This signature is kinda ironic, all things considered.

I just stumbled upon this. Something to ponder...

Herzinth said
This signature is kinda ironic, all things considered.

Not really.
I'm not making a Religion out of me being God, I just am God. :P

Jannah said
I just stumbled upon . Something to ponder...

Not surprising.
In my experience of having been Religious, became atheist later in life and had the chance to be involved in both Christian and Atheist groups growing up I find many people leave their religions cause they either:

a) They morally disagree with their Religion
b) The Religion doesn't accept them

Granted, stuff like looking at science, evidence and bible contradictions also plays roles.
But many people I've talked to claimed to of left mainly for personal/moral reasons.

I guess it has largely to do with people going to Religion because it gives them some sense of happiness, acceptance and purpose. But when said Religion turns around and becomes bigoted, you start to lose the reasons you came to it and decide you're better off leaving.

In my case, when I learned stuff like "God hates Homosexuals" I remained Christian.
Just a Christian who hated God, I didn't think not liking God was a good enough reason to say he doesn't exist.
I had to be shown bible contradictions and scientific reasons God couldn't exist before I left Religion and became an atheist.

That's just how I am though, no matter how hard the truth may hurt. I'll accept it if I actually do believe it to be the truth. I won't hide from facts or life because it's inconvenient or disagree's with me. Many people though just want to surround themselves with things that makes them happy and bolsters their self-esteem and joy. So when the way their Religion act's takes that away from them... many will jump ship.

Magic Magnum said
Not really.I'm not making a Religion out of me being God, I just am God. :PNot surprising.In my experience of having been Religious, became atheist later in life and had the chance to be involved in both Christian and Atheist groups growing up I find many people leave their religions cause they either:a) They morally disagree with their Religionb) The Religion doesn't accept themGranted, stuff like looking at science, evidence and bible contradictions also plays roles.But many people I've talked to claimed to of left mainly for personal/moral reasons.I guess it has largely to do with people going to Religion because it gives them some sense of happiness, acceptance and purpose. But when said Religion turns around and becomes bigoted, you start to lose the reasons you came to it and decide you're better off leaving.In my case, when I learned stuff like "God hates Homosexuals" I remained Christian.Just a Christian who hated God, I didn't think not liking God was a good enough reason to say he doesn't exist.I had to be shown bible contradictions and scientific reasons God couldn't exist before I left Religion and became an atheist.That's just how I am though, no matter how hard the truth may hurt. I'll accept it if I actually do believe it to be the truth. I won't hide from facts or life because it's inconvenient or disagree's with me. Many people though just want to surround themselves with things that makes them happy and bolsters their self-esteem and joy. So when the way their Religion act's takes that away from them... many will jump ship.

I suppose I'm a rather unique case since I was never religious. It's just not the way I was brought up, and as a result almost everybody in my family is atheist/agnostic. I've had periods where I was seeking out something to believe in due to severe depression, but ultimately in the end I found it hard to delude myself. With that said, these stats don't hugely surprise me since I was able to view religion from the outside and what many theists really teach about homosexuality. I mentioned it earlier either in this thread or the other, but I know of somebody personally who was essentially disowned by her religious family simply for being lesbian. And Christians claim to support "family values". Pfft...so much for that since they're disowning children.

Interesting topic.

I personally am not quite sure how I feel about a lot of religions. I was raised in Louisiana in an old school Southern Baptist church - Though they were hardly as aggressive and sanctimonious as Westboro. And growing up, I was very faithful to Christianity. I prayed every night before I went to bed, every morning when I woke up, before I took a test,before I ate anything... Well, you get the picture. I was heavily involved in my church's youth group and I did my best to stay awake during church sermons which wasn't always hard considering our pastors were always very enthusiastic and liked to shout, jump around, and used plenty of gestures. I was very comfortable with everything. It was a laid back church and everyone was really nice despite the fact that I was the only non-white there. I never felt out of place and I always felt loved. Honestly, I was so comfortable that sometimes I just rolled out of bed and went to church in pajamas and ate breakfast from the kitchen there. Even though all the old ladies kept telling me I'd look prettier in a nice dress instead of my pajamas, bare feet, and overalls. But as I got older and was exposed to different beliefs, I began to question my own. I swear, I thought that as soon as I questioned God's existence I was going to get struck dead by lightening. But when I didn't, I kept studying other religions.

