# what religion are you?



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

im an atheist


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

That's not a religion. :b A religion is an organization whose core belief is the existence of a supreme being. Atheism denies the very possibility of a god and is not in itself, an organization (although there are atheist organizations).


----------



## Madison_Rose (Feb 27, 2009)

But if you are an atheist, it's what you answer to the question "what religion are you?"


----------



## The Raven (Feb 23, 2009)

Amocholes said:


> That's not a religion.


Yes it is. A religion is a belief in something in relation to who you are, where you came from, and where you are going. It is not necessary to have a supreme being, or an organization to answer those questions.

Oh, and I'm a Christian.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

It's been said that calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

I'm an *Atheist* for the few who didn't already know the obvious.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Christian


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Agnostic, voted "other."

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm nominally Lutheran, but in reality irreligious.

And no, atheism is definitely not a religion in the normal sense of the word. No deities, no supernaturalism. It's simply a lack of belief in those things. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a 'hobby'. It would take a twisted logic worthy of Alice In Wonderland.

Haha. You know what? I think a more interesting poll would be this: which religion is the right one, how can we tell, and what happens to everyone who doesn't belong to it when they die?


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

UltraShy said:


> It's been said that calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.


Beat me to it. But here's this one too:

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease" 
-Clark Adams

Atheist, btw.

Atheism has become more like a philosophy if you ask me.


----------



## TorLin (Nov 14, 2006)

Other is what i put.


----------



## slyfox (Nov 18, 2007)

Another other. My beliefs do not fit any specific religion


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

I voted other, I'm agnostic & spiritual. I simply apply that which resonates from the different schools of thought as I come across them


----------



## Sabu (Feb 28, 2009)

Christened but I'm an atheist.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

ok ok i should have asked 'what are your beliefs'. i was just curious to see if there are more atheists in this forum than people who believe in something.

i see i forgot to add agnostic :\

:lol i wonder if the person who selected satanic meant it as a joke


----------



## Toad Licker (Nov 2, 2007)

Agnostic, I've never been thrilled with this term but it is the closest thing I can find to my beliefs so...


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

I'm an empirical agnostic.


----------



## AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2008)

I believe in Gravity.


----------



## Saqq (Dec 1, 2008)

Liber... just kidding, agnostic


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

bla bla something something


----------



## AshenSpirit (Jun 1, 2009)

I don't have a religion, but if I were forced to put something I guess I would put Christian.

Most people don't understand the religion they were born into in the slightest.

Every religion began in philosophy and most are steeped in the cultural customs of ancient times. 

This is all rather complex and the abstract/esoteric subjects matter doesn't help either.

Most laymen are better off reading something entertaining.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

atheist


----------



## Desperate (Apr 3, 2009)

I put other because I don't know if I have a religion... LOL.. I grew up into a Catholic family but I've only been to church probably less than 10 times in my entire life and have never picked up the bible. I believe in God I just don't believe much of everything else that Catholics believe in..


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

Agnostic.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Amocholes said:


> That's not a religion. :b A religion is an organization whose core belief is the existence of a supreme being. Atheism denies the very possibility of a god and is not in itself, an organization (although there are atheist organizations).


I agree that atheism isn't a religion, however, I disagree over your definition of atheism. Some atheists just define atheism as either the lack of belief in a god or the belief of the non-existence of a god (I prefer the latter). Under those definitions, there isn't even an implication of rejecting the _possibility_ of the existence of God. In fact, your definition seems to be more popular among some Christians and other theists and some agnostics than atheists themselves.

However, those aren't the only definitions out there. For instance, one atheist define it as the rejection of god and the after-life while another define it as the denial of the supernatural. Anyway, I haven't as yet found one atheist who denies the _possibility_ of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. There may be one but so far he/she would be in a tiny minority if not alone.

Edit: Whoops! Forgot to answer the question: non-religious. Hey! You asked for my religion, not my philosophy. :b


----------



## Ericisme (May 8, 2009)

I found out last month that I was baptised as a Pastafarian. I'm like... "What the hell is a Pastafarian?" Haha, I had no clue what it is. But, I'm Athiest.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Cerberus said:


> Here's another good one: if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps must be a hobby.


well a hobby is something you enjoy right? and since i dont enjoy collecting stamps i guess not collecting them is my hobby


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Christian (Catholic)


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

nubly said:


> well a hobby is something you enjoy right? and since i dont enjoy collecting stamps i guess not collecting them is my hobby


Awesome. We have lots of hobbies then. Let me count my hobbies: I don't play football, don't work on cars, don't run, don't work on magic tricks, don't make model airplanes. . . wow, the term hobby doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore. I apparently have thousands of hobbies. No, to think not doing some hobby is a hobby itself is just a distortion of the term.

