Atheist or Agnostic?

I say, "I don't believe in god." I don't go as far as saying, "There is no god."

Does this make me atheist or agnostic?

And that given the evidence, and if there was a bet between God or no God, I would bet everything on no God.

it would be what's called a 'weak atheist' which I what I'd use for myself because although it doesn't reflect well the strength of my conviction that there is no god it keeps the burden of proof where it belongs - on the theist to prove the existence of such an entity.

Agnostics do not know.

You may be both.

Agnostic as in: I don't claim to know for sure whether or not a god or gods exist.

Atheist as in: I do not believe in a god or gods.


In my experience, most atheists are agnostic atheists: Don't believe in god, but make no claim of knowledge.

By contrast, most theists are gnostic theists: Believe in god and claim to know for sure that god actually exists... they have no objective evidence, mind you, but they fucking KNOW that god exists!

"non-theist" instead of atheist or agnostic.

A lot of people take agnostic to mean someone isn't sure and is on the fence. I'm not on the fence, I 100% don't believe but I also 100% recognize I can't technically disprove God just like I can't technically disprove the invisible goblin that steals socks from the laundry.

You either do or do not believe there is a god at this moment right now (I know I am preaching to the choir here but its an issue that grinds me). People seem to be of the opinion that claiming to be an atheist means you are jumping up and down insisting there is no god and that you will spit in the eye of anyone claiming otherwise. It just means you don't believe in gods at this moment.

The reason people keep on insisting otherwise has to do with the notion of damnation and god being just. To their thinking god is absolutely just. So a person is not damned unless they turn their back on him. They have to damn themselves. It has to be a choice they make. Simply not believing doesn't fit the mythology for them so they can't believe that someone just doesn't believe (heh irony). So they insist that an atheist has to be someone that specifically denies god... as if god was there to deny.

the invisible goblin that steals socks from the laundry."

Yeah, but what is your position on Underpants Gnomes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSQ18s2EFI
:)

Basically, atheism comes in two varieties, with the difference depending on where you put the negative. A "weak" atheist says, "I do not believe there is a god." A "strong" atheist says, "I do believe there is no god." There is a Wikipedia article on weak and strong atheism that you might find interesting.

By contrast, agnosticism is the position that some selection of metaphysical questions, including the existence of god(s), are unknowable. That does not seem to be your postion.

I generally consider myself to be an apatheist, meaning that I see the whole question of whether or not god(s) exist(s) to be rather silly and a waste of time.

Fits. Thanks.

...However, they claim that no one has shown the slightest bit of interest."

-- Carlin

Still killing. :loveya:

By "god" I mean the anthropomorphic supernaturalist figure alleged to have not only created this universe, but to have, and this is on the down-low, created sin and death. I find evidence for this character slim, and I suspect he was created as a scapegoat for human ills in general. I deny any concept that the Bronze age barbarians of yore have in respects to such an entity on the principle that the aforementioned holy figure seems to have been about wish fulfillment--a genie, even. If you entertain doubt about this creature--you have atheist potential.

probably a weak atheist (but please, do not take that work weak as a slam- it is a diliniation point). I happen to be a strong, just because I can not wrap my head around the very concept of an all powerful being- just seems absurd to me. But even if you, or someone else, calls you agnostic, there is no shame in that at all. You, like all wise thinking individuals, require proof. Nothing wrong with that at all.

a-theist: without god belief.
I would use "agnostic" to describe someone who is open to both possibilities - god(s) or no god(s) - more or less equally.

In my mind there's a 99.99999% chance there is no god and a 0.000001% chance there is a god. I'm not willing to waste my life worshiping something that is, in all likelihood, non existent.

...here.

In the real world I say "agnostic".

The difference is hairsplitting, but
people don't RECOIL from me when I say
"agnostic".

who ring my doorbell. Makes 'em pale and scurry away. Otherwise, I just admit that I can't talk to anyone about religion without offending them. If they press, then I offend.

If you are asked "Do you believe there is a god?" how do you respond? If you say you do not believe in god(s) then you are not a theist. The prefix 'a' means 'not' thus an appropriate label for you would be atheist.

If you are asked "Do you know if there is a god?" and you respond "No I do not know if there is a god." then you are an agnostic. You may also be an atheist but that issue is not addressed by that question.