Between all that studying and listening to our new pastors, i became disenchanted with the religion. I was further disenchanted when I began reading the parts of the Bible that they were skipping over. What I derived from it all was that Jesus was a good and kind man that I would have loved to have met and gotten the chance to talk to. I also felt like God was a bully and a murderer and a hypocrite. There was so much hatred in the Bible that I had never known about before and as I read all the reasons why God killed people and ordered others to kill people, I was just in total disbelief. One of my least favorite verses is from Leviticus and it talks about how God forbids anyone with a physical defection from entering his temple/church and approaching his altar because the ground there is sacred and holy and he doesn't want them desecrating it with their presence. It just blew my mind. I don't really mind most Christians I meet and i still completely love and adore most of the people I used to go to church with. But I wasn't going to take part in a religion where people pick and choose which parts they think they should follow and where they use it as an excuse to condemn others. I tried going to church recently but I couldn't stand it. It was worse than high school with the way people gossip and turn their noses up at others. i swear, it was like a fashion contest. They turn away a man who doesn't own a shirt and just wants to listen to the preacher but they let women come in with tight shirts and miniskirts? I believe that if you're going to claim a religion, you should go all in and follow all of the rules and not just some.

As of the more recent years, I am leaning more into Wicca and Neo-Druidism. I much prefer the idea of a healthy lifestyle, balance, peace, and generally good morals with a respect for the earth and your fellow man.

As for Atheism not being a religion: I'm going to argue that is.
I have heard that "Not collecting cards isn't a hobby", but not collecting stamps is simply stating the hobby you /don't/ have. Atheism is to religion what 'sitting around doing nothing' is to hobbies, or what 0 is to numbers.
Also, it's not like Atheists don't believe anything. To be an Atheist you have to consciously believe that deities don't exist.

-Post deleted-

Protagonist said
As for Atheism not being a religion: I'm going to argue that is.
I have heard that "Not collecting cards isn't a hobby", but not collecting stamps is simply stating the hobby you /don't/ have.
Atheism is to religion what 'sitting around doing nothing' is to hobbies, or what 0 is to numbers.
Also, it's not like Atheists don't believe anything. To be an Atheist you have to consciously believe that deities don't exist.

If you look at the word "atheist", you see the word 'theist' and the prefix 'a-'. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. So saying you are atheist mans you don't follow any theistic ideals of a god. Like how you say 'asymptomatic', which means you are without symptoms. Likewise, to call an asymptomatic person ill would be like calling an atheist religious without any further knowledge of that person. Sure, there can be religious atheists, just like how asymptomatic persons can be ill, but to call atheism a religion is wrong.

Atheism is a religion if abstinence is a sex position.

(P.S: The reason why atheists don't believe in a god is that there is no evidence that can prove one)

I'd like to respond to Little Fox. Yes, many churches/synagogues/mosques tend to skip over the hateful parts of the bible, or in the case of the muslims, the Qu'ran(if I spelled it wrong I apologize). However, this may not be for the reasons you think. When I go to services at my synagogue, my Rabbi delivers sermons that both praise and criticize the Torah(Old Testament portion of the bible.) but I'm guessing many religious leaders aren't willing to criticize the "words of god". Instead, they'd rather focus on the positive portions of the Bible. The parts that encourage you to be a good person and live a good life. I'd even go as far as saying that the negative parts were included on purpose to show how NOT to live. Of course, we're only human and such lessons tend to not sink in, so those sections tend to be skipped. Another bit of food for thought is this: Not many people are willing to read a book all about sunshine and rainbows. Which could be another reason for including the parts about hatred in the Bible. As humans, we tend to have a taste for negativity, so throwing that in there makes it more likely to be read and understood. Now what parts we take to heart however is up to us. Freewill is it not?

Protagonist said
As for Atheism not being a religion: I'm going to argue that is.I have heard that "Not collecting cards isn't a hobby", but not collecting stamps is simply stating the hobby you /don't/ have. Atheism is to religion what 'sitting around doing nothing' is to hobbies, or what 0 is to numbers.Also, it's not like Atheists don't believe anything. To be an Atheist you have to consciously believe that deities don't exist.

