Confucianism??

[Ninot]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Indeed - You are either a true atheist or semi-believer.

For such an in-between, the term is called 'agnostic' I believe...

....

correct!

I myself am an agnostic. I don't believe in anything in perticular.

My uncle is a devout Atheist. He argues with Christians, trying to convince them that there is indeed no God. He believes, in that he believes there is no God.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Indeed - You are either a true atheist or semi-believer.

For such an in-between, the term is called 'agnostic' I believe...

....

Agnosticism is soft atheism, in general, as opposed to hard atheism, which is the positive belief that there is no divine.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Agnosticism is soft atheism, in general, as opposed to hard atheism, which is the positive belief that there is no divine.

Uhm, not really.

Atheism is the religion of believing in the absence of God.

Agnosticism is a lack of religion entirely.

As an Agnostic, I don't believe in God(s), or the lack thereof.

From Dictionary.com Word History

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge.

[Solver]

You can't just say whether atheism or agnosticism is lack of religion or not. Atheists assert, though, that there is no God, while agnostics say that we can never know if there is a God or not.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ninot

Atheism is the religion of believing in the absence of God.

Atheism is not a religion- although it can be a view about aspects of religions.

It has no prophets, no holy books, no sacred texts of any kind, no priesthood, no temples or churches or sacred sites, no rituals, entails making no sacrifices or pledging tithes, no belief in a supernatural being or beings, no belief in in a supernatural cause for humanity or existence.

You will not need to enforce special dietary requirements to be an atheist, or have part of your body surgically (or otherwise) removed or altered. There are no initiation rites, or special ceremonies requiring bodily privation or mass hypnosis.

You will not need to mark your body with ash, or paint, or blood, nor scar it.

Atheism is what it says.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ninot
Atheism is the religion of believing in the absence of God.

Sorry, but that is rubbish.

Atheism is the choice of not following a religion or any god.

Saying that atheism is a religion is akin to commenting on a bald man's hairstlye.

[Locutus]

Saying agnosticism is a weaker form of atheism or that atheism is a believe system is bull. Atheism just asserts that there is no divine power, nothing more and nothing less. This can in some cases be based on a belief, but it can just as easily be based on facts and knowledge. There simply is no clue of any kind to the existance of any kind of divine power, just as there is no clue to the existance of pink invisible unicorns or a RL Harry Potter or Captain Kirk. Is anyone who says Harry Potter doesn't really exist just 'holding a belief'? Of course not, such a person is basing that assertion on the factual knowledge that there are no real clues for the existance of a wizard prodigy with a big scar on his forehead, it's just a story someone once made up. The same applies to religion: the only 'clues' to the existance of any divine power are stories made up by people (just much older stories). You can choose to believe in those stories as millions of people have throughout history (and there's nothing wrong with that), but just because you view those stories as mere stories doesn't mean you're holding the believe that the opposite of those stories is true.

I am an atheist. I also don't 'believe' in anything. Those statements don't necessarily mean the same thing, but they don't exclude each other either. I rely on knowledge and facts. That means a lot of questions simply can't be answered, just because we don't know and can't explain a lot of things (yet). But there's not the remotest glimmer of a clue that there might exist such a thing as a divine power. I 'believe' in the absence of a divine power no more than I 'believe' in the absence of Ducktown or Hogwarts or the USS Enterprise.

[Ninot]

I don't mean any offence to anyone. I understand the sensitivities of beliefs or semi-beliefs or lack of beliefs.

I'm just going by the dictionary and what i've witnessed.

by the dictionary, Atheism is a belief in no god. Dictionary.com has it as

a·the·ism n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

And Agnosticism is more along the lines of...

ag·nos·ti·cism
n.
1. doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

From that, I draw the conclusion that atheism is a belief in a lack of God. I know that thats exactly how my uncle sees it atleast.

I really don't wanna step on toes with any more comments that might go to far. I think i did with how i defined Agnosticism before.

Sorry if I disturbed anyone.

[Solver]

Atheism may often be defined as belief in no god or belief that there is no god, but an atheist will never say that he believes there is no god. An atheist will much more likely say what Locutus did above - that he knows that there is no god because there is no evidece and actual clues to the existence of god.

[Locutus]

That dictionary you mention defines both atheism and agnosticism as beliefs. I think you will have a hard time finding many agnosticists or atheists that would agree with that (I'm sure there are some, but they will be a minority), so those are just very poor definitions.

My own dictionary (Van Dale (Dutch)) defines atheism as "a view of life which asserts the non-existance of a god" and agnosticism as "a view of life which asserts that the first origin of things (God, the absolute) cannot be known", where the Dutch word for "view of life" ('levensbeschouwing') is very generic in nature and can refer to both religious and non-religious viewpoins/philosphies/whatever. A prominent German dictionary (http://www.dwds.de/) uses 'Weltanschauung', which has the same meaning, as well as 'philosophische Lehre' ('philosophical doctrine' -- which is also how my French dictionary describes the terms: 'doctrine philosophique'). I think a lot more atheists and agnosticists would be able to find themselves in those definitions than in the ones from dictionary.com.

