funny, you don't **WHACK** - any agnostics out there?

[ulysses]

:)

[arwalden]

1. Just had to check in... your subject line made me laugh

:-) :hi:

[ulysses]

5. hi, Allen

:hi:

[vi5]

2. I am but only because of intellectual consistency....

I am actually an atheist, but since one of the things I gripe about with religion is the impossiblity of having all the answers and purporting to know how everything works.

So I'm personally an atheist but since I've got to keep an open mind I put myself in the agnostic category since....well, I don't have all the answers either.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

3. that would be me.

i am agnostic. i can't quite call myself an atheist because I don't "konw" that there is not a god. how can you atheists prove that something does not exist?

[Dookus]

8. I can't prove it...

but I see no reason to entertain the possibility.

I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy, but I don't feel the need to stipulate that they MAY exist.

There are millions of things I don't believe exist - Gods are one of them. I don't think I need to call myself an agnostic on all those issues. I can't PROVE there's not an invisible polka-dotted hippopotamus living in my garage, but I've never felt it was necessary to claim such a possibility exists.

[ulysses]

12. but wouldn't that make you

an agnostic regarding whether or not invisible polka-dotted hippopotamii are living in your garage? ;-)

[Dookus]

19. no... it really doesn't....

I don't think we need to prove that something doesn't exist (which is impossible) before we can state affirmatively that it doesn't exist.

I've never been to South America. One could claim that the entire continent is populated by 14' tall flying monkeys. One could also claim that there really aren't any people there (having all been eaten by the monkeys). I feel positive I could dismiss such claims - I have no reason to even acknowledge that they MAY be true.

Same with gods.

[jonnyblitz]

11. well..you don't

the burden of proof lies with the person making the original claim that god exists.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

14. i just have a problem with atheism because...

it makes convictions that can't be proven. an atheist can not tell you how all of this came into "being", yet they can claim that they "know" there is no such thing as a "god".

i do not have the answers, that is why i subscribe to angosticism. i do not know what is going on in here, out there or wherever. i think it is equally as brazed to claim "god does not exist" as it is to claim "god does exist".

[TXlib]

36. Another nitpicky point

There is a profound difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I do not believe there are any gods."

The latter is merely a statement of nonbelief, whereas the former is an unprovable assertion.

I am an atheist. I do not believe any gods exist. It does not make me an agnostic not to make the stronger statement. As a scientist, a skeptic, and an empiricist, I believe "I do not believe any gods exist" is the appropriate creed of an atheist.

"I believe no gods exist" is more often, in my experience, the statement made by somebody who is better described as an anti-theist; the anti-theist needs to prove s/he's right, and usually harbors bitterness and resentment toward a particular religion.

To the extent that others' beliefs do not impact me negatively, I don't care what they believe, nor do I want to attempt to dispel their beliefs.

Also, you claimed, "an atheist can not tell you how all of this came into "being""...

I disagree with this, philosophically. I am a physicist. Physics has pushed back much of the darkness where superstition dwells. Yet at every turn, religious zealots (mostly, I would hazard, those of shaky faith, looking to prove their god) pounce and claim that there is some new mystery we can't explain, and that must be where god resides. And some time later, physics arrives at the answer, without needing to invoke the divine.

Yes, there are still mysteries about the creation of the universe. I do believe physics can unravel the puzzle and explain HOW it all happened.

For the theists out there, this still leaves plenty of room for god; that can reside in the WHY of it all.

[TXlib]

35. nitpicky point

theist don't have to prove that God exists to believe in it. That's the whole point of faith.

Now, I think there are a whole lot of theists out there who do feel a need to try to prove they are right, or at least convince others. I think such people just have shaky faith.

[arcane1]

15. one needn't "know" to be an atheist

an atheist is merely someone who does not believe in or worship a god or gods. Has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else. If you do not have a god that you believe in or worship, you are an atheist.

atheist is, by definition, a non-theist, and yes, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that gods exist

[SheepyMcSheepster]

16. i guess i get hung up on the definition

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

the deny part gets me.
i am just weary of people who claim to know the "truth".

but i can live with "disbelieves the exitence of god"

[arcane1]

17. well, in a way, even the most devout fundie is an atheist

almost... a DUer said this last week or so, that I disbelieve in all gods, the fundie disbelieves in all but one. Very little difference, actually :evilgrin:


sadly, though, many have applied to the term "atheist" meanings and nuances that it doesn't really have. Kind of like me saying I'm not a "liberal", because "liberals" don't care about America..

[SheepyMcSheepster]

20. good quote on that topic

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - - Stephen Roberts

[arcane1]

21. ah, that's it!

thanks!

[TXlib]

38. "atheist" meanings and nuances

Yes, I've noticed that.

My theist acquaintances, upon learning that I am an atheist, usually try to tell me that I am an agnostic; they hear the word 'atheist' and think 'anti-theist', which isn't the same think at all.

Never mind that the term 'agnostic' is a red herring, anyway; either one believes, or does not. Even when one says "not sure", there's still a leaning one way or the other.

