Why are atheist and agnostic considered the same in recent threads?

[amo_mea_filiis.]

My family and I are atheist. I do not believe in the existance of any god or gods, nor will I claim that they absolutely do not exist. It isn't possible for me to prove without a doubt that something doesn't exist. If a god or gods can be proven by using something other than faith, I have no problems accepting it, but unless that ever happens we live life to the fullest since it's all we got!

 

My understanding of agnostic is a belief that "something" does exist, but may not have a name, or some may believe in a god. (if you are agnostic, please chime in).

 

Yes, this issue is far from life or death, but I wanted to get it out there after seeing a bunch of atheist/agnostic replies. :D

[Mommy22alyns]

IIRC, agnostics say we can't know for sure. A- = without, gnos- = knowledge.

[ocelotmom]

My understanding is that your view is more of an agnostic view, while an atheist would flat-out believe that no god/gods/supernatural force exists.

[swimmermom3]

Perhaps we are lumped together in the same kettle by certain religious factions? My dh believes that death is the end and I have never known him to pray to or for anything. He is a kind-hearted, pay-it-forward kind of guy but wouldn't claim to have an inner-life. Atheist. I have a tendency to go with the more karmic-energy, all things are connected kind of thinking and have been known to thank the goddess, god, mother earth when sitting on a rock in a river, drinking coffee under a blue sky. Agnostic.

[kiana]

My understanding of agnostic is a belief that "something" does exist, but may not have a name, or some may believe in a god. (if you are agnostic, please chime in).

 

I don't know, maybe people use it this way, but I've always seen it used more in a sense of the absence or presence of a divine being being unknowable. However, I looked up the wikipedia article and it lists several different kinds of agnosticism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

 

For example, the belief that something DOES exist, would be more like agnostic theism, whereas the belief you originally listed as yours seems more along the lines of agnostic atheism.

 

There are several others listed, it's rather interesting reading.

[mytwomonkeys]

Perhaps we are lumped together in the same kettle by certain religious factions? My dh believes that death is the end and I have never known him to pray to or for anything. He is a kind-hearted, pay-it-forward kind of guy but wouldn't claim to have an inner-life. Atheist. I have a tendency to go with the more karmic-energy, all things are connected kind of thinking and have been known to thank the goddess, god, mother earth when sitting on a rock in a river, drinking coffee under a blue sky. Agnostic.

 

that was always my interpretation of the two as well.

 

 

interesting thread. i didn't realize there were variations of agnosticism.

[kalanamak]

 

My understanding of agnostic is a belief that "something" does exist, but may not have a name, or some may believe in a god. (if you are agnostic, please chime in).

 

 

I have never heard this definition. Agnostic has always meant, to me, A (without) Gnosis (spiritual knowledge), meaning they don't know. They don't believe something exists, they believe, thus far, nothing is provable.

 

I am an agnostic of that ilk, act as if there is no deity, and apply the moniker "Apathist" to myself. I don't care if there is a deity. It is a non-issue to me, other than I am politically wary of religions, as people like me have been burned for this, in the past. To me, religions are a human contrivance, like language: they rise, they fall, they evolve, they are taught to the young, who sometimes learn another one, they have geographical areas, etc. But it is simply not provable. Hence agnostic.

 

Hubby is a different kind of agnostic. He was a Christian who has lost his faith. He HOPES the worldview of his childhood is correct, but he no longer has faith and feels it is unprovable. It makes him sad to think there is no central, omnipotent deity. It makes me sad to think there would be one watching all the suffering in life. Both agnostics, both simply "without knowledge". But one hopes and the other doesn't bother to.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."
   

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of indiviudals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins considers himself to be a '6'.

 

Bolded is where I fall and what I believe.

[Geek]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of indiviudals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins considers himself to be a '6'.

 

Bolded is where I fall and what I believe.

Oh, good. I'll just say "what she said" and save time. :D

 

I'm a 6. My dad was a 5 and my mom was/is a 1. It was interesting in that house growing up.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Geek

[Just Robyn]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

 

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of indiviudals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins considers himself to be a '6'.

 

Bolded is where I fall and what I believe.

 

Yep. Same here, and that goes for all the atheists I know/have known.

[nmoira]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of indiviudals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins considers himself to be a '6'.

 

Bolded is where I fall and what I believe.

I know it's not a poll, but I'm also a "6".

[Jenny in Florida]

My family and I are atheist. I do not believe in the existance of any god or gods, nor will I claim that they absolutely do not exist. It isn't possible for me to prove without a doubt that something doesn't exist. If a god or gods can be proven by using something other than faith, I have no problems accepting it, but unless that ever happens we live life to the fullest since it's all we got!

 

Technically, this sounds like an agnostic position.

 

Here's the definition from Merriam Webster:

 

A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god .

[secular_mom]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

 

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of indiviudals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins considers himself to be a '6'.

 

Bolded is where I fall and what I believe.

:iagree:I'm a 6.

[Audrey]

I know it's not a poll, but I'm also a "6".

 

 

6 is where I am, too, except I would say "they" instead of "he" as the pronoun replacing God. Dawkins' paradigm is a bit too Christocentric, IMO. I disbelieve in all gods equally.

[Just Robyn]

Technically, this sounds like an agnostic position.

 

Here's the definition from Merriam Webster:

 

A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god .

 

There is a difference. If you ask an agnostic if they believe a god or gods exist they would say they they don't know, are unsure, that it is "unknowable" or something along those lines (this has been my experience anyway, agnostics feel free to declare how much you differ here). If you ask as atheist they will say no. I do not believe that a squirrel will fall through my roof tomorrow. I can't prove it until tomorrow happens, but I really don't think that will happen. I am not unsure about whether this event will occur; it won't. I'm just willing to admit that there is as of yet no proof either way, and I'm willing to change my mind and admit I'm wrong if it happens.

Edited April 3, 2011 by crstarlette

[Just Robyn]

6 is where I am, too, except I would say "they" instead of "he" as the pronoun replacing God. Dawkins' paradigm is a bit too Christocentric, IMO. I disbelieve in all gods equally.

 

That's a really good point. Thank you for that.

[Mrs_JWM]

Marshall Brain has a website called Why Won't God Heal Amputees - http://WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com/ . One portion of it deals with the problem of the term "athiest."

 

http://WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com/no-atheists.htm

 

He writes, "There is no reason to define ourselves as the opposite of theists because theists are delusional. The word 'atheist' gives theists way too much credit. The new name that I would like to propose is Rational Person."

 

If you start seeing this term in recent threads, you'll know I'm there!

Edited April 3, 2011 by Mrs_JWM
Just because...

[Pretty in Pink]

I think that a lot of people (not necessarily here on these boards; I am thinking more of people that I know IRL) just don't know the difference between the two, or believe that they are the same thing.

[JeneralMom]

Below is from wikipedia- and how I view everything.

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

 

 

 

I am a 6, my father and brother (and his family) are 7

[Peela]

6 is where I am, too, except I would say "they" instead of "he" as the pronoun replacing God. Dawkins' paradigm is a bit too Christocentric, IMO. I disbelieve in all gods equally.

 

Yes, to me it is all still relative to Christianity- it is a reaction to it. What if you are not in reaction to Christianity? The whole thing is irrelevant. God, no God- both are irrelevant- and for me, neither are true, or both are true.

To me what you refer to by the word God is more important- for me, I can relate to your God if I put it in terms of Nature or Everything- as shamans might. But we're not talking the same God.

[nmoira]

 

Dawkins' paradigm is a bit too Christocentric, IMO. I disbelieve in all gods equally.

Good point. :001_smile:

[secular_mom]

There is a difference. If you ask an agnostic if they believe a god or gods exist they would say they they don't know, are unsure, that it is "unknowable" or something along those lines (this has been my experience anyway, agnostics feel free to declare how much you differ here). If you ask as atheist they will say no. I do not believe that a squirrel will fall through my roof tomorrow. I can't prove it until tomorrow happens, but I really don't think that will happen. I am not unsure about whether this event will occur; it won't. I'm just willing to admit that there is as of yet no proof either way, and I'm willing to change my mind and admit I'm wrong if it happens.

So are you agnostic? Are you saying that atheists are not willing to change their mind about the existence of a god if one shows up? Just curious.

[Rosie_0801]

I disbelieve in all gods equally.

 

I like the lack of discrimination :lol:

 

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

He writes, "There is no reason to define ourselves as the opposite of theists because theists are delusional. The word 'atheist' gives theists way too much credit. The new name that I would like to propose is Rational Person."

 

If you start seeing this term in recent threads, you'll know I'm there!

 

I don't think that's fair. If a person experiences God (any of them) they would be irrational to disbelieve.

 

I believe in ghosts. It annoys me that I do, because it seems too ridiculous to be true. However, I have experienced one, so I can't help it. People believing in anything supernatural are only believing in what they consider to be the best explanation they have. I don't think that is irrational. I think that is sensible.

 

Rosie

[Mrs Mungo]

Atheist=person who doesn't believe in God or god(s)/goddess(es)

Agnostic=person who is fairly sure of the above, but is not ready to say one way or the other for sure

 

If you believe in *something*, but are not sure what, then you are usually called a deist.

[Rosie_0801]

I didn't even answer the original question and I meant to!

 

I think atheist and agnostic are being treated in the same way in recent threads because people asking questions are wanting information from people who don't identify as following one of the major world religions. For those purposes, atheists, agnostics, deists and a fair few of the resident pagans are the target audience.

 

This makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if it does to anyone else.

 

Rosie

[Audrey]

Yes, to me it is all still relative to Christianity- it is a reaction to it. What if you are not in reaction to Christianity? The whole thing is irrelevant. God, no God- both are irrelevant- and for me, neither are true, or both are true.

To me what you refer to by the word God is more important- for me, I can relate to your God if I put it in terms of Nature or Everything- as shamans might. But we're not talking the same God.[/QUOTE]

 

This is true for me as well. I tend to reframe people's descriptions of their religious experiences in this way. Then, I can relate to them honestly, because I can't honestly relate to a God (capital G) experience, or even a gods (general g) experience.

 

I don't begrudge anyone their interpretation of Nature/Cosmos/Everything, whether they interpret that as a god or something else. A question in another thread had asked about giving thanks. I offer a general thanks to the Cosmos (that's what I call "Everything"). I even "worship" it, in a sense, by celebrating Nature, offering thanks to the Cosmos, etc.

 

I still don't believe in any gods, but I certainly do appreciate the Universe in which I'm living.

[Geek]

I don't think that's fair. If a person experiences God (any of them) they would be irrational to disbelieve.

 

I believe in ghosts. It annoys me that I do, because it seems too ridiculous to be true. However, I have experienced one, so I can't help it. People believing in anything supernatural are only believing in what they consider to be the best explanation they have. I don't think that is irrational. I think that is sensible.

 

Rosie

I'm inclined to agree, as long as the person in question is honestly seeking alternate explanations. You seem like a thoughtful person to me so I'd like to think you're honest with yourself on this issue.

 

I believed in the supernatural for years because I had experienced a lot of it. I considered belief in those various things to be rational because I had no other way of explaining it, forcing a dichotomy of "it's real" or "I'm crazy". Once a friend showed me that there were other options other than these two extremes by helping me to explore the nature of the word "real", I approached this very differently and have since found solid, scientific alternate explanations for 95% of my experiences.

 

As for the other 5%, I hold those tentatively like many things in life, not using them for evidence one way or the other. Because I have honestly sought alternate explanations, I would be irrational to totally discount these experiences. Alternatively, I would also be irrational to accept them at face value given the dearth of supportive, objective evidence. I'm quite agnostic about the 5% because I'm not sure what to do with those experiences, so I simply place them in context with the whole of my life and experiences and act accordingly. Because I now place the burden of proof at the feet of belief and not non-belief, my default position is to live as though a future non-supernatural explanation will be found.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Geek

[Rosie_0801]

I'm inclined to agree, as long as the person in question is honestly seeking alternate explanations. You seem like a thoughtful person to me so I'd like to think you're honest with yourself on this issue.

 

I believed in the supernatural for years because I had experienced a lot of it. I considered belief in those various things to be rational because I had no other way of explaining it, forcing a dichotomy of "it's real" or "I'm crazy". Once a friend showed me that there were other options other than these two extremes by helping me to explore the nature of the word "real", I approached this very differently and have since found solid, scientific alternate explanations for 95% of my experiences.

 

Seeking? I don't know about seeking. Figuring how how the ghostie girl in my old house was something else isn't really high on my list of things to do. Trying to figure out Latin so I don't have to keep crying to Ester Maria and booking my car in for new tyres is atm.

 

Now if you came over and said, "Huh, I just read your post about that ghostie girl. I totally rekon I can replicate that," I'd say "bring it on!"