Also, when I'm in a great deal of pain, I enjoy it when that pain is taken away, so I guess this would be a hobby as well, which is obviously an absurd way to use the term. I think it's pretty obvious that a hobby is not just "something you enjoy."


----------



## Aurora (Feb 27, 2009)

*


----------



## njodis (Nov 8, 2006)

I'm not religious at all. I consider myself agnostic, and I generally dislike organized religion.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Technically, I consider myself a weak atheist (philosophically). I really hate to even have to label myself an atheist though. I think Sam Harris is right on this point. We don't have a special word for people who don't believe in ghosts, astrology, or dowsing. Atheist is a term that shouldn't have to exist. I guess in group/out group thinking and our tendency to label each other is too well rooted in us when it comes to religion.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

I nearly put Hindu, because that's the religion I like the most out of the ones I've learned about, but put Other cause I guess I like to just pick and choose bits from all religions. I also like Christianity a lot. In Hinduism, Brahma is the essence of the universe, but you can worship all these different manifestations of it. And I also like mystical Judaism a lot.


----------



## Hellosunshine (Mar 13, 2009)

Muslim lol. 

I notice that most people are atheist on these boards.


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

I suppose I consider myself buddhist (unitarian univeralist) so other but I chose buddhism because I doubt anyone else will and that is what most matches my beliefs. I find universalist sufism fascinating as well as bahaism but something about the arabic religions turn me off on a personal level as much as I want to identify with them (catholic guilt maybe)


----------



## espearite (Jan 2, 2009)

I was raised Catholic and got up to Holy First Communion at the age of 8. I've come across many religions on the internet, but I am leaning towards the Baptist religion at the moment.


----------



## Meli24R (Dec 9, 2008)

atheist


----------



## Andre (Feb 27, 2004)

bezoomny said:


> Christian (Catholic)


Did I read previously that you converted to Catholicism from some other Christian religion?

I'm an atheist.


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Rufus said:


> Did I read previously that you converted to Catholicism from some other Christian religion?


Yes, from Presbyterianism.


----------



## monkeymagic86 (Jun 5, 2009)

Im a christian even though i have 2 kids and im not married lol.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

Atheism may not be a religion but secular humanism sure is. I'd say I'm a nihilist.


----------



## Phobophobia (Jun 1, 2009)

If it's your belief, even though it's technically lack of, then you can be proud of it. I consider myself an atheist, but I do share some nihilistic beliefs as well. I don't see what there is to be ashamed of.


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

I think I identify mostly with agnosticism, I was raised a Catholic. I've just studied Buddhism and I like the approach of it, not sure if I would call myself Buddhist though, but I would be interested in further study.


----------



## Phobophobia (Jun 1, 2009)

mousey said:


> A nihilist doesnt believe in anything or that anything matters. A nihilist can walk up to someone and shoot them and not feel a single thing. If ever there was a wrong belief, this would be it. Nihilists are terrible people and it is a terrible philosophy to proclaim belief in. No sane person would refer to themselves as a nihilist if they knew what it really entailed.


A nihilist believes that there are no such things as morals. That doesn't mean they will shoot people on sight, just for laughs. I'd be willing to bet that more people have killed and have been killed trying to uphold their own beliefs in what's moral than people of nihilistic beliefs. I also believe that there are no "preset" morals. But you develop them as you live your life.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

nubly said:


> :lol i wonder if the person who selected satanic meant it as a joke


I seem to recall a recent post by an SAS member in which she described herself as a Satanist. Of course, Satanist usually refers to Anton LeVay's Church of Satan and his Satanic Bible -- which shows them to Atheists with ritual & flair. Those Satanists don't believe in a literal Satan (or any other supernatural stuff), only using that name as the ultimate rejection of x-tianity.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

mousey said:


> A nihilist doesnt believe in anything or that anything matters. A nihilist can walk up to someone and shoot them and not feel a single thing. If ever there was a wrong belief, this would be it. Nihilists are terrible people and it is a terrible philosophy to proclaim belief in. No sane person would refer to themselves as a nihilist if they knew what it really entailed.


Why shoot someone who doesn't exist?


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Hank Scorpio said:


> Why shoot someone who doesn't exist?


Have you ever seen the episode of The Twilight Zone called "Shadow Play"? A man has been sentenced to death and he's trying to convince everyone that they're actually his recurring dream.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

I don't care enough to label myself as anything. I was thinking...I wonder if there's a word for someone who isn't interested in proclaiming either a belief or a disbelief in god. Maybe an apatheist? So I googled it and it's actually a word, haha. So, yeah, I'm an apatheist.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Hank Scorpio said:


> Atheism may not be a religion but secular humanism sure is. I'd say I'm a nihilist.


That depends on your definition of religion. For instance, Amocholes would disagree with you because his definition is "an organization whose core belief is the existence of a supreme being." Since Secular Humanