OK. So, what is...?

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Okay, well I've been perusing these forums, and joining in arguments for quite a while (not as long as others though) and I love doing this. I'm not going to go around saying I know all about religions, and so this is what this topic is about.

In one topic I looked at -the post was right at the start, and I didn't feel like reading all the posts at the time, a member posted this:

"You people do realise that atheism isn't an outright denial of the possibility of a God right?"

This struck me as a bit strange, as that is -by my understanding- what atheism is. As far as I can tell, 'a' anything is 'anti' that subject. So, atheism is anti-theism, which is, an outright denial of God.

Agnosticism is, as far as I can tell, the indecision about the existence of God, and Non-theism is the act of ignoring the existence of God.

I relate non-theism to myself: The theoretical existence of God is not necessary for me now to uphold a moral code, and so I don't really question his existence. I feel this is non-theism, as I am not denying God, and nor am I indecisive. I'm just ignoring the theoretical possibility.

Am I right in this case?
I'd like to be corrected if I was wrong.
As well as describing these beliefs, also, if you know your religion well, could you describe that?

As far as I understand through reading the bible and attending a -what I believe to be conservative (whatever that means) - catholic school for 11 years, Christianity (or Catholicism) is about following the message of Christ and striving to replicate what he would have done in your situation. Catholicism is doing this through Christ's mother Mary, and doing it in the way mary would, right? (Or is this just Marist? I've only been to marist schools).

Don't consider me a troll or a noob, as if you do, then why are you here? I'm here to learn off others, and here is an opportunity for me to do this, while also possibly helping others who wish to get a brief rundown of religions. If you all like the idea, then maybe I could edit this post and put in categories for each religion and fit in the public's favourite description of a religion.

[bthizle1]

While, it appears as though we are both here for the same reasons.

As far as "Atheism" goes...I've always interpreted "it" as the acceptance that there is no God/Gods. So, if someone did not think it were very plausible that God(s) exists but does not completely deny an existence of some sorts, then they are not by definition an "Atheist." This is just my interpretation of the term though. As with any word it's fairly dependent upon a universal description, then again who's to say exactly what that is or isn't?

[The Dude]

This struck me as a bit strange, as that is -by my understanding- what atheism is. As far as I can tell, 'a' anything is 'anti' that subject. So, atheism is anti-theism, which is, an outright denial of God.

Atheism is a human concept that can only apply to a human context. It is, therefore, the denial of the possibility of god in the way -humans- perceive him. To me, anyway.

It's not outright denial, however. Because of the immense, unfathomable nature of the universe, we cannot know who or what created us. Therefore, any religion is nothing other than a gamble for the truth. Any gamble has a chance of winning. In this case, the chance happens to be astronomically miniscule, but it's a chance nonetheless. Just not one that I'm betting the way I intend to live my life on.

Agnosticism is, as far as I can tell, the indecision about the existence of God, and Non-theism is the act of ignoring the existence of God.

Agnosticism is atheism. There's little point in creating a separate term for it IMO. Agnostics do not believe in god and that's all it takes to be an atheist.

[bthizle1]

It's not outright denial, however. Because of the immense, unfathomable nature of the universe, we cannot know who or what created us. Therefore, any religion is nothing other than a gamble for the truth. Any gamble has a chance of winning. In this case, the chance happens to be astronomically miniscule, but it's a chance nonetheless. Just not one that I'm betting the way I intend to live my life on.

Right, but are there clearly not some scenarios that are much more of a possibility and therefore a "better gamble" (or more "educated gamble") than others?

[The Dude]

Right, but are there clearly not some scenarios that are much more of a possibility and therefore a "better gamble" (or more "educated gamble") than others?

Atheism is the best gamble to me because it makes no claims. All I can say is "I don't know". Which is absolutely true. I don't. No matter what happens, I'll always have been right.

-Any- human theory on the creation of the universe/purpose of living/origin of morality etc etc, is eventually nothing more than that. A -human- theory. Do you have any idea how insignificant we are to the universe? Maybe a rhetorical question, but some people feel we're more important than we are. The ratio ant:world is higher than the ratio human being:universe. Or do you say lower? I'm not good with maths. You get my point. XD

So what do we know, really? Nothing.

[bthizle1]

Atheism is the best gamble to me because it makes no claims. All I can say is "I don't know". Which is absolutely true. I don't. No matter what happens, I'll always have been right.

