Quote :

"It's not that agnostics are pussies to say god doesn't exist, they just come to the realization that god's existance is an unanswerable question."

Well, it's not "unanswerable". If Jesus walked in my room I would turn religious pretty quick. It's just impossible to prove the question false. But unless I have a good reason to think it's true, I don't give it more consideration than any other supernatural idea.

4/9/2006 1:03:25 PM

No, the question is unanswerable pending a hypothetical experiment or line of reasoning that would corroborate the theory of god's existence.

4/9/2006 1:14:12 PM

It's unanswerable, to me, given the data observed in my lifetime. This consistency leads me to believe it will be this way for the rest of my life.

4/9/2006 1:21:09 PM

where's that chart we were promised!?!

4/9/2006 1:25:51 PM

GDI FINE I'LL DO IT BRB

4/9/2006 1:35:13 PM

It's totally been 7 minutes wtf is the hold up

4/9/2006 1:42:19 PM

It had better be a jpg or that's 10 pnts off.

4/9/2006 2:02:51 PM

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2006 2:08:28 PM

So ppl who say god probably doesn't exist, just like ghosts probably don't exist, b/c they expect the burden of proof to be on the ones proclaiming the supernatural... they are just a subsection of areligious. I've met several areligious people, of the kind I just mentioned, who claim to be atheists, but I've never met an actual atheist.

I think so many people call themselves atheists, when by your chart technically they are not, is because areligious describes too broad of a group of which they are only a small part.

There is no term on that chart that describes people who won’t believe in the supernatural, until they see evidence. If the technical terminology could more accurately capture the kind of people I described, then I think that would eliminate a lot of the confusion that’s out there.

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : oh & the graphics are nice ]

4/9/2006 2:26:51 PM

mcdanger has three legs

4/9/2006 2:28:30 PM

Quote :

"There is no term on that chart that describes people who won’t believe in the supernatural, until they see evidence."

They're a sub-section of areligious. They're people with belief in the possibility of supernatural stuff who aren't members of a religion.

We call these people science fiction fans.

Quote :

"mcdanger has three legs "

Yes, yes... that's right

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2006 2:29:17 PM

That's not a leg.

4/9/2006 2:29:51 PM

THAT'S NO MOON

4/9/2006 2:31:55 PM

I almost said that instead.

For serious.

4/9/2006 2:34:24 PM

-10 for .gif

4/9/2006 2:53:16 PM

not areligious. I'm atheist. And no, I don't roll play either.

Mike loses on his drawing.

4/9/2006 3:02:47 PM

by the "knows everything" atheist seems to be defined as faith in the non-existence of god(s), rather than an absence of faith supernatural, which doesn’t really describe much of any one.

4/9/2006 3:06:04 PM

Why are you assuming that people need proof to believe one or the other? To me, it's just as much a matter of faith to believe in god as it is to NOT believe in god. You aren't given definite proof either way. If "faith" is defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," then atheists are taking their beliefs by faith as much as theists, aren't they?

Categorically saying that a lack of proof of god's existence denies his/her/its existence isn't a conclusive enough argument for me. The problem here is that most think of this as a binary argument (either god does or does not exist), where, if one can be proven wrong, the other must be right. That may or may not be true- for all I know, the world is run by little white mice.

I'm not waiting for proof; I think it's impossible to humans to be able to determine the existence or lack of a god/gods and therefore find this whole argument problematic.

4/9/2006 4:25:25 PM

Quote :

"kwsmith2: The belief that I do not know whether there is a God and the belief that the truth of God is unknowable are quite different, and the difference largely hinges on your perseption of knowledge and truth itself."

Two definitions, same word.

Either way, you're trapped as an agnostic. If you don't like it, make up a new word.

I never claimed that the two were the same, only that the same word encompasses both perceptual orientations. Simply put, atheists, like theists, have drawn a positive conclusion. Agnostics have not; whether because they believe it impossible to draw such a conclusion, or if it's simply because they have yet to draw a conclusion (but still believe it possible to do) is ultimately irrelevant. The same term applies.

4/9/2006 4:32:14 PM

Quote :

"by the "knows everything" atheist seems to be defined as faith in the non-existence of god(s), rather than an absence of faith supernatural, which doesn’t really describe much of any one."

There are plenty of people who believe there is no god. This is atheism. I don't understand what's not getting through to you, here. Regardless of how many people the term applies to, the term stands. Atheists believe in the non-existence of god(s).

Quote :

"not areligious. I'm atheist."

You're technically both (unless you're part of something like Buddhism but I don't really think you are).

I, on the other hand, am an agnostic. I am areligious, but not atheist.

4/9/2006 4:52:34 PM

Quote :

"McDanger: Atheists believe in the non-existence of god(s)."

Postscript:

And the existence or absence of faith involved in drawing that conclusion does not affect the terminology at all.

4/9/2006 7:30:31 PM

What do you call someone who thinks like a theist, but when people ask, they say they're agnostic?

4/9/2006 7:38:37 PM

Quote :

"thinks like a theist"

in what way...

4/9/2006 7:41:19 PM

The general idea that there is something more powerful that "inspired" humanity, but not necessarily the particular god of any particular belief system.

4/9/2006 7:47:15 PM

Can you actually still have a question like that?

Read the damn thread

Fuck

4/9/2006 7:48:16 PM

I don't know how to read

Can you summarize it for me?

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 7:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2006 7:50:08 PM

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 7:51 PM. Reason : IT DOESNT GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS]

4/9/2006 7:50:52 PM

That picture lumps general theists in with religious people like Christians and Muslims and stuff.

I guess you could maybe call them areligious.

