Atheist or Agnostic?

Heh, this one is lucky that atheism is considered a default stance where she lives, and requires no justification. This one is somewhat baffled that it seems to be common to ask "why don't you believe?" somewhere...

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This. Not believing in any kind of deity, supernatural power, destiny and all that stuff.

Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.

I tend to think the term "not religious" is vastly more practical. People define these things differently, and they may overlap.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Apatheism, but with a strong lean towards atheism.

I'm both as well. The intellectual meme that I was exposed to put them on entirely different axis. Most atheists do tend to be agnostic as well in my experience, at least most I've read/talked to/whatever. (Realistically it's pretty much impossible to disprove things of this nature. If you understand this, you're an agnostic)

However...

Have you ever heard of the joke of the militant agnostic? "I don't know and you don't either"? I'm actually kind of a militant atheist in that way. I really define theism as being a lot more..exacting than most people. I don't like vague definitions of god. I think it's confusing. So for me, theism requires the belief in an interventionist (has the will to intervene in our world) and creationist (not in the sense of created everything, but in the sense in has the ability to intervene in our world..to "create" in other words) entity.

Needless to say, I think there are a lot more atheists than we tend to think. I think there are real atheists sitting in the pews of many a church today, worshipping their feeling of "higher power", but that in no way goes to the level of theism.

And in this regard, I'm also anti-theist. I make no bones about it. I strongly believe that the belief in an interventionist, creationist entity, combined with the reality of the problem of evil generally results in a thought pattern that bends towards injustice. It's not to say that I think that all theists are bad people, or are evil or anything like that. I just think that "neo-calvinist" type thought (In short, the idea that the deity picks winners and losers, and as such people who lose deserve it) has a lot more verisimilitude coming from a theist starting point than the opposite..the meek shall inherit the earth type stuff.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I identify as atheist because I actively believe there is no god, it's not a question of "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" to me.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I would have to correct myself, I think. Not believing in those ideas is a way to passive statement, opposing would be more fitting actually.

Programming and surgery have a lot of things in common: Don't start removing colons until you know what you're doing.

You're defining God in a strict Abrahamic tradition. One can't really dispose of any other definitions simply because it's confusing.

That being said, agnosticism is more of an apathetic position  ^*

when you consider the strength of Russell's teapot, since, if you wish to view the God debate exclusively from the Abrahamic traditions from a naturalistic worldview, it's all very unlikely and all you have is the "well, we don't know for sure" card.

Just like how Douglas Adams emphasised how he's a strong atheist so that he's not mistaken for an agnostic, I'd like to emphasise that I'm a weak one, since on the Internet a stronger position is considered the norm.

edited 13th Mar '11 8:45:15 AM by Catalogue

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

If a hypothesis does not make a prediction, I'll reject it out of hand as being useless. If a hypothesis does make a prediction, I'll wait until that prediction gets tested before I believe the hypothesis is right. If it gets tested and is found to be false, I'll reject it for being wrong.

Most formulations of God fall under the first category, and the ones that don't don't match up with reality.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

I generally prefer to use the term 'not religious' due to it being the most accurate, since while the specifics of what I believe fluctuate a fair bit the one thing that remains constant is that I don't follow any religion and generally regard most of them with distaste due to them having been used to justify all sorts of crap, plus the whole 'if you don't believe what I do, you're going to hell' thing ticks me off.

Looking at the wiki article though, I'd have to say that my current view on the matter is more or less a mix of pragmatic agnosticism and weak agnosticism with a few adjustments. Or, more speciically, I don't know if there's such thing as god(s) but I've got a general gut feeling that there may be something, even if I don't know what and I'm willing to accept all possiblities as equally valid until it's proved otherwise. However, it doesn't make any difference to my everyday life so I generally don't dwell on the matter all that much, and if there is such thing as god(s) then the fact that there's so much crap in the world and so many bad things are done in god's name suggests that if there is someone up there then they either don't care about what we get up to or are a nasty piece of work. Either way, they're not worth the effort of worship. On the other hand, I believe in luck, 'Murphy' (aka, anti-luck), and that it's possible to tempt fate. I've also 'prayed' in situations that were outside my control, on the off-chance that there is someone who's listening, on basis that it couldn't do any harm and I needed all the help I could get (said prayers are generally along the lines of 'I don't know if anyone's listening, but if there is then could you please give me a hand').

Strangely enough I don't really have that strong scientific bend common nowadays. Sure, I can be considered as a naturalist, but I don't believe not because of science, but perhaps history. There's no reason to consider the existing sets of belief any more distinct than any other dead religion vanished and forgotten in the past thousands of years.

The difference is of course I can witness any freak supernatural apparitions and still be firm in my unbelief.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

I'm agnostic.

In short, 'I don't care about whether there is a God or not.'