Theist = A person that believes in god(s)

'a' = prefix meaning 'not' or 'without'

Atheist = Not a theist or a person without a belief in god(s)

Gnosis = Ancient Greek word meaning special knowledge

Gnostic = A person claiming to have special knowledge of god(s)

Agnositc = Not a gnostic or someone that claims to be without special knowledge of god(s)

There ya go.

meant you believe that you don't know for sure one way or another. I would also go as far to say there are different levels of agnosticism.

Whether you know something or not you can believe it or not. They are not connected.

I believe that I don't know.

:D

I know that i don't know:7

then you don't believe. You would know if you believed. I believe... er ... I think?

i know that i dont know if there is a god or if any of this exists at all

Yes or No.

I were saying to some god-believer or other, "As for the existence of a supernatural supreme being, I'm not sure one way or the other. For all I know, you could be right."

Even though I don't claim to have proof of the non-existence of deities, I call myself an atheist. I strongly do not believe in any supernatural sky guy.

And I've read the "philosophical" arguments until my eyes crossed. None of them convince me.

The believers have had centuries to perfect their scam thru debate and their weird, so-called "logic." At least they no longer have the luxury of losing a debate and then barbecuing the opposition (with the possible exception of some Middle Eastern countries and Southern U.S. states).

They are masters at side-stepping direct questions and leading any debate down into the boggy swamp of hi-falutin' philosophical rhetoric. And once there, drowning the argument in a flood of empty words.

Bah. Show me the evidence--and evidence is the one thing they never want to talk about. That's actual evidence of a deity. Not subjective little parables about God helping the firemen get a kid out of a tree (while across town, three other people burn to death in a house fire. God doesn't seem to be very good at multi-tasking...)

Their horror over the "New Atheism" really tickles me. Somehow they've convinced people that atheism is a new fad. But the comment I just made about evidence was being said more than 2,000 years ago by Aristophanes. ("Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?")

fence-sitting is always seen in such a negative way, but if you think about it, it's a heck of a great view, up there on the fence.

I suppose there is something secure about taking a position, but it isn't really necessary, is it? I mean, is there a test? A gauntlet to run? A super secret magic decoder ring that you only get when you hop down off the fence? One side of the fence certainly seems to offer up those things, but does the other side do it too?

The presumption seems to be that if you can't commit to one side or the other then you're really committing to the side that whomever you're talking to doesn't belong. A believer talking to an agnostic assumes that the agnostic is really an atheist who is afraid to admit it. An atheist talking to an agnostic assumes that the agnostic is really a believer who is unwilling to admit it.

The agnostic, meanwhile, really doesn't have a position. They really aren't taking sides - partially because of the big "I don't know" and partially because they just don't care. It doesn't matter enough, one way or the other, to commit.

Most people seem very uncomfortable living with uncertainty - some people really aren't uncomfortable with it at all - those people are often agnostic.

Does that define every single agnostic out there? Of course not. But for a great many of them, that's how they feel. Neither "side" has any more merit than the other, so why pick one when it isn't necessary to them to do so?

As ranted elsewhere, I've been catching up on the old Sharpe series of British TV movies.

The episode I watched last night had this great exchange:

Upper-class British officer: "Vengeance is the prerogative of God, Mr. Sharpe."

Sharpe (looking around and grinning): "Well, he's not here. So we'll have to do it ourselves."

:rofl:

Perfect! He's NEVER there, and we ALWAYS have to do it ourselves.

No offense to any of the agnostics, but fence-sitting just makes my butt hurt.

religion, Onager? He was raised in a "Peculiar People" household and it left marks, for sure! He alludes to it in his bio, and talks a bit more about it in a chapter of a short narrative he wrote last year.

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/index.cfm?page=3 (his bio)
http://www.bernardcornwell.net/index.cfm?page=2&BookId=48 (the little booklet)

Interesting fella.

I'll disagree with you on the fence-sitting as I did it happily for decades before I got slightly more militant and bored and wanted to play with the evil atheists . . . but I always made sure my fence wasn't a picket - just a comfy stone wall!

and *psst! look down at my sig line . . . that's volume one; we're getting ready to publish volume two later this year (the new one will benefit the Children with Leukaemia charity . . .)*

Sounds interesting. Of course, now that I'm watching the movies, I'll have to read the books! I'm just sorry I waited so long to catch up.

On the Wikipedia entry, I saw they were planning to shoot a couple of new Sharpe movies this year.

That series just has everything (to modify a thought I stole from an IMDB poster). Sword fights. Muskets. Funny hats. Napoleon and Wellington. Sneering, ineffectual upper-class twits in uniform. Brainy, beautiful women in vintage lingerie with large heaving bosoms.

LOL! Which reminds me of a great line from another old movie I recently watched again: Tony Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade.

The screenwriter did a lot of reserach into Victorian-era language. One of his real gems comes out of the mouth of Trevor Howard, who nearly steals the whole movie as Lord Cardigan. Walking thru a fancy-dress party, Cardigan observes: "All this swish-and-tits has got me feeling randified!"

Then there's the dangerously past-his-shelf-life Lord Raglan (John Gielgud). He sits on the battlefield at Balaclava uttering such pertinent statements as: "Babies are pretty. England is pretty. Some table linens are very pretty..."

and "Sharpe's Peril" will air on ITV this fall - maybe October/November. Presumably they are going to do one more - probably based on "Sharpe's Devil" (book) which is the last, chronologically, in the series). They'd better hurry up or they'll have to call it Sharpe's Zimmer . . . Bean's life-style is catching up with him . . .

Challenge is out on DVD and Peril will be released on DVD in the US (because the wankers at BBCA wouldn't pick it up, I guess) around the time it airs in the UK or soon after.

Cornwall does a great job with the books, but I'll warn you that they are different than the films. The last two films are set in India - Challenge is loosely based on the trio of India books (Tiger, Triumph, and Fortress) while Peril is an entirely new story, but includes some interesting elements that I HOPE they've captured well; the Pindari bandits who were such a thorn in the side of the East India Company (including Chitu, who had the misfortune to be eaten by a tiger).

Sean Bean is a splendid Sharpe, but it is disconcerting to watch the films and then read the books, as the character is quite tall (over 6 ft), with dark hair and eyes, and a London gutter-rat rather than a Yorkshire one . . . but it still works!

I haven't watch Charge of the Light Brigade in ages! Now I'm going to have to go rent it again (I was in love with Trevor Howard when I was a kid - along with all the other swash-buckling actors. Still love watching men buckle their swash, obviously, since I'm a fan of the Sharpe series!)

Have you read anything by David Liss? I have a feeling you might enjoy his novels. I've read A Conspiracy of Paper and the sequel A Spectacle of Corruption and was absolutely transported. Both are set in 1720's London; the protagonist is a Jewish former boxer named Benjamin Weaver who has taken up investigative work to pay the bills.

His website: http://www.davidliss.com/

Another fun author in a similar vein is James McGee. He's written two books about a Bow Street Runner called Hawkeye - a former soldier in the Peninsular Wars (and uncannily similar *ehem* to Richard Sharpe). Ratcatcher and The Resurrectionist. Impossibly difficult to find in the US, but you can order them from Amazon UK.

Another thread hijacked...*sigh.*

"Sharpe's Zimmer." LOL! Good news about the new movies, though. And the Liss novels sound very interesting!

Impossibly difficult to find in the US, but you can order them from Amazon UK.

I could if I wasn't in Egypt, where dealing with Customs is expensive and frustrating.

The British journalist Robert Fisk hit the nail on the head, in his huge and interesting book about the Middle East, The Great War For Civilisation. (The title is a masterpiece of sarcasm.)

Fisk says Egypt learned about bureaucracy from two of the world's worst examples: the Ottoman and British Empires.

He could have added a third big influence not noted for efficiency--the Russians, who spent years advising Egypt and built many of the grim concrete fortresses housing Egyptian government offices. A diplomatic license plate in Egypt with the number "1" on it means it is a vehicle from the Russian Embassy.

The Russians still seem to be highly thought of here, for the most part. Though their Godless Atheism was always a big problem in a nation that is 95% Muslim.

Atheism and all, they may be more highly regarded than the British, historically speaking. I used to hang out some with a British marine engineer who had worked in Egypt for many years.

He had a story about one day when he was talking--in his pronounced British accent--to a couple of Egyptians. He was asking about one of the main streets in downtown Alexandria, Sofiya Zaghloul St.

"So who was this Sofiya Zaghloul, then?" he asked.

"She was the wife of our great nationalist leader Sa'ad Zaghloul Pasha."

"A wife? That's it? Did she do anything herself to become famous?"

(Delivered completely deadpan) "Yes. She shot two British Army officers."

I'm not sure she did. But hearing him tell the story was really funny. That's a good example of Egyptian humor.