4/9/2006 7:55:42 PM

I thought about that. You can't be an areligious theist -- a theist point of view would qualify as a religion I think

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2006 7:57:53 PM

Quote :

"The general idea that there is something more powerful that "inspired" humanity, but not necessarily the particular god of any particular belief system."

I'd go with areligious agnostic.

Do you see a flaw?

4/9/2006 8:29:51 PM

you should add a moby CD to the agnostic section.

4/9/2006 8:43:21 PM

Quote :

"I'd go with areligious agnostic. Do you see a flaw?"

It's redundant?

Humans are flawed beings though. Most people willfully or inadvertently (during emotional periods of irrationality) will do things or think things outside of their belief system.

When otherwise atheistic/agnostic/areligious people say things like "good luck" and stuff like that.

[Edited on April 9, 2006 at 8:59 PM. Reason : *above post may be complete BS]

4/9/2006 8:58:36 PM

Quote :

"It's redundant?"

Yeah it kind of is. Agnostics are areligious by nature, it's implied in the term.

4/9/2006 9:07:00 PM

I don't know about redundant. What if an agnostic chose to regularly pray to (for lack of a better word) a deity he wasn't entirely sure existed?

4/9/2006 9:44:19 PM

this picture needs to be in newspapers across the land.

4/9/2006 9:45:45 PM

you think someone could tell which group the person who drew it was in had they not read this thread?

4/9/2006 9:52:30 PM

I wouldn't be surprised whichever way it turned out.

4/9/2006 11:46:25 PM

Quote :

" What if an agnostic chose to regularly pray to (for lack of a better word) a deity he wasn't entirely sure existed?"

He would be a typical Christian?

4/10/2006 12:22:51 AM

^ I'd be willing to bet less typical than that post.

4/10/2006 12:31:42 AM

4/10/2006 12:38:14 AM

Quote :

"What do you call someone who thinks like a theist, but when people ask, they say they're agnostic?"

As to your previous question as to what category wou would fall under, i would agree that it could be construed as areligious in the instance of a lack of organized religion, although i have to disagree that it would be agnostic because you dont claim to not know if there is a deity, you just dont claim to know what to classify that deity as. So i would have to dissagree with mcdanger and say that you can be an areligious theist because religion and theology arent always the same or all inclusive, an example would be his claim of budhists as religious agnostics, so if it can go one way there can always be an exception the other way. theism doesnt necissarily have to fall into religion because religion is by default characterized, whereas theism is just the belief in a higher power.
Although all of this discussion is arbitrary because these are all just words generated to classify things and as is consistant of all arbitrary definitions there are always noncharacterizable items/people.

4/10/2006 2:33:36 PM

Religion --

Quote :

" 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. "

You cannot be an areligious theist.

4/10/2006 5:55:23 PM

president bush is an areligious theist
believes in god while not being influenced by religion.

4/10/2006 7:33:48 PM

^^

Quote :

"1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

Since he never claimed actual reverence for any deity, only that he thought it exsisted, and his beliefs are not institutionalized he can easily be classified as areligious. Also the lack of a specific system for beleif would also yield said system. Although i dont claim to know his oppinions i am just showing you the flaw in your logic

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2006 11:10:46 PM

^^ bush is the most blatantly obvious religious president in living memory. maybe ever. look at who he surrounds himself with.

and to McD: a person can be a theist, and be non-religious ('areligious'). I know of many Jews and Christians who (1) technically believed in their god, but (2) didnt practice religion in any form -- no worship, no ritual, no observances, no behavior.

the most common, imo, seems to be the "non-practicing catholic". perhaps they feel like they will go back to church one day when their old, confess, and do a bazillion hail marys and pray the rosarys, and slip in to heaven right as the gate is swinging shut. i dont know. but whatever, they sure arent religious now.

4/11/2006 2:00:10 AM

I'm going to stop giving myself an ulcer over this.

I've already been as explicit as I possibly can about the classifications and why they exist. Just read what I've already posted and you can easily project my likely response.

Religion does not have to be institutionalized, it can be personal. Just read the definitions.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 7:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2006 6:56:05 AM

The more I think about it, the more I think you probably can be an areligious theist -- this doesn't suggest whether you're a part of an "organized" religion or not, but just that you lack reverence/worship of the deity or deities you believe in.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 7:49 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2006 7:49:01 AM

^thats what i was tryin to go for.. i just was tryin to cover all bases

4/11/2006 10:18:48 AM

Yeah we were both partially right.

I didn't pay attention to the "and" and you didn't pay attention to the "or".

4/11/2006 10:20:40 AM

Supplanter:

Quote :

"okay? whats the appropriate term for someone who doesn't believe in god, just like they don't believe in ghosts, but would start believing in god if presented with evidence? give me a one word answer… agnostic or atheist and that will clear up all the confusion for me. Give me more than a one word answer and it wont clear it up."

McDanger:

Quote :

"areligious"

MCDanger:

Quote :

"The more I think about it, the more I think you probably can be an areligious theist "

Everyone I know who calls themselves an atheist b/c they don't believe in the supernatural without evidence first in the way I earlier mentioned are actually areligious according to you. (although i've never met in person someone who has faith that there definitely is no god which might be what it takes to be technically an atheist). But everyone would be atheist I know is now grouped in with this type of theist you just mention. Areligious is such a broad term as to be nearly useless, and atheist doesn't describe much of anyone - especially not people who call themselves atheists. However technically right you are about the terms… they’re still horrible terms.

I think the best bet is to let people go on calling themselves by whatever term they want, since for many of them there are no specific terms that capture what they believe... and then they can qualify it with an explanation. And if in your head you have to file them under a different name than the category they picked, well thats alright, since they still qualified it with an explanation.

4/11/2006 11:06:44 AM