-Any- human theory on the creation of the universe/purpose of living/origin of morality etc etc, is eventually nothing more than that. A -human- theory. Do you have any idea how insignificant we are to the universe? Maybe a rhetorical question, but some people don't really understand that. The ratio ant:world is larger than the ratio human being:universe.

So what do we know, really? Nothing.

I'm in the same boat you are, however I would definitely consider myself a spiritual person.

Truth, when examined is just the continual recognition of that which is false. Essentially there's limitless possibilities, and accepting that notion of possibility in the first place implies that there's a belief in something, even if it's just that a many number of things are possible. You don't have to hold one scenario to be true in order for you to still hold beliefs in regards to the meaning of life, the reasoning behind certain changes, etc...So even if you think we do not "know" at this moment in [time? change? the cycle? etc] it doesn't mean we are entirely in-capable of "knowing" at some point, even if that means we have known and no longer do. Accepting that we don't is not a cop-out as many make it out to be, nor is it the denial of what many claim "is", it's simply stating a truth based upon the limited availability of defined truth and falseness that is applicable to the world as we know it. That truth being WE DON'T KNOW!

Atheism however denies even the possibility of a possibly defined existence, at least that's how I view the meaning of the term.

[The Dude]

So even if you think we do not "know" at this moment in [time? change? the cycle? etc] it doesn't mean we are entirely in-capable of "knowing" at some point, even if that means we have known and no longer do.

Completely agree. If humanity just survives long enough, spreads across the stars (how? no idea, we'll see when we get that far) and solves an even larger amount of questions and mysteries, we'll eventually find out.

Eventually, the truth will be revealed. But not now, and not for a while yet (I suppose).

Atheism however denies even the possibility of a possibly defined existence, at least that's how I view the meaning of the term.

Well there's a disagreement then Our definitions of atheism definitely differ.

You are wrong, simply because there are theistic agnostics. Your classification would make that an oxymoron.

Wait, what?! There are? XD Damn, you learn something new every day. Who would these people be?

Damn it. Now I have to go and adjust my opinion! Such a bother

[Playfishpaste]

Atheism is the best gamble to me because it makes no claims. All I can say is "I don't know". Which is absolutely true. I don't. No matter what happens, I'll always have been right.

-Any- human theory on the creation of the universe/purpose of living/origin of morality etc etc, is eventually nothing more than that. A -human- theory. Do you have any idea how insignificant we are to the universe? Maybe a rhetorical question, but some people feel we're more important than we are. The ratio ant:world is higher than the ratio human being:universe. Or do you say lower? I'm not good with maths. You get my point. XD

So what do we know, really? Nothing.

Actually we know quite a bit, considering we have the ability to create the same things that were present at the big bang, as well as recount in extreme detail the happenings in the entire history of the universe, we well as produce as much energy as a star.

[Gogf]

we have the ability to create the same things that were present at the big bang

I am very, very suspicious of this claim. As far as I am aware, we cannot, as of yet, compress matter into a mathematical point.

[Arto]

Agnosticism is atheism.

[Chaigidel]

you are confused Dude as usual about the meanings of words.

[Kscott]

The prefix a does not mean anti, it means lack of.

For example asexual does not mean you are anti-sex, it simply means you just aren't really sexually attracted to anything.

Amoral does not mean you are anti-morals, it means morals don't really apply, such as with animals.

So in its purest form Atheist means the lack of theism, thus no belief in God or gods. There is no implication about any belief that God does not exist. Just there is no positive belief.

Agnosticism on the other hand started as a philosophy that meant the existence of God CANNOT be known. Not really the middle ground most people use it for.

But as with all words these words have changed over time. Atheism in daily use does denote a disbelief in God, while agnosticism means in unsure. Neither of these is linguistically correct, but its kinda pedantic to argue against their common use. Words change meaning to the use people give them.

[Mathias]

There are two kinds of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism. What you described as atheism is strong atheism, an outright denial of God's existence. Most atheists are, however, weak atheists. Weak atheism is the belief that the evidence for God is not convincing, and/or the existence of God is illogical/not a logical necessity and there followingly is no reason to believe in God, but one cannot discard the possibility that there might be a God(s).