 

However, despite being a thoughtful type (;)) I don't think it's very important whether ghosties are real or not. If my experience could be explained well enough scientifically to convince me that science is right on this point, my life wouldn't change. My belief of "there seems to be ghosties because I met one" would change to "there probably isn't ghosties because Geek from the WTM board can make a ghostie who looked just the same with a torch and a piece of acetate sheet. Probably no one was outside my lounge room window with a torch and a piece of acetate, but if it can be done that way, it's quite possible that the light in the carpark flicked in the right way."

 

It's not important to me whether deities are real or not either. I'm living my life this way for good reasons, and if a god turned up in my lounge room right now and complained about it, after getting over the shock, I can see my mother's words coming out in the form of "Well you aren't the only one in the world!" My belief in gods would change, but my behaviour wouldn't.

 

I understand other people's perspectives, but from my own, I think everyone has better things to do than standing on high alert trying to find something to disprove their current views on the supernatural. If you believe in a deity and it gives you comfort and inspires you to do well, spiffy. If you don't believe in a deity and it gives you comfort and inspires you to do well, spiffy. If you hold one of these viewpoints and it makes you feel like you are trying to beat your square peg self into a round hole, go and find something that will give you comfort and inspire you.

 

If I'm wrong and there really is a god and a hell, my mother's words come back again: "You need to take responsibility and take the consequences of your actions!" Not that I would have any choice but to do that, I'm sure :lol:

 

To summarise: I'm right there with Marcus Aurelius. Smart dude ;)

 

Rosie

Edited April 4, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[jujsky]

I don't know, maybe people use it this way, but I've always seen it used more in a sense of the absence or presence of a divine being being unknowable. However, I looked up the wikipedia article and it lists several different kinds of agnosticism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

 

For example, the belief that something DOES exist, would be more like agnostic theism, whereas the belief you originally listed as yours seems more along the lines of agnostic atheism.

 

There are several others listed, it's rather interesting reading.

 

Thank you for teaching me something I didn't know. I always considered myself an agnostic, but I guess I'm more of an agnostic theist :D I do believe there is something out there and some reason for it all -- I just don't know who or what it is.

[Geek]

Seeking? I don't know about seeking. Figuring how how the ghostie girl in my old house was something else isn't really high on my list of things to do. Trying to figure out Latin so I don't have to keep crying to Ester Maria and booking my car in for new tyres is atm.

 

Now if you came over and said, "Huh, I just read your post about that ghostie girl. I totally rekon I can replicate that," I'd say "bring it on!"

 

However, despite being a thoughtful type (;)) I don't think it's very important whether ghosties are real or not. If my experience could be explained well enough scientifically to convince me that science is right on this point, my life wouldn't change. My belief of "there seems to be ghosties because I met one" would change to "there probably isn't ghosties because Geek from the WTM board can make a ghostie who looked just the same with a torch and a piece of acetate sheet. Probably no one was outside my lounge room window with a torch and a piece of acetate, but if it can be done that way, it's quite possible that the light in the carpark flicked in the right way."

 

It's not important to me whether deities are real or not either. I'm living my life this way for good reasons, and if a god turned up in my lounge room right now and complained about it, after getting over the shock, I can see my mother's words coming out in the form of "Well you aren't the only one in the world!" My belief in gods would change, but my behaviour wouldn't.

 

I understand other people's perspectives, but from my own, I think everyone has better things to do than standing on high alert trying to find something to disprove their current views on the supernatural. If you believe in a deity and it gives you comfort and inspires you to do well, spiffy. If you don't believe in a deity and it gives you comfort and inspires you to do well, spiffy. If you hold one of these viewpoints and it makes you feel like you are trying to beat your square peg self into a round hole, go and find something that will give you comfort and inspire you.

 

If I'm wrong and there really is a god and a hell, my mother's words come back again: "You need to take responsibility and take the consequences of your actions!" Not that I would have any choice but to do that, I'm sure :lol:

 

To summarise: I'm right there with Marcus Aurelius. Smart dude ;)

 

Rosie

I really enjoyed reading all of this, Rosie. I have a feeling we'd get on, especially since we wouldn't agree on everything but we'd agree on enough.

 

I'd enjoy hearing your ghostie girl story. Have you shared it here somewhere?

[IsabelC]

Without going into the merits of the various proposed definitions, it is basic psychology that is to blame for how similar or different we think things are.

