What's your religion?

[Oppius]

Atheism, sort of.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Wouldn't that uncertainty be agnosticism?

In that case, I'm pretty sure more than half of the religious people are also agnostics. And all agnostics are really atheists if they don't believe that they will be eaten by my pink invisible tiger.
The term "atheist" isn't meant to only be applied to people who think they know something they can't know. It's meant to be applied to people who believe no more in some kind of Higher Power than they believe in mice in rainbow colours living in their toilet.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

In that case, I'm pretty sure more than half of the religious people are also agnostics. And all agnostics are really atheists if they don't believe that they will be eaten by my pink invisible tiger.
The term "atheist" isn't meant to only be applied to people who think they know something they can't know. It's meant to be applied to people who believe no more in some kind of Higher Power than they believe in mice in rainbow colours living in their toilet.

now I get it...somewhat. so everyone mentally stable should be agnostics?..

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

On Japan, yeah I also saw some 'official' chart on religious breakdown by country and it showed Japan as majorly atheist which I don't think is accurate at all. It's more like you said: agnostic. Perhaps there was some translation issue in administering the survey on which this was based.

I don't think this is an translation issue. I don't know the situation in Japan but the distinction agnostic - atheist seems to be mainly an US thing. The people I know would simply say "they don't believe in god(s)" and if you asked them to put that into one word they would answer "atheist". Educated people could define the term "agnostic" but few would use it. They wouldn't expect to find it in a poll nor would they put it in if they were asked to design a poll.

Agnostic - atheist is a false dichotomy and I suspect it has been invented to discredit the position of non-believers.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cipher

now I get it...somewhat. so everyone mentally stable should be agnostics?..

Well, if you go with your personal definition of the word... yeah, I guess so.
But personally, I only use the term to describe people who don't put God on the same level as rainbow coloured mice living in their toilet, but ants living under their house. Maybe they are there, maybe they aren't - it's almost impossible to determine, so why not leave it?
Only that these ants are somehow special, and thus you might actually think about them and try to figure out whether they are there from time to time.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Well, if you go with your personal definition of the word... yeah, I guess so. But personally, I only use the term to describe people who don't put God on the same level as rainbow coloured mice living in their toilet, but ants living under their house.

So your saying "agnosticism" doesn't have any common definition? Why don't we use the dictionary's?

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So your saying "agnosticism" doesn't have any common definition? Why don't we use the dictionary's?

Like "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"?
Yeah, fits with my ants perfectly.
I believe in the non-existence of God, though, just like an agnostic might believe in the non-existence of my pink tiger. I don't know there is no God, but I strongly believe there is no God.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Like "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"?
Yeah, fits with my ants perfectly.
I believe in the non-existence of God, though, just like an agnostic might believe in the non-existence of my pink tiger. I don't know there is no God, but I strongly believe there is no God.

I'm starting to get really confused with agnosticism......anyways I don't agree with the "commitment" part.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I'm starting to get really confused with agnosticism......

Yep, it's an evil term. xD
But you'll figure it out!

[Slice of Life]

Now this happens when you start making a contribution, then do something else, then finish it. I would have addressed Nogitsune and Cipher's conversation in the post above if it had been there already when I started it.

I said above that atheism and agnosticism is a false dichotomy. Because compared to agnosticism, atheism has the taste of irrationality. Agnosticism on the other hand sound like having no real opinion at all, or at least that your opinion is secondary, because you can't "prove" it anyway. I think that's also nails down Nogitsune's problem. Wikipedia offers a distinction between strong and weak atheism that at least sounds better. Actually, I'd go with Dawkins here:

Originally Posted by the article linked above

Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" under this definition

Sounds like I'm a de-facto atheist then,

Let me make an analogy to better explain what my problem with agnosticism/atheism is: I think it's like going to a Republican convention and offering the following poll:

Do you think Obama is a better president than McCain would be?

1. [_] Yes. (= the believer position)
2. [_] I believe that McCain would do a better job. I'm aware that this principally can't be proven or disproved. So in the end, my belief is not based on evidence or logic. (= the (strong) atheist position)
3. [_]We don't know and we can't know, could be either way. (= the agnostic position)

I think it's clear that one wouldn't find much people who wanted to participate. What we actually offer them are the following alternatives

1. [_] I'm an Obama supporter. (And thus probably on the wrong convention.)
2. [_] I'm some kind of fanatic nutcase. Reason be damned, I just *know* I'm right.
3. [_] I'm fence-sitting, so I could as well shut up and go home.

Does that make any sense?

[Tenken's Smile]

Atheist

[prometheus126]

I define myself by no religion since I see no use in it. do not misunderstand, I do believe in higher powers but I believe the powers above must be understood on a personal experience rather then a mass produced pamphlets. if I must be inclined to any real religion, I see myself as a Taoist, yet my philosophies vary from it. The only true way I feel that one must believe is by a personal view rather then a universal view and to see your place in it all.

I do not think god is out there to save me, I do not think god loves mankind. I think the powers that be are higher then that, that they see us no different then the bees and trees and wolfs and lambs. We go and state the world is here for us, when we never conceive that we are only a minute part of the world. We are such selfish creatures sometime, we conceive everything must revolve around us, that we are the the main players when we might never have been even on center stage.

[Proto]

^ A Deist you are.

Does that make any sense?

Pretty much, though I'm always wary of quoting Dawkins (even thought I did so myself) in any religious discussion since the guy tends to make atheists look as a bunch of cannibalistic trolls who are out there to eat every theist and their children... the guy just doesn't know where to compromise.