The term agnosticism was invented by Thomas Huxley. With it he meant that it was impossible to attain knowledge about God and his existence. Most of those who call them agnostics don't know if there is a God or not and are undecided on the matter, but true agnosticism would actually be to view the existence of God as something we cannot possibly know.

[Chaigidel]

which is what agnosticism is; I am an agnostic theist--- just like there are many agnostic atheists-- that does not make agnosticism atheistic or theistic.

weak atheism exists only because most atheists think rational thoughts-- but it is little more than a logical escape for the fallacy of atheism.

[Manco]

The a-prefix is not the same as the anti-prefix. The a-prefix simply means "the absence of"; for example amoral is the absence of morals, in contrast immoral is the adjective describing something wrong according to a certain set of morals.

Atheism simply means the absence or lack of god(s), if it was antitheism we'd call it antitheism.
Antitheists are a very specific subset of strong atheists and are a very tiny group.
Non-theism is more or less the umbrella term for atheism and agnosticism (not the theistic variant of course, but very few people adhere to that)

[Chaigidel]

and that only exists because of the natural drive to organize yourselves into a faith, something apparently you dont even realize.

almost just like christian saints claiming old gods, atheists claim wider and wider principles of atheism, so that they can become a larger group and more comfortable with the path they have chosen, they must have people agree with them.

[Manco]

and that only exists because of the natural drive to organize yourselves into a faith, something apparently you dont even realize.

almost just like christian saints claiming old gods, atheists claim wider and wider principles of atheism, so that they can become a larger group and more comfortable with the path they have chosen, they must have people agree with them.

Euhm no.
It's simple:

• Atheism is the term for everyone who lacks a belief in god(s). This also includes those who say god might exist but there's no proof and therefore act as if he didn't.
• Agnosticism is the term for everyone who thinks the nature of god is inherently unknowable. Because the vast majority are atheistic agnostics they're often lumped together with atheism, however there are theistic agnostics.
• Nontheism is a term with a lot of confusing history but is predominantly used for religions without a god, mainly certain variants of Buddhism and Hinduism. Originally it was somewhat of an umbrella term for atheists, agnosts and these 'godless' religions.

And your natural drive to organize in a faith, is just an urge to organize. And yes, we atheists also like it if people agree with us, we're not superhuman. But that has no bearing on his question.

[Desperado †]

I don't think of Atheism as an out-right denial of any possibillity of God, we don't have enough evidence to totally dis-proove him. Nor do we have enough evidence to proove him, which is where faith comes in. Theists hold faith that god exists, Atheists hold "faith" that he dosen't, but because of faiths relationship with religon, Atheists don't say it that way. In the same way, some people might say they do not 'believe' in the thoery of evolution, though we all believe in a sence from the moment we are born. Non of us know anything for certain. My name may be Caradog, though there is a tiny minute chance that my parents have been lying to me, and my birth certificate is fake, or that life is a dream or a hollogram and Caradog is not my true name. But the human brain cancels this doubt out, especially as the amounting evidence raised higher, and so I take it for certain fact that my name is Caradog, and I live in a place called Wales, although there may still be a 0.000000000001% chance that I'm not and I don't.

Everything we know is a matter of faith and belief. Though, being an Atheist, I believe that there is no God. This simply means there's probablly no God, and I've rounded the figure of certainty up. Some Atheists may feel more strongly about this, and thus there's less of the probablly. But with a matter such as God, a diety which we may not see or hear or begin to truly describe, we can never realisticly be sure either way. All a matter of faith.

[Chaigidel]

atheism is not saying " I dont know" -- atheism is making a prediction based on limited information

and yes we actually know quite alot; Im sure if you understood anything about science you would know that by now; hopefully there is never an end to what we can know and learn.

our insignificance is irrelevant to the arguement of atheism/theism unless you claim that atheism is making a more valid assumption than theism; and it does not.

again atheism is becoming everything it ever set itself against-- a faith filled with people who dont even know why they hold the faith.

[The Dude]

atheism is not saying " I dont know"

My atheism is.

our insignificance is irrelevant to the arguement of atheism/theism unless you claim that atheism is making a more valid assumption than theism; and it does not.

No it's not and yes I am.

again atheism is becoming everything it ever set itself against-- a faith filled with people who dont even know why they hold the faith.

Not at all.

I decided to take -one- of your posts off ignore to see if you'd gained some reason. Gee, why'd you have to let me down like that?

What? Agnostics believe in god now?