Agnostic, Religious or Atheist

[waffle_x_v]

If I asked you "what color is my hair?"

and you said "I don't know"

You still lack the belief that my hair is blonde. As in, you are not actively believing that my hair is blonde.

You don't know and you don't believe. You're an "agnostic atheist". There's no "middle ground" between atheism and theism, there are just different kinds of atheism and theism.

Are you seriously going to juxtapose hair and religious beliefs? One is too intricate for the other. There is a middle stand. If we can barely understand our own world. If we can't treat diseases such as cancer, make peace with one another, or even fix the primordial quandaries that reside with in our hearts, what makes you believe you can understand anything beyond that? The idea of god is just too abstract. I don't know everything as such I can't state weather god is in terms of existence or not. Decisions require near absolute knowledge to be conceived with impending certainty. We don't have that, we never will. As such you have to remain questioning everything around you. I choose the middle ground because I prefer indifference and it's the most rational disposition.

 

[Luxie]

I believe in God, but not what other mere humans tell me he is.

 

[ChedWick]

LOL girl calm your tits. Hold those emotional horses down. 1. You misunderstood. Reread it and reread my statement again, what you interpreted is completely different from what I meant. You're evidently too stupid to understand what I just said. His opinion is making a judgment without being aware of the situation. That's why it's invalid, it's ignorant. He made a generalization about me so that makes him a hypocrite. Get it? He can argue with me all he wants, but he better not make imprudent assumptions about me. The statement was ambiguous so good luck arguing with something like that. I never specifically said ALL atheists are pricks did I? Second of all when I interact with atheists I'm treating them with indifference, like everyone else. It's their behaviors I OBSERVED that made me believe this way. Don't tell me to clean up my argument when you have no idea what the F*** you're talking about. You have no facts either baby, so sit your *** down. Unless you include quoting(lol) as one. Try to argue on a theological perspective. Or are you not intelligent enough?

The funny thing is YOU seem to be the one who needs to clean up their argument. You made a generalized blanket statement which everyone here has the right to make an assumption based off of. Now you wanna flip your ****?

 

[Concordia]

/shrugs.

Completely respect other people's opinions and everything just as long as they're tolerant of other views other than their own that's my deciding factor when it comes to tolerability. Personally, and I have no shame to admit this but I have never found it possible to put so much faith into an entity that has no direct effect on the life I am living now, currently. However in the future I do believe in an extent of an afterlife but very different from the Judaeo-Christian beliefs that there will be a 'grand judgement' as to whether I end up being in a happy place or an unhappy place - in fact when you put it like that it seems almost childish doesn't it?

Ahem, anyway - I would not be satisified believing in a god that gave me all the answers to life's questions; why are we here? and what separates right from wrong? in the teachings that I personally follow in buddhism it is to find these answers out for yourself for then it has more meaning than the writings of scholars nearly two thousand years ago. If we are just to accept all the answers religion gives us I can't help but feel the human race is being lazy and leaning back on someone else to do all the legwork for us, (as appealing as that does sound if the offer was made about my homework) I'd have to decline that way of life and find my own path to do the things I'd be happy doing.

And as to the argument of being able to find/prove god exists, I don't really think that's necessary either - he exists through your arguments if you want him to but to establish this as a given fact is another thing. So therefore, concluding, I do not believe in a god as he doesn't exist in my arguments but may exist for other people and I am very happy to accept this . Just my theory of the day - make comment what you will.

 

[Grey Wind]

Agnostic means you don't know.

No, Agnostic means that you can't know, there is no proof, and therefore God isn't real. It's what we call an Agnostic atheist. And Agnostic Theist is when you say we can't know and that there's no proof, but still believe in God.

I don't mean to generalize.

Then stop saying atheist are "butthurt".

Are you seriously going to juxtapose hair and religious beliefs? One is too intricate for the other.

It's called an analogy.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Oh, is that what I am? I think agnostic theist has come closest to describing what my beliefs actually are. I believe in God, but I'm suspicious of any proof that can be offered.

 

[Grey Wind]

Oh, is that what I am? I think agnostic theist has come closest to describing what my beliefs actually are. I believe in God, but I'm suspicious of any proof that can be offered.

Well I don't think my definitions would be exactly correct, but they're close enough. It's hard to place labels on religious beliefs though, and it's difficult to find one to fit yourself. I would be open to the possibility of there being a God, and I won't directly say there isn't, as there's actually no proof either way. I think religion is a load of bullplop, and I wouldn't actively follow any particular one (although I'm supposed to be Catholic :s).

 

[piplup911]

Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, or Theist, it doesn't matter what you label yourself. What matters is that despite how vast you believe your knowledge is, you're not going to convert anyone. I have my belief, you have yours, and luckily we live in country that allows religious freedom.

 

[JamesRaynor]

Agnosticism and Atheism are two totally different things.

Atheism deals with the belief in gods (or more specifically the lack of).

Agnosticism deals with the knowledge of god or gods (or lack there of).

 

[waffle_x_v]

No, Agnostic means that you can't know, there is no proof, and therefore God isn't real. It's what we call an Agnostic atheist. And Agnostic Theist is when you say we can't know and that there's no proof, but still believe in God.

ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena
Synonyms:
nescient - know-nothing

Still on the borderline.

Go look up the word in a dictionary then talk to me.

P.S. The analogy was like comparing apples to oranges. It was too simple and lacked depth to be compared to religion.

P.P.S. I made one post about atheists being butthurt, calm down.

The funny thing is YOU seem to be the one who needs to clean up their argument. You made a generalized blanket statement which everyone here has the right to make an assumption based off of. Now you wanna flip your ****?

You have every right to make an assumption, but I have every right to tear down the fallacies it holds. No my argument didn't need to be cleaned up, you just didn't read it carefully.

 

[Double A]

Are you seriously going to juxtapose hair and religious beliefs? One is too intricate for the other. There is a middle stand. If we can barely understand our own world. If we can't treat diseases such as cancer, make peace with one another, or even fix the primordial quandaries that reside with in our hearts, what makes you believe you can understand anything beyond that? The idea of god is just too abstract. I don't know everything as such I can't state weather god is in terms of existence or not. Decisions require near absolute knowledge to be conceived with impending certainty. We don't have that, we never will. As such you have to remain questioning everything around you. I choose the middle ground because I prefer indifference and it's the most rational disposition.

You completely missed my point. There is, by definition, no middle ground between "doing something" and "not doing something". I would assume that you are not currently actively believing in any deity, therefore you are an atheist. You say "I don't know", therefore you are also agnostic. Haven't I posted this link before?

I don't know MUST be accompanied by "but I believe anyway" or "I don't currently hold a belief. Belief accompanies knowledge, but knowledge doesn't always accompany belief.

 

[waffle_x_v]

You completely missed my point. There is, by definition, no middle ground between "doing something" and "not doing something". I would assume that you are not currently actively believing in any deity, therefore you are an atheist. You say "I don't know", therefore you are also agnostic. Haven't I posted this link before?

I don't know MUST be accompanied by "but I believe anyway" or "I don't currently hold a belief. Belief accompanies knowledge, but knowledge doesn't always accompany belief.

I don't believe in god, but at the same time I don't deny/I hope for his existence due to lack of evidence on both sides. What do you call that?

 

[Double A]

I don't believe in god, but at the same time I don't deny/I hope for his existence due to lack of evidence on both sides. What do you call that?

Let me make this simpler:

Completely ignore the red circle. From what I understand, you do NOT reside within the yellow circle, therefore you are an agnostic.

But the question here is: do you reside within the BLUE circle? By definition, if the answer is NOT yes, then you are an atheist (as the definition of "atheism" is the LACK of belief in deities).

If you really want to get technical, I'd call you an explicit-weak agnostic-atheist. "Weak" (or "negative") atheists are those that do not actively deny the existence of deities, yet still lack a belief in one.

As for hope, that's a completely different dimension.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Waffle, before you accuse someone else of falacies, clean up the mess you call your post first. Also cursing doesn't make you look smart, so i suggest you calm your tits down. Rather funny you seem to be the butthurt one now.

 

[SwiftSoul]

I disagree with the term of "weak atheism". I myself am very atheistic, and yet at the same time, I am Pagan and extremely spiritual. Not Neo-Pagan, Pagan. I believe not in the existence in any god, goddess, or any other such deity. I do not generally actively deny belief in existence of any of those, because 1) it shouldn't matter what religious lines are between people. I'm gay, Pagan, and dating a man twice my age, and my mom, a very devout Christian who was married to a Baptist Preacher for 26 years, and whose brother is also a Baptist minister, loves and embraces both me and the guy I'm with. I have a number of Pagan friends with varying degrees of belief in various degrees of different Pagan sects. I'm a Druid (Dhrow), with shades of my Cherokee heritage ingrained into my spirituality. A very close friend of mine is Celtic Pagan, another is Irish Wiccan, yet another is completely independent Pagan. I have friends who are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and probably even a few who are Anarchists and Satanists.

I suppose what I'm saying here, is that one's beliefs should not matter when it comes to caring for their fellow man, woman, animal, et cetera.

I think this one says it best:

So... can I be just be human?

 

[Malanu]

Can you be an Atheist and a Pagan? Isn't a spiritual belief the opposite of Atheism? Not to mention that If you are a Druid you have religion and a belief in a higher power, right?

 

[Avenger Angel]

Ugh, the whole "burden of proof" and "credible evidence" argument is enough to sedate me right back to sleep again. I believe in God, but this counterargument reminds me of the "Head On - apply directly to the forehead" commercial.

The good news is we'll all find out one day who was right and who was wrong. I think it's more important to ensure there are no hard feelings before and after that time comes. The last thing we need is for all of life's questions to be answered with an immature "told ya so!" from the group that's right.

Relax and do what your heart tells you to do, and do what you think is right. Don't hate on others because they simply decided to walk a different but good and honest path of life than you did. In another time, another place, we all could have been someone else.

 

[GhostAnime]

Ugh, the whole "burden of proof" and "credible evidence" argument is enough to sedate me right back to sleep again.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for evidence for something. You probably do it at least once a day in your head.

 

[Avenger Angel]

I don't see anything wrong with asking for evidence for something. You probably do it at least once a day in your head.

But it's the same thing again and again. If the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, or whatever aren't enough to convince you otherwise of what you feel are the answers in your heart, don't keep asking for proof again and again, just wait for the answer, because it comes eventually to everyone in one form or another. That's usually the conclusion of all religious debates because it's the one answer we can all agree on and know is undeniably true.

So don't keep arguing about what is, but instead focus on what will be when the time comes. Wise is the person that follows their heart but is ready for anything.

 

[7 tyranitars]

But it's the same thing again and again. If the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, or whatever aren't enough to convince you otherwise of what you feel are the answers in your heart, don't keep asking for proof again and again, just wait for the answer, because it comes eventually to everyone in one form or another. That's usually the conclusion of all religious debates because it's the one answer we can all agree on and know is undeniably true.

So don't keep arguing about what is, but instead focus on what will be when the time comes. Wise is the person that follows their heart but is ready for anything.

It is exactly the point in the debate, asking for proof, and besides the w/e holybook they don't have any proof.