When we give 'it' a name, we are bringing it down to our level. We call him 'God', giving him a name, or Allah, or something. Why? Why does he need to have a name? Why are you making him human?

You say God created us in his image? You're basically toning down your own deity.

We will never understand 'God'. It will forever be beyond our scope.

Inspirational quote against powerful image of nature.

After reading that spectrum of theistic probability, I would say I'm a six, a de-facto atheist. If God is defined vaguely enough, and makes no predictions that would affect the real world, then it's impossible to prove that he does not exist, but there's also no reason to believe he does exist. And since all models of a theistic universe that claim to affect our everyday lives have been proven false (for example, not all professed atheists have been struck down by lightning), then God doesn't matter to my life, and I won't believe in him. It's simpler that way.

I'm also a bit of a misotheist when it comes to organized religion, but I'm working on realizing that religious wars and whatnot are only symptoms of a larger problem, and eliminating religion wouldn't eliminate hatred. But it's hard.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

I sort of consider myself agnostic (but the kind that believes that there is a God but we can never know). But I still go to church, and I don't care what others believe. Does that make sense? Probably not.

edited 13th Mar '11 1:09:54 PM by wuggles

In an infinite reality in which we presumably exist in, I see no problem with (a) hypothetical 'God' being(s) existing that is/are virtually omnipotent. I highly doubt though, that it/they have any effect on our universe or connected multiverse if that's the case that may be, or are even aware of where or what we are. And I doubt this/these "God" being(s) is/are at the top of the cosmic totem pole, which presumably has no top since it would be infinite like anything else. Therefore, I am of the opinion that I am an omnist, in that sense that I think every possibility exists; but, I am also an atheist since I do not believe in anything, even if it exists due to there being no incentive for me to believe in an absolute such as this "God" or gods. I would only have the near-certainty they exist in our relative existence, making the point moot.

Damn. Had a lot say on that, didn't I?

And nothing is beyond the scope of the awesomeness that is science, even our "God".

Yes too the first. Don't really care for gods, so apaomnist would probably be the closest word for me.

edited 14th Mar '11 8:07:56 AM by Ekuran

I don't label myself as anything. It ties me down and gives other people license to judge me.

I don't believe in a higher power, nor do I care. Some people might label me an atheist or an apatheist, but to me, they're just words. Neither encapsulates the whole of my beliefs.

Groovy.

What do you mean by "infinite reality?" Are you saying that the universe can break its own natural laws, and is infinitely expansive, thus all gods exist, but have no effect your life? You're an omnist deist?

edited 13th Mar '11 3:24:37 PM by Grain

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

Agnostic atheist. With a slight hint of misotheism.

Basically, while there may be a possibility of something existing, the absence of any evidence of it doing so is enough for me to discount it. So while I may acknowledge the possibility of a god or gods, that doesn't mean I believe in them, or find the idea of them to not be preposterous.

It also doesn't mean I'll consider every belief to be equal, since some ideas are more preposterous than others, and those that directly contradict reality can safely be considered bollocks.

I'm a combination of a weak agnostic, and an ignostic (type 1).

My troper wall

I was going to say Agnostic, but then I saw Matrix's post: "Apatheist. I don't give a shit about whether or not there's any kind of deity or deities. It's irrelevant to the real world." And that's basically the words out of my mouth.

I don't actively reject or accept religion, I just really don't care. At all. Maybe there is a God. So what? Maybe I'll burn in hell for not believing? Meh.

edited 13th Mar '11 4:03:03 PM by zombielovescore

My thing is, I just don't give a f**k. So I think that technically makes me agnostic? Not sure. Don't care enough to find out. ;)

Apatheist I think.

Fight smart, not fair.

Atheist. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that there is a sentinent, omnipotent, omnicient being that created the earth and the creatures on it, and the idea seems highly unlikely. If sufficient evidence were to present itself, I would change my views accordingly.

For the most part, I think the idea of a god is a human creation, and I don't see any reason to believe in it personally.

Everything happens for a reason. The reason is a chaotic intersection of chance and the laws of physics.

Agnostic. I seem to lean close to Apathetic agnostic. The deity doesn't really seem to give a shit if we know it exists or if it does it is honestly incredibly sucky at letting us know that it does. I have no proof either way and don't feel like placing my bets either way. Sometimes I swing closer to the "May exist" and sometimes closer to the "May not exist" but never really enough and never stable enough to lump me in the atheist or theist categories.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Applies to me:

• Agnostic atheist. We don't know, but when you don't know, you operate on the negative. Some that has no evidence to suggest it exists evidently does not exist, by definition. I am unafraid to self-identify as an atheist in public, disagree with any notions that atheism is somehow morally wrong, and want to fight the discrimination atheists face in many parts of North America.
• Apatheist. Religion just doesn't matter all that much to me. God fails the relevance test as well as the existence test in my eyes.
• Theological noncognitivist. The very idea seems to not make much sense.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.