 

In a nutshell, the more different or unfamiliar something/someone is from you, the more 'all the same' those things/people will appear to you. If you look at animals, for example, most of us can readily tell the difference between a poodle and a labrador in one glance, because dogs are quite like us (large mammals) and we have seen lots of them. We're so familiar with dogs that we can tell a dog we know from another of the same breed. We might find it harder to tell a two toed sloth from a three toed sloth, because although they are still relatively similar to us, we don't see them often. And few of us would be able to tell Tim the sloth and Tom the sloth apart, if they are both a similar age and size. Move further away from humans and look at fish. Sure, they're all different if you look closely, but we're hard pressed to recognize an individual from others of the same size and species. By the time we get to ants, they all look the same. But probably if ants had the cognitive ability to ponder the physical characteristics of humans, they would think we all looked the same, and fail to notice differences in sex, age, size, skin color etc.

 

It's pretty much the same story with religious and philosophical views. If you're a person with a strong belief in a god, especially if most of those you spend time with share that faith, the idea of not worshiping your god will be somewhat foreign to your mind. If you're a missionary type who likes sharing your faith and hopes to win converts, you might possibly be interested in how certain the other person is about your god's non existence, as a way of gauging how receptive they might be to discussing it with you, but otherwise, it's not that important.

 

It's the same the other way, of course. How many people here understand the differences between all the forms of Buddhism, for example? Probably only Buddhists. And personally, as a non religious person, I could tell you about what I believe with pinpoint accuracy, but I'm not so good on the niceties of others' beliefs. I know there are endless permutations of Christianity, and I could probably explain quite a few of them if I had to, but in another way, they all look pretty much the same to me.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Hotdrink

[Rosie_0801]

I really enjoyed reading all of this, Rosie. I have a feeling we'd get on, especially since we wouldn't agree on everything but we'd agree on enough.

 

I've never met anyone who holds the same spiritual beliefs as I do, so I don't see why that should stop us getting along :lol: Dh's views have migrated closer to mine than they once were, but they are still different in ways that I can see being major problems for other people. We both agree that it doesn't matter what you are, as long as you're safe and polite.

 

I'd enjoy hearing your ghostie girl story. Have you shared it here somewhere?

 

Yeah I did. I'm not sure where though. Type in my name and "ghostie girl" and see what comes up? I'd find it for you except my internet is as dodgy as can be at the moment and it could take an hour to get this to post.

 

Rosie

[IsabelC]

Rosie, I love your post (even though I don't believe that the experiences of eyewitnesses constitute proof of supernatural phenomena).

 

I don't accept Dawkins' scale either, because it retains the idea that my worldview has to be defined by god/s. There needs to be an option to fit those people for whom deities are totally irrelevant to their beliefs, values and lifestyle. I don't spend much time and effort on having a conviction that no gods exist, just as I don't spend time and effort investigating ghosts, fairies or aliens. I just live my life that way I believe is right, and if any god/dess (or a ghost or a leprechaun) should happen to turn up, I'll take that into account when it happens. So I would prefer to be called a non-theist rather than an atheist, if I really had to have a label on that particular spectrum.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Hotdrink

[Rosie_0801]

Rosie, I love your post (even though I don't believe that the experiences of eyewitnesses constitute proof of supernatural phenomena).

 

Neither do I. But in science, the best they do is prove beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think any of us can prove anything abstract any better than "this seems to be the best answer so I'll stick with it until one that seems better shows up."

 

:)

Rosie

[Night Elf]

I don't accept Dawkins' scale either, because it retains the idea that my worldview has to be defined by god/s. There needs to be an option to fit those people for whom deities are totally irrelevant to their beliefs, values and lifestyle. I don't spend much time and effort on having a conviction that no gods exist, just as I don't spend time and effort investigating ghosts, fairies or aliens. I just live my life that way I believe is right, and if any god/dess (or a ghost or a leprechaun) should happen to turn up, I'll take that into account when it happens. So I would prefer to be called a non-theist rather than an atheist, if I really had to have a label on that particular spectrum.

 

I like this. But I guess for me, the fact that it's centered around the definition of an existence of a god is relevant for me because I've spent my life around the either YES or NO factions.

 

If I had to define myself, I like my DH's self-label. He calls himself an apathetic agnostic. We don't know and we don't really care.