The term 'agnostic' actually refers to knowledge, rather than belief.

An agnostic is somebody who feels that the existence of god is essentially unknowable, whereas a gnostic feels that knowledge of god is possible.

Thus, one can be a gnostic theist, or an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist.

I feel that "God" is an unscientific hypothesis; there is no experiment, no measurement, no repeatable observation that can falsify the hypothesis. As a scientist, I agree it is impossible to know, but I have a gut feeling about it anyway; thus, i call myself an agnostic atheist.

Beyond that, I feel religion boils down to a search for connection, a feeling of oneness with the universe. Some get that by praying, or yoga, or meditation. I get that same feeling (as described to me by theists) when I learn new physics.

[ulysses]

40. no.

Never mind that the term 'agnostic' is a red herring, anyway; either one believes, or does not.

One may also admit that knowledge of a divine being, or state of being, is beyond one's capacity.

[ulysses]

22. as I understand it

some divide atheists into "positive" and "negative" (could be wrong on the terminology) camps - the positive asserting that God doesn't exist and the negative asserting that the burden of proof resides with theists anyway. At least I think that's what I've read - apologies to board atheists if I've misspoken.

[arcane1]

32. I've seen that too

and then there are the "agnostic atheists" which are pretty much people who are atheists but don't like being called that ;)

"agnostic theist" is the flip side. I'd say similar to Deism

[TXlib]

39. I refer you back to my reply, post #38

[qwertyMike]

4. I believe in God/Creator

But I don't think Jesus existed.
And the Old Testament is crap (apart from the poetry)

What does that make me?

[Lars39]

6. Deist, maybe?

Watchmakerist, or whatever you want to call yourself. :)

[ulysses]

7. LOL - Watchmakerist

:D

[qwertyMike]

10. I do believe in a Soul and that it lives on

I feel my mother (who died 40 yrs ago), and several others 'talking to me'. Rather I FEEL them present.
When things are going bad and I finally remember to do it - I go for a walk or a quiet church and am reasssured by their presence that all will be well.
Is that prayer?

[Lars39]

13. Dunno.

But if the end result is peace of mind, does it matter what it is? Taking time to reflect and heal sounds more like prayer to me than the *laundry list* of demands I hear all to often from the fundies around me. :shrug:

[papau]

24. If you read/like/appreciate only Song of Songs/Solomon - is it the sex?

:-)

[Skittles]

42. I think Jesus was a con man

a very good one. :)

[nickgutierrez]

9. I am, I guess

I believe that somebody named Jesus existed, but that he was insane and got taken entirely too seriously because people then were looking way too hard for something to believe in. I believe that there was a creation at some point, probably around the point we've identified as the origin of the "big bang", but I can't be sure whether that was the work of a "god" or not.

[felonious thunk]

18. I don't know

;-)

[ulysses]

23. oh yeah? prove it.

;-)

[papau]

25. Have faith - I'll be back with a proof - later :-)

:-)

[ulysses]

28. papau, thy name is Godot

:D

[Ediacara]

26. I'm right here Uly!

[ulysses]

29. hey, DB

:hi:

[buddhamama]

27. in god or jesus?

cause i believe in Jesus, not god though.
JC imo, was a revolutionary.
i'm inclined to go with Alan Watts' vision/version of JC as laid out in "Cloud Hidden".

[ulysses]

30. faith vs the historical record

I believe that Jesus was a historical figure - Roman records from the time suggest that much - and I think you're right that he was a revolutionary, against Roman rule. At the very least, he had friends who were.

I've been reading A.N. Wilson's "biography" of Jesus, and his idea that Jesus was a prophet trying to lead the Jews back to a more pure sense of their religion makes sense to me. He almost certainly wouldn't recognize Pauline Christianity as it exists, for the most part, today.

As to Jesus' divinity...I'm actually attracted in part to the gnostic idea that we *all* partake of the godhead (should there be such ;-) ). That's in the realm of faith, though, and brings on my agnosticism.

[buddhamama]

33. on par with, or of the divine

:-)

i'll refrain from commenting on Paul--have you read any of Bishop Spong's fine books?

my view on JC is, he was man who possessed a great deal of compassion and faith, not solely in a higher being but, of our interconnectedness to both the sen and unseen, a pantheist. He was also wicked smart and understood human phsychology. JC was a humanist, imo.

[ulysses]

34. as I said the other day

Paul was a twerp. That's me being nice. :)

I've read *at* some of Bishop Spong's books and find myself largely in agreement with him. Good man - I keep planning to do a "liberal Christian" reading binge between him and Thomas Merton, but haven't gotten around to it. Not Over It and I were going to do a reading group on Merton, but she went and got married and vanished...

I think it's arguable whether the historical Jesus was a humanist. A populist no doubt.

[Darranar]

31. Me.

[mitchum]

37. I'm not sure

groan

[Skittles]

41. ME ME ME ME ME !!!!

I had Agnostic on my dog tag in the military. YES INDEED !!!

[TopesJunkie]

43. But of course ---