Religion is worship of set beliefs or gods. Atheism is the absence of a religion. The very nature of atheism is that it is not a Religion.To call it one is not understanding what atheism is.

Plus its not belief there is no god. It is the lack of a belief in a god.

Protagonist said
As for Atheism not being a religion: I'm going to argue that is.
I have heard that "Not collecting cards isn't a hobby", but not collecting stamps is simply stating the hobby you /don't/ have. Atheism is to religion what 'sitting around doing nothing' is to hobbies, or what 0 is to numbers.
Also, it's not like Atheists don't believe anything. To be an Atheist you have to consciously believe that deities don't exist.

Depends on the kind of atheist you're talking about, as there are a few different kinds. First you have to start off with a definition of religion. The definition I've always used is "a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." I'll just go ahead and apply this definition to the two major different kinds of atheism to show you what I mean.

Those who say emphatically and as a factual statement that there is no god are people who consciously believe deities don't exist, and those are the ones for which you can make a case that their atheism is a religion. Holding such belief is, due to lack of actual evidence, just as faith-based as any traditional religion. They are claiming to know the truth of the cause/nature/purpose of the universe, but they are not omnipotent, thus it is belief and thus it is religious.

However, there are plenty who do not believe in deities but do not believe that they absolutely do not exist; this is agnostic atheism, colloquially known simply as agnosticism, and it is not a religious belief because it is in truth the absence of belief. These types of atheists tend not to have beliefs about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they take the stance that it is impossible (whether permanently or just currently with our limited understanding and technology) to understand these things, that they are so far above human ken that it would be foolish to pretend to have the answers. This is the lack of beliefs stance that cause most atheists to call shenanigans on people calling atheism a religion, because this is the stance that most atheists (at least in my experience) actually take.

Saying that all atheists consciously believe that deities do not exist would be like saying all Christians believe the Bible is made up of the literal and factual words of their deity. Those are both outlier positions, fundamentalism that is not representative of the majority in any way. It just so happens that fundamentalists of all kinds are very loud and controversial, thus they get a lot more attention than the average people of the group and give the appearance of great numbers.

I went ahead and looked up the definitions for both of the words.

They are both worded in such a way that you can in fact argue it is a Religion in the sense that Jorick describes.
But you can't claim an atheist is religious if they are the kind who simply lacks belief.

Jorick said However, there are plenty who do not believe in deities but do not believe that they absolutely do not exist; this is agnostic atheism, colloquially known simply as agnosticism, and it is not a religious belief because it is in truth the absence of belief. These types of atheists tend not to have beliefs about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they take the stance that it is impossible (whether permanently or just currently with our limited understanding and technology) to understand these things, that they are so far above human ken that it would be foolish to pretend to have the answers. This is the lack of beliefs stance that cause most atheists to call shenanigans on people calling atheism a religion, because this is the stance that most atheists (at least in my experience) actually take.

I'd fall into this category.
My posts on Religion might imply otherwise, but my issues with Religion is the blind faith/following of a God without proof and evidence.
The specific Gods of the specific religions in existence are not based on any real evidence, in fact claims by them can be dis-proven through science so it's safe to say no worshiped god exists.

But to say there is no God period?
There is no proof for it so it would be unwise to treat that notion as any kind of fact, but it is still potential, and without knowing any details (and assuming it is not infinite and all-knowing, otherwise we can disprove it again already) we can't make a sure judgement on it. So for all intents and purposes, I reject the created gods of today, but do not reject the possibility of there being a god in existence at all. But will not be living my life at all as if there is one until proper evidence shows itself.

As for the Agnostic bit.
Agnostic simply means unknowing. Although culturally it's used to define atheists open to the idea of a God (or outright believe a god like entity) it is in fact a false usage of the word.
In practice, Agnostic's can also be religious, as long as they admit to not knowing something. For example.

Fundamental Religious: My God is true, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!
Agnostic Religious: I believe in God, but I do not know for sure.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe in God, but I cannot say for sure there is a God or not.
Fundamental Atheist: There is no God, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!

