by historical evidence), which causes all sorts of human misery, and that a great deal of this misery could mediated if we removed religious dogma <- antitheist.

According to the evangelicals, everybody who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour is either an atheist or a follower of a false faith. The average Jesus maniac simply won't accept classifications such as 'agnostic'.

I find it extremely unlikely that a god could exist, and if some super being does exist, I'm pretty sure its not that interested in us.

In the UK, people practice many different religions and yet one in particular has an entrenched role in government and in our education system. I campaign actively for a secular society so that nobody is forced to live under a system controlled or influence unduly by a religion of which they are not a member, and everybody is free to worship, or not, any deity they like.

Erm...Uh... Would that make ME agnostic?

From what I read in some other forums I've been to, agnosticism is about the state-of-knowledge, not belief, so someone could be an agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist, or whatever. I guess they were mistaken.

Alright... So how do I know if I disbelieve in something or just don't believe in it?

Tricky... I once had a several page discussion with a few people on this one.

I think the difference is that not believing in something leaves room for doubt, as in you don't believe it will rain tomorrow.
Whereas disbelieving is being convinced and having absolute faith in there not being any rain tomorrow.

Does that make sense?

Tricky... I once had a several page discussion with a few people on this one.

I think the difference is that not believing in something leaves room for doubt, as in you don't believe it will rain tomorrow.
Whereas disbelieving is being convinced and having absolute faith in there not being any rain tomorrow.

Does that make sense?

I think I understand. So that would make me an agnostic with atheist-leanings?

Aren't several page discussions pretty much the norm here?

so... I'm a Catholic agnostic?

I say we can't tell whether God exist, but I believe He does exist.

if you actively believe, you're plain old Catholic. Agnostics leave more room for doubt.

if you actively believe, you're plain old Catholic. Agnostics leave more room for doubt.

Alright... So if I believe... But also think it's all just a leap of faith/ a guess, and I'm hoping my guess is VERY lucky... What would that be?

I think I understand. So that would make me an agnostic with atheist-leanings?

I guess.
Most atheists tend to be... the other type are usually just brainless trolls.

Aren't several page discussions pretty much the norm here?

Several dozens, in that case ;)

if you actively believe, you're plain old Catholic. Agnostics leave more room for doubt.

See, that's what's so funny about Catholics... I grew up in a Catholic family, went to convent school, was involved in Catholic youth work... and yet I can't say I ever met a Catholic who actively believed. Not in so many words.

so... I'm a Catholic agnostic?

I say we can't tell whether God exist, but I believe He does exist.

yuppers. that would make you a catholic agnostic.

whereas *I* am a catholic atheist since i am a baptised, confirmed catholic who does not believe in god.

I just don't understand this need to define what it is one believes.

I just don't understand this need to define what it is one believes.

Because it's uncool to pick on people because of race or because they're religious; it's easier when they're godless heretics. :p

I would say that the question requires clarification before I could say that God exists or not. What would make you say he exists? Or rather: what would prompt you to say that he does? The answer to that would determine my possible responses. E.g., were you to say "God exists like a table exists in the next room" then I would deny it. You can simply go into the next room to find a table; God doesn't allow that sort of thing. Etc.

By your definitions, I am an atheist with antitheist leanings.

Tricky... I once had a several page discussion with a few people on this one.

I think the difference is that not believing in something leaves room for doubt, as in you don't believe it will rain tomorrow.
Whereas disbelieving is being convinced and having absolute faith in there not being any rain tomorrow.

Does that make sense?

so then i do not disbelieve in mermaids, even though i am as sure as i can be that they do not exist - as sure as i am about any empirical thing - simply because if we were to actually find them i would change my position?

that doesn't seem like a useful distinction to me, except to weed out the insane.

From what I read in some other forums I've been to, agnosticism is about the state-of-knowledge, not belief, so someone could be an agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist, or whatever. I guess they were mistaken.

Yes, the word itself would imply a limit to the state of knowing a thing...that being that that knowledge is unattainable/non-existent.

Anyway, I am disappointed by the lack of Deist option: it seems logically likely (to the believer) that there is a "god" or creative force of some kind but it also seems exponentially more likely that that "being" would not be at all concerned with humanity, if even aware of us, regardless of the levels of arrogance and pettiness we are capable of.

I just don't understand this need to define what it is one believes.

well, as a general rule it is helpful for the person in question to sort through their beliefs and see if they cohere or are even plausible when taken together.

also, it gives us stuff to argue about.

also, it gives us stuff to argue about.

No kidding. This forum thrives on conflict!

No kidding. This forum thrives on conflict!

That's the whole purpose of this forum! Without conflict, general would be no more then a hollow shell!

Without conflict, general would be no more then a hollow shell!

But isn't it so that the only function of the continuous bickering here is to camouflage the meaningless void that this online cesspool actually is?

Aren't several page discussions pretty much the norm here?
Usually with religion it's the same thing, for about 100 pages.

"The bible is lies"
"No it isn't, because it says it isn't"
"Yeah but it's lies, so what you think is the truth is lies"
"No, it isn't, because it says it isn't"

*times about 400*

Sounds like you could simply script a forumbot to do the 'discussing' in the religion threads for you, granting you notority without even having to write anything yourself. Hm, that actually sounds like a plan!

But isn't it so that the only function of the continuous bickering here is to camouflage the meaningless void that this online cesspool actually is?

Nope. The endless bickering is like fluff. General is the pillow. Therefore, by arguing we make the pillow fluffier. We're doing a good thing!:):fluffle:

What do you select if you're a Christian who likes clicking polls?

Neither of the three, for I am a Theist and a Christian. I guess you could call me a Protheist as well, because I actively campaign for the advancement of God and religion. Even non-Christian religion.