[Solver]

In the same way, my Latvian dictionary:

Atheism: "A view that scientifically rejects the existence of god and other supernatural powers; also abstinence from religious beliefs".

Agnosticism: "A phiolosphical view that rejects the possibility of knowing the absolute truth".

My copy of Ozhegov's Russian dictionary:

Atheism: "Denial of existence of a god, rejection of religious beliefs".

Agnosticism: either not in or I don't know how it's spelled in Russian.

My german dictionary says Atheism is a "scientific denial of existence of any god or gods".

[Ninot]

my dictionary was www.dictionary.com (i'm at work, no dictionaries around really)

www.dictionary.com has The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as its source.

Looking at all the definitions posted, i dont see that much difference in meaning, just how we are interpretting it, *Edit* or the dictionaries we chose.

*edit* and yeah, i don't wanna tell anyone to interpret anything (further than I might have already). So i'm gonna stop my part of threadjacking right here.

[TechWins]

taken directly from a paper I wrote:

Agnosticism:
Agnosticism literally means “now know” but theoretically it provides the notion that the existence of a god cannot be proved or disproved. The term claims there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the confirmation or the denial of a god. In recent centuries the belief has become popular with the scientific community and this can be seen through the words of Michael Molloy – “The English biologist T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), who coined the term, was of the opinion that the existence of God could be neither proven nor disproven from a scientific point of view… It is a view that is commonly held today by scientifically minded people, because it accommodates the study and teaching of science without reference to God or gods.” (Experiencing the World’s Religions, p508) Agnosticism enables the scientific community to concentrate specifically on science at-hand without intervening in the topic of religion. Science may appear to follow the less garnered position of atheism but a clear stance of agnosticism clearly negates that.

Atheism:
Atheism holds the exact opposite premise of theism (the belief in a god). Although differing from agnosticism, atheism believes strictly that there is not the existence of a god. Garth Kemerling elucidates this point of atheism – “Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.” (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe) However, while, an atheist does not believe in a particular god it does not imply an atheist also denounces religion. For instance, Buddhism at its heart is non-theistic (or in a sense atheistic) but it still remains that Buddhism is a religion. The most recognized use of atheism came from the 19th Century philosopher Karl Marx, whom utilized his atheistic beliefs as a significant element of his political theories. Apart from atheism, in its disbelief of a deity, is the polar opposite -- pantheism.


On a side note: atheists or atheism may be denote that it does not believe in a higher power, deity, god, or gods but not necessarily that it can be proven. I believe this is a loose connotation of atheism and for language purposes should not exist.


Although I did not read all of the past few posts in detail, I think my writings go right along with Locutus's explanation of agnosticism and atheism.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by TechWins

Garth Kemerling elucidates this point of atheism – “Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.”

That's an interesting definition of atheism.

How do you 'prove' the non-existence of something, especially something which is alleged not to operate or exist by the natural laws of our universe ?

Especially when the people asserting its existence have offered no such proof of same ?

It seems to me it is the theists who first have to 'prove' the existence of a deity, or at least define a deity adequately.

[Markus1985]

Originally posted by Locutus
Saying agnosticism is a weaker form of atheism or that atheism is a believe system is bull. Atheism just asserts that there is no divine power, nothing more and nothing less. This can in some cases be based on a belief, but it can just as easily be based on facts and knowledge. There simply is no clue of any kind to the existance of any kind of divine power, just as there is no clue to the existance of pink invisible unicorns or a RL Harry Potter or Captain Kirk. Is anyone who says Harry Potter doesn't really exist just 'holding a belief'? Of course not, such a person is basing that assertion on the factual knowledge that there are no real clues for the existance of a wizard prodigy with a big scar on his forehead, it's just a story someone once made up. The same applies to religion: the only 'clues' to the existance of any divine power are stories made up by people (just much older stories). You can choose to believe in those stories as millions of people have throughout history (and there's nothing wrong with that), but just because you view those stories as mere stories doesn't mean you're holding the believe that the opposite of those stories is true.

I am an atheist. I also don't 'believe' in anything. Those statements don't necessarily mean the same thing, but they don't exclude each other either. I rely on knowledge and facts. That means a lot of questions simply can't be answered, just because we don't know and can't explain a lot of things (yet). But there's not the remotest glimmer of a clue that there might exist such a thing as a divine power. I 'believe' in the absence of a divine power no more than I 'believe' in the absence of Ducktown or Hogwarts or the USS Enterprise.

Sorry but u really need to try and be a bit more tolerant. Implying other peoples beliefs are fairy stories just isn't nice. As agnostics rightly say there is no way to prove if there is a god or not. In which case the only way to have a position on the topic is to believe something. I believe there is a God, you don't. It doesn't mean either of us is more right than the other. You are certain there isn't a God because you haven't seen any evidence that one exists. I am certain there is because I haven't seen any evidence that one doesn't exist and the existence of one explains a lot of issues. I believe in God, so you believe there isn't one.

And I'm sorry but anyone who believes there isn't a Ducktown is just narrow minded and wildly misled.