Myself, as many in this thread I qualify myself as an agnostic atheist, though sometimes I lean towards Theological noncognitivism and argue that there is not mcuh sense in discussing religion or God in whatever sense.

Originally Posted by from the article i linked

Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view atheists have made the mistaken assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. However this depends on the specific definition of God being used.[4]

[prometheus126]

Originally Posted by Proto

^ A Deist you are.

A Deistic Pagan Philosopher to be truly precise. a veiw on the mysteries of the world must be done by the eyes of one self then by labels other men make for you.

Originally Posted by Proto

Pretty much, though I'm always wary of quoting Dawkins (even thought I did so myself) in any religious discussion since the guy tends to make atheists look as a bunch of cannibalistic trolls who are out there to eat every theist and their children... the guy just doesn't know where to compromise.

I despise Dawkins. Not only is he a bulldog and makes all Athiest seem like pompous, self-indulgent egomaniacs (which I almost labeled all Strong Athiests as long ago.) He is creating himself into the idols he is supposedly fighting against! so many people following him like baaing sheep accusing others as baaing sheep. I respect no Athiest who pulls out a copy of "the god Illusion" when trying to argue with a christian with their Bible.

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

To me, however, that would mean everyone has faith.

Everybody can have it (religious and non-religious people). The though of religion having a monopoly on faith is, IMHO, quite a silly one.

Faith in your family, your friends, faith for a better tomorrow, etc; Each and every one of those can be had without the need of religion and each and every one of those can be as strong as their religious counterparts.

In the end, is all a matter of truly believing in what you believe!

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by prometheus126

A Deistic Pagan Philosopher to be truly precise. a veiw on the mysteries of the world must be done by the eyes of one self then by labels other men make for you.



I despise Dawkins. Not only is he a bulldog and makes all Athiest seem like pompous, self-indulgent egomaniacs (which I almost labeled all Strong Athiests as long ago.) He is creating himself into the idols he is supposedly fighting against! so many people following him like baaing sheep accusing others as baaing sheep. I respect no Athiest who pulls out a copy of "the god Illusion" when trying to argue with a christian with their Bible.

Then you're discounting data and information that Dawkins happens to be requoting in his book. Dawkins didn't say anything *new* - he simply collates a lot of facts to use in support of his opinion. Referencing those facts isn't "quoting Dawkins" anyway. Its still a useful read for someone trying to understand the reasoning behind strong atheism.

Nice way (not) to make a sweeping generalization with insults there, btw.

[Let'sFightingLove]

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no need to label atheists, well, atheists.

it's the schizophrenic cult leader that came up with the notion of an omnipotent sky wizard and his followers of goat sacrificing satan worshippers that should be labeled 'mentally unstable'

whatever, religion is nothing but shit, and It's a shame I won't see you in the afterlife to tell you 'I told you so'

[Zu Ra]

Acceptance of evolution in general (courtesy Itai / Sankaku)

[prometheus126]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Then you're discounting data and information that Dawkins happens to be requoting in his book. Dawkins didn't say anything *new* - he simply collates a lot of facts to use in support of his opinion. Referencing those facts isn't "quoting Dawkins" anyway. Its still a useful read for someone trying to understand the reasoning behind strong atheism.

Nice way (not) to make a sweeping generalization with insults there, btw.

I wouldn't have a problem with dawkins and his beliefs if he wasn't so bull-headed about it and obviously trying to become the new spiritual (or NON-spiritual in this case.) leader of the new millenium. My problem with him (who I actually have a problem with, not Athiests themselves.) is that he is basically doing exactly what he says he goes against: attacking religion as bad, making people believe him heedlessly, influencing millions in his crusade to dethrone all forms of spirituality. In his documentary, The root of all evil?, he states that humanity would be better without religion and the concept of god but the root of all evil is, simply enough, Mankind itself and it's ability to pervert anything that can manipulate the populace. With Dawkins Foundation for reason and science, it becomes more and more clear what his agenda truly is and that he proves history does indeed repeat itself.

I do not dislike Athiest, I have a good number of Athiest and Agnostic friends mind you but I do dislike those who are pompous enough to state they "know" there is no god. there is no more a way to prove god does not exist then there is way to prove god exists. too much goes both way and to have the audacity on either side, Theist or Athiest, to say they know annoys me. I have a dislike for Richard Dawkins because his Opinion on reality is not just opinion, but fact. As I've stated, understanding that which is comes from within, not handed to you in a pamplet, no matter what the cover of that pamplet may say.

Nice way (NOT) of accusing me of generalization when you didn't read what I said. I dislike it that he is making "Free-thinkers" into the archetypical blind follower and making it hard for other Athiest as intellectual snobs who attack anyone for their beliefs. But my opinion of him is exaclty that: opinion

[Vexx]

makes all Athiest seem like pompous, self-indulgent egomaniacs (which I almost labeled all Strong Athiests as long ago.) He is creating himself into the idols he is supposedly fighting against! so many people following him like baaing sheep accusing others as baaing sheep. I respect no Athiest who pulls out a copy of "the god Illusion" when trying to argue with a christian with their Bible.

That is what you wrote... hence the "sweeping generalization" remark. Replace "all" with "some" at each instance and "no" with "few" and you might have a better leg to stand on.

Dawkins can certainly be a jackass... but you misunderstand if you think anyone "worships" him. He commands some respect from the "secular humanists" because of his training, his research, and his command of information to use in discussion. In the end analysis though, he's a rather minor voice against the thundering squadrons of "defenders of the faith(s)".