(September 8, 2012 at 11:21 am)Simon Moon Wrote: I believe you are not defining the term 'agnostic' correctly in the context of the existence/nonexistence of a god.

Agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.

So, by saying one is an agnostic atheist is nothing more than admitting that the existence of gods is unknown and unknowable. And that one also disbelieves in the existence of gods.

I understand that , i just see it as irrelevant addition . If you are an atheist then of coarse the existance of gods is unknown and unknowable .

Double post

(September 8, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm)Haydn Wrote: I understand that , i just see it as irrelevant addition . If you are an atheist then of coarse the existance of gods is unknown and unknowable .

I'd like to think it is an irrelevant addition. But almost every time I tell a theist that I'm an atheist, they will invariably respond with, "how can you KNOW that there is no god?".

It seems like it is a necessary addition to clarify my stance.

Not that mutually exclusive in practice though.

(September 8, 2012 at 11:07 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 8:41 am)greneknight Wrote: I am totally confused and I can't seem to fit into any category. I am a Christian, and quite devout too seeing that much of my life revolves round the church and I serve at the altar too. But I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't accept the existence of ghosts either and I am totally without superstition. I will happily give and happily given bits of my hair and bits of finger nail to a friend who knew a voodoo practitioner but I'm not the least bothered about the supernatural because I'm so sure it's all bunkum. Just as I don't accept ghosts and fairies, I don't believe in a supernatural God either and along with that, I dismiss all the heavenly hosts and God's retinue of supernatural attendants. I'm ok with seeing God as a cultural metaphor just as angels must be metaphorical - I think even diehard fundies don't believe angels exist.

It appears my dismissal of anything supernatural is even more complete that that of some atheists and yet I'm a devout Christian. It's neater if you divide people according to church affiliations. Things become clearer then.

Do you have some sort of aversion to the term 'atheist'? Do you feel that if you call yourself an atheist, people will attach all sorts of negative baggage to you?

It doesn't really matter if you call yourself an atheist or not, by definition, you are an atheist.

As others have said, you may like the culture and the ritual of Christianity, but make no mistake, you are an atheist.

No aversion at all. I'm not American and so nobody will attach negative baggage to the term "atheist" in my country. In fact I think "atheism" is positive and I have respect for atheists. Everyone knows 93% of scientists in the Academy of Science (I think that's the name ---- it's the equivalent of the Royal Society) are atheists and there can't be any negative baggage there. The percentage is even higher in Britain and the rest of Europe. So as far as statistics go, you are more likely to be a duffer if you are a believer in the invisible man. Every village idiot in Europe is a Christian. The same goes for village idiots elsewhere. Every Arab village idiot is a Muslim and every Indian village idiot is a Hindu.

So there is no negativity for me. But it's just that I have to be honest. I am a Christian and my church regards me as a Christian. Reason is an important component in my church and we have Archbishops who don't believe in superstition too. As my vicar says, nothing I believe is new or revolutionary and has not been the position taken by some priests in my church.

It is true that if I were an RC, I would have left that filthy church long ago. The RC church has lost all moral right to call itself a church after its paedophile scandal. What is horrifying is not the fact of paedophile abuses by individual priests but the extensive cover-up and evasion of justice that goes all the way up to the Pope himself. The Pope doesn't care for the child victims. He himself was guilty of countless abuses - his refusal to remove old priests because they were his friends and when a priest is known to be a paedophile even by the prelates of that filthy church and he was told of it, he refused to remove him. That's how the priest in that school for deaf boys raped so many children. Even as early as the 1960s, the church enshrined rules to make it difficult for children to complain about paedophile cases. The children had to take vows of secrecy, etc on pain of excommunication. Nobody is allowed to complain to the police or to anyone outside a few designated priests. These rules have not been abolished by the Paedophile-protecting Pope who recently declared that the rape of children by priests is only as bad as the ordination of female priests. That's how evil and morally bankrupt the RC group is. To call them a church is to sully the good name of that word.

Deep down, I have a strong suspicion that all RCs are paedophile protectors. They've got to be if they don't stand up and denounce their paedophile-loving pope. I'm beginning to think that Polaris might be an RC. Polaris, tell me I'm wrong if indeed I am wrong. If you say you're not an RC, I will apologise for associating you with such an evil association whose members cannot help but be regarded as paedophile protectors.

(September 8, 2012 at 10:30 am)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 10:22 am)Napoléon Wrote: You can think can't you?

Surely that is existence right there?

Yes, but not necessarily the existence of the "I".

There are many critics of Descartes who have pointed out that even his cogito ergo sum wasn't necessarily true.

I should say "I knew that" but I was just going for the gag.

---

(September 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm)Haydn Wrote:

(September 8, 2012 at 11:21 am)Simon Moon Wrote: I believe you are not defining the term 'agnostic' correctly

I understand that , i just see it as irrelevant addition . If you are an atheist then of coarse the existance of gods is unknown and unknowable .

You're missing a distinction here, though it may not apply for you. I'm primarily an agnostic and a defacto atheist. The lack of knowledge (to the point of not really knowing what would even count as a god) is what I am most certain of.

Do I consider it likely that any gods exist? Not at all. I'd be very surprised. But do I have any strident belief that gods do not exist? Of course not, no more than I have any beliefs regarding any other nonsensical or poorly defined 'thing'. It just isn't worth getting worked up over. Cross that bridge if we come to it.

I just wanted to pop in and thank all of you who have provided additional information on your choices. It is most appreciated.

I don't like merely asserting definitions, or seeing people that like to merely assert their own definitions. I think the history of the usage of these words has to be respected and acknowledged. Precedence must be respected, and varying opinions must be respected as such.

As such, atheism has typically been a position on the existence of God. There have been recent attempts to define it as merely a state of mind, such as "disbelief in God". But I reject this redefinition because atheism is not merely a mental state. It's not akin to depression or OCD. It's an intellectual position with a rational foundation that can and must be worthy of critical examination.

Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:It's an intellectual position with a rational foundation that can and must be worthy of critical examination.

False. One can claim no gods exist without putting an ounce of thought into it, unless of course you are trying to assert your own definition. You wouldn't be doing that, would you?

(September 9, 2012 at 1:30 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:It's an intellectual position with a rational foundation that can and must be worthy of critical examination.

False. One can claim no gods exist without putting an ounce of thought into it, unless of course you are trying to assert your own definition. You wouldn't be doing that, would you?

But they are not an atheist any more than a rock or a pancake or a ceiling fan is an atheist.

This destroys the very basis of defining someone as an atheist- it makes it a property of inanimate objects.

I'm an atheist who does not believe in god, but does believe in spirituality in the sense we all need to be looking inside ourselves for the answers we need. The bible or w/e take your pick, seems just to be a metaphorical book not describing the words of god or men. But describing mans internal battle with himself, sure its a bunch of neat stories and bullshit but it's just to point you in the right direction. I've read it for the most part, hardly remember shit now it was so far back but I know all it does is express internal and external conflicts that mankind has with its self. And relieves the fear of death from the conscious of man. Demons/Angels both part of man, because every person has two sides and both with be in conflict till the day you die.