Keep in mind, there are also Ignostics who believe that we can't know whether God exists or not because doing so assumes too much about His nature.

Aren't several page discussions pretty much the norm here?

Usually with religion it's the same thing, for about 100 pages.

"The bible is lies"
"No it isn't, because it says it isn't"
"Yeah but it's lies, so what you think is the truth is lies"
"No, it isn't, because it says it isn't"

*times about 400*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558813&page=24 Almos 1000 posts so far. The only one true religion I have encountered seems to be the Church of Flogging the Dead Horse.

The only one true religion I have encountered seems to be the Church of Flogging the Dead Horse.
Quite. And the first commandment seems to be "if someone doesn't like your opinion, restate it until they do".

Nope. The endless bickering is like fluff. General is the pillow. Therefore, by arguing we make the pillow fluffier. We're doing a good thing!:):fluffle:

That's one way to look at it, but "fluff" has more than one meaning. When the bickering is like fluff, it's reasonable to assume that those doing the bickering are the fluffers of the male porn actor that is General. So you could say that the arguing serves to keep General hard and ready for the money shot.

That's one way to look at it, but "fluff" has more than one meaning. When the bickering is like fluff, it's reasonable to assume that those doing the bickering are the fluffers of the male porn actor that is General. So you could say that the arguing serves to keep General hard and ready for the money shot.
What...The...

Ohhhhh, I get it! LG is the Male porn star! I mean look at his name! Lunatic GoofBALLS. It all makes sense now!

...

Wait a minute, WHAT?!?

You brought it upon yourself, my dear Conserative Morality. I regret nothing!

Is the search function defunt, or are christians not bashed neough that they repeatedly bring up this kind of thread?

What...The...

Ohhhhh, I get it! LG is the Male porn star! I mean look at his name! Lunatic GoofBALLS. It all makes sense now!

...

Wait a minute, WHAT?!?

I was young and needed the work. :p

I was young and needed the work. :p
:eek::p

I was young and needed the work. :p

So you were a hardcore sinner before you found Christ? Bonus points for actually getting paid for your lewd conducts!

The only one true religion I have encountered seems to be the Church of Flogging the Dead Horse.

*converts*

Okay, try and define my position then folks.

I have no doubt that there are no Gods in the physical universe. No grand Architect or creator of the universe therefore god does not actually exist in the same way Sherlock Holmes or Superman do not actually exist.

HOWEVER!

God does exist as a literary idea created by humans and thus God literally exists, in the same way Sherlock Holmes or Superman can be said to exist.

I believe that you are in a world all of your own...:p

BTW, I am agnostic. Not one Christian I talk to convinces me that God exists, and not one athiest convinces me that God does not exist

:confused:

I suppose by your definitions I'm antitheist, but I don't really have an active disbelief in God. I have absolutely no sense of religion whatsoever and have a very difficult time understanding the concept, even in an intellectual sense.

So you were a hardcore sinner before you found Christ? Bonus points for actually getting paid for your lewd conducts!

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun." -Billy Joel "Only the Good Die Young"

:)

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun." -Billy Joel "Only the Good Die Young"

:)

It's a little scary that this was my response to the other thread Deata made today.

Agnostic. I firmly believe that I am not 100% sure either way, regarding the divine or whatever.

Words

Hey! An ELO fan!

It's a little scary that this was my response to the other thread Deata made today.

No. It just means the machine is working. :)

Hey! An ELO fan!

Yes, yes I am.

The average Jesus maniac simply won't accept classifications such as 'agnostic'.Good thing they're not good with classifications then, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
Render unto Caesar ...

I consider myself an agnostic. I reject all standard religious definitions of 'god', especially their illogical insistance in defining a higher power as an entity that has human thought processes, emotions, concepts and conventions.

I frankly believe god is a load of crap that is believed in because it makes people feel better. I have no problems saying that just as others have no problems saying they are Christian

Altho i find the antithesis as bad as bible bashers or the Mormons who knock on my door trying to convert me. In the end religion should be a personal choice that is not impacted upon by other people.

Yes it leads some to violence but it also leads others to peace. Forcing people to believe things your way is fascism. If anyone really wishes to force their beliefs upon another they can go to that fictional place names hell for all I care

It leads to alot more trouble then letting the people you believe are wrong go peacfully about their own business

those who KNOW nothing of the unknown are all of us. in this i make no exception for myself. only that it is possible know that it is possible to experience what we don't know without having to know anything about it to do so.

it is also quite possible, that nearly all revealers of major organized beliefs, have been channellers of something greater then themselves, chosen by it and not themselves. most of what most people think they know about their own beliefs, let alone anyone else's, comes NOT from these origeonal sources however, or at least not accurately.

=^^=
.../\...

so then i do not disbelieve in mermaids, even though i am as sure as i can be that they do not exist - as sure as i am about any empirical thing - simply because if we were to actually find them i would change my position?

that doesn't seem like a useful distinction to me, except to weed out the insane.

As I said, a very VERY fine line, and depending entirely on your understanding of the words "belief" and "disbelief".

Effectively antitheist. Technically agnostic.

To explain, I don't claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God (or anything else for that matter) <- agnostic, but I find that the burden of proof lies with the God-crowd and in the absence of sound argument for his existence the reasonable, logical conclusion (reason/logic being the axiom) is that in all probability he does not exist <- weak atheist. From that I observe that most if not all religious dogma is absolute bollocks (and even if God exists, this dogma is a human product, by historical evidence), which causes all sorts of human misery, and that a great deal of this misery could mediated if we removed religious dogma <- antitheist.

I like this description and it is most fitting for myself.

To be honest, after I've written that, I was scared of how "Dawkins" it sounded:(.

No. It just means the machine is working. :)

The PATRIOTS!?!?

Does this mean I'll have no choke some old already half-dead guy?