I actually am referring to Fundamental Naturalist Atheists, not Agnostics. I will happily concede that Agnosticism is not a religion.
Way I see it, in mathematical terms, Atheism is 0, and Agnosticism is N/A. Those two terms are very similar, but not identical.

It is however, accurate to say that Atheism is not a church.

Magic Magnum said As for the Agnostic bit.
Agnostic simply means unknowing. Although culturally it's used to define atheists open to the idea of a God (or outright believe a god like entity) it is in fact a false usage of the word.
In practice, Agnostic's can also be religious, as long as they admit to not knowing something. For example.

Fundamental Religious: My God is true, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!
Agnostic Religious: I believe in God, but I do not know for sure.
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe in God, but I cannot say for sure there is a God or not.
Fundamental Atheist: There is no God, and there is nothing you can say or show to change it!

I know the meaning of the word agnostic, but I guess I can't fault you for feeling it necessary to explain. Lots of people seem not to understand the meaning of the term, because I guess it's hard to find the definition of a word even on the internet.

Also, the four quadrant model of beliefs is typically stated with the paired antonyms of theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic. Substituting theist for religious is misleading because atheists can be religious too; for example, those "there absolutely is not god" atheists and religions like Buddhism that lack deities. Substituting gnostic for fundamental is misleading because fundamentalism is a particular brand of gnosticism and one can hold gnostic belief without being fundamentalist; for example, Christians who absolutely believe in the existence of their deity but do not think the Bible is the literally true word of that entity hold gnostic belief in said deity but are not fundamentalists.

Jorick said
Depends on the kind of atheist you're talking about, as there are a few different kinds. First you have to start off with a definition of religion. The definition I've always used is "a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." I'll just go ahead and apply this definition to the two major different kinds of atheism to show you what I mean.Those who say emphatically and as a factual statement that there is no god are people who consciously believe deities don't exist, and those are the ones for which you can make a case that their atheism is a religion. Holding such belief is, due to lack of actual evidence, just as faith-based as any traditional religion. They are claiming to know the truth of the cause/nature/purpose of the universe, but they are not omnipotent, thus it is belief and thus it is religious.However, there are plenty who do not believe in deities but do not believe that they absolutely do not exist; this is agnostic atheism, colloquially known simply as agnosticism, and it is not a religious belief because it is in truth the absence of belief. These types of atheists tend not to have beliefs about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they take the stance that it is impossible (whether permanently or just currently with our limited understanding and technology) to understand these things, that they are so far above human ken that it would be foolish to pretend to have the answers. This is the lack of beliefs stance that cause most atheists to call shenanigans on people calling atheism a religion, because this is the stance that most atheists (at least in my experience) actually take.Saying that all atheists consciously believe that deities do not exist would be like saying all Christians believe the Bible is made up of the literal and factual words of their deity. Those are both outlier positions, fundamentalism that is not representative of the majority in any way. It just so happens that fundamentalists of all kinds are very loud and controversial, thus they get a lot more attention than the average people of the group and give the appearance of great numbers.

I agree with basically everything you just said here. I have always argued that gnostic atheism is just as irrational as gnostic theism. Agnosticism in any form is typically the most rational stance since the existence or non-existence of God is not really provable.

Jorick said
I know the meaning of the word agnostic, but I guess I can't fault you for feeling it necessary to explain. Lots of people seem not to understand the meaning of the term, because I guess it's hard to find the definition of a word even on the internet. Also, the four quadrant model of beliefs is typically stated with the paired antonyms of theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic. Substituting theist for religious is misleading because atheists can be religious too; for example, those "there absolutely is not god" atheists and religions like Buddhism that lack deities. Substituting gnostic for fundamental is misleading because fundamentalism is a particular brand of gnosticism and one can hold gnostic belief without being fundamentalist; for example, Christians who absolutely believe in the existence of their deity but do not think the Bible is the literally true word of that entity hold gnostic belief in said deity but are not fundamentalists.

I had honestly just really learned the differences between Agnostic and Atheist only recently.
Before I always treated Agnostic as meaning "Believes in a God, just not any worshiped one".
And being someone who wasn't able to learn that until recently, and having spent several years in religious debates (From both sides) I felt the need to clarify since it is a term that many people have a misleading idea on.

This is all a pretty complex issue though, I grant you that.
Most likely we'll need even more terms and definitions than the LGBT community has (and they have a lot) in order to properly make sense of and understand all the different stances and such people take.

But so far what we have gathered is:

Agnostic = Unknowing
Gnostic = Certain Extreme Beliefs
Fundamentalist = All the Extreme Beliefs

If I'm understanding this right that is.

Jannah said
I agree with basically everything you just said here. I have always argued that gnostic atheism is just as irrational as gnostic theism. Agnosticism in any form is typically the most rational stance since the existence or non-existence of God is not really provable.

Agreed. Any stance of sure knowledge on an issue which has no evidence to back up one stance or another is utterly irrational.

Magic Magnum said I had honestly just really learned the differences between Agnostic and Atheist only recently.
Before I always treated Agnostic as meaning "Believes in a God, just not any worshiped one".
And being someone who wasn't able to learn that until recently, and having spent several years in religious debates (From both sides) I felt the need to clarify since it is a term that many people have a misleading idea on.

This is all a pretty complex issue though, I grant you that.
Most likely we'll need even more terms and definitions than the LGBT community has (and they have a lot) in order to properly make sense of and understand all the different stances and such people take.

But so far what we have gathered is:

Agnostic = Unknowing
Gnostic = Certain Extreme Beliefs
Fundamentalist = All the Extreme Beliefs

If I'm understanding this right that is.

Ah, yeah, mistaken definitions like that are kind of common, which is what I was saying in a snarky way in the first paragraph of my last post.

You've got it almost right.

Agnostic = Lacking certain knowledge; "I think so-and-so is true" is agnostic, it acknowledges that you do not know for sure if it's true.
Gnostic = Possessing certain knowledge; "So-and-so is true" is gnostic, it claims that you know for sure it's true.

These are antonyms that are directly related to one another. As I said in my last post, fundamentalism is just a certain kind of gnosticism.

Fundamentalism = Extremist stance in a wider belief, typically that every tenet is literally true and they brook no question. Expressions of fundamentalism are always gnostic statements, because fundamentalists think they are guided by infallible knowledge.

I don't see it as a spectrum on which fundamentalism could be a third point, because fundamentalism is a sub-type of gnosticism just as non-fundamental Christians who claim certain knowledge of the existence of their deity constitute another sub-type of gnosticism. The term "fundamentalism" is referring to how extreme one's beliefs are, not certainty or lack thereof of one's knowledge because it's a given that they are gnostic in their beliefs by the very nature of their beliefs. If you want to throw it into the mix, "fundamentalist" would need its own antonym to pair with it to make more labels along with the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic pairs, such as fundamental gnostic theist to describe those who view their holy book as literal truth. Then again, it'd be repetitive due to all fundamentalists being gnostic by nature and the likelihood that all those opposite of fundamentalists would probably be agnostic by nature. I think just using the term for those who are fundamentalists but not having a third tag to pin on non-fundamental gnostics works well enough.

We probably would need just as many labels as the LGBT community if we wanted to give one to every sub-type that exists within each of those four major quadrants of beliefs.

Jorick said We probably would need just as many labels as the LGBT community if we wanted to give one to every sub-type that exists within each of those four major quadrants of beliefs.

Poorly-time-stamped video parlor cutawaaaay!!!



I like to keep it simple. Yes or no will do. Do you believe in god? Yes? Column A please. No? Further request. Are you certain that there is no god? Yes? Column B. No? Column C.

Now you have your theist, your atheist, and your agnostic, all sorted out (I put them in alphabetical columns). Your move, science!!\\\

remind me never again to post in OT when the ambien kicks in. Spam can handle it. I'm gonna go

Jorick said
Agreed. Any stance of sure knowledge on an issue which has no evidence to back up one stance or another is utterly irrational.Ah, yeah, mistaken definitions like that are kind of common, which is what I was saying in a snarky way in the first paragraph of my last post.You've got it almost right.Agnostic = Lacking certain knowledge; "I think so-and-so is true" is agnostic, it acknowledges that you do not know for sure if it's true.Gnostic = Possessing certain knowledge; "So-and-so is true" is gnostic, it claims that you know for sure it's true.These are antonyms that are directly related to one another. As I said in my last post, fundamentalism is just a certain kind of gnosticism.Fundamentalism = Extremist stance in a wider belief, typically that every tenet is literally true and they brook no question. Expressions of fundamentalism are always gnostic statements, because fundamentalists think they are guided by infallible knowledge.I don't see it as a spectrum on which fundamentalism could be a third point, because fundamentalism is a sub-type of gnosticism just as non-fundamental Christians who claim certain knowledge of the existence of their deity constitute another sub-type of gnosticism. The term "fundamentalism" is referring to how extreme one's beliefs are, not certainty or lack thereof of one's knowledge because it's a given that they are gnostic in their beliefs by the very nature of their beliefs. If you want to throw it into the mix, "fundamentalist" would need its own antonym to pair with it to make more labels along with the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic pairs, such as fundamental gnostic theist to describe those who view their holy book as literal truth. Then again, it'd be repetitive due to all fundamentalists being gnostic by nature and the likelihood that all those opposite of fundamentalists would probably be agnostic by nature. I think just using the term for those who are fundamentalists but not having a third tag to pin on non-fundamental gnostics works well enough.We probably would need just as many labels as the LGBT community if we wanted to give one to every sub-type that exists within each of those four major quadrants of beliefs.

So to confirm I got this right.

Agnostic = Doesn't know
Gnostic = Does know
Fundamentalist = Extreme version of Gnostic

mdk said
Poorly-time-stamped video parlor cutawaaaay!!!I like to keep it simple. Do you believe in god? Yes? Column A please. No? Further request. Are you certain that there is no god? Yes? Column B. No? Column C. Now you have your theist, your atheist, and your agnostic, all sorted out (I put them in alphabetical columns). Your move, science!!\\\remind me never again to post in OT when the ambien kicks in. Spam can handle it. I'm gonna go

The very post you replied to, plus the posts before hand just said what Agnostic meant... and it's not in the way you're using it. :/

Agnostic = Doesn't know - Lacks full knowledge

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, claiming not to know for sure if there is a God or not.
You can also be an Agnostic Theist, not knowing for sure if your God is true but simply believing that he is.

I just wanted to chime in about the term definition of Gnostic. While Gnosticism has been described above as one who claims a deep knowledge, and that is very true, it is also a separate entity within religions as well as this categorical, well, label like it seems y'all are using it. Gnosticism does not really mean fundamentalist nor completely sold on an idea. Speaking to Christianity specifically, a Gnostic Christian would not be the majority and in fact has historically been separated as far from the Christian body as possible. Gnostic as a secular term pretty much works how I'm seeing y'all define it above. It just might be worth noting that gnosticism within faiths often means looking past the literal and seeking deeper, likely metaphorical meanings in the mythos of a faith-community. Again, keeping Christianity as a example to speak from, a Gnostic might see the world and the description of a Messiah as less a physical account of a man, and instead as an allegory meant to point a truth. Christianity lends well gnosticism too, what with a prime religious figure speaking almost entirely in allegory and metaphor and rarely, if ever, giving a straight answer. The idea is that the initiated are granted something more. I actually picked up a Gnostic Bible a couple months ago. While studying Judeo-Christian iconography and history I always found the Gnostics far more accepting and a generally compelling idea. Only now have I had the opportunity to read into it a bit more -- worth it if if you dig mythos.

Anyway, just wanted to point out the term is used in a few ways that hold loads of meaning. Defining terms definitely makes conversations clearer, it's also worth knowing that these terms do have lives and associations that could inform us too. Oh, actually I wanted to say that a major figure for Gnostic Christians is the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas, 'Allow me to Finger your Rib-hole' Thomas). Assigning absolute certainty under the title Gnostic with a representative like that seems... off. Granted of course, Christianity by no means owns the term. I'd suggest Gnosticism is the seeking of a knowledge that validates the symbolic, seeking it where others may not. It might not sound as clean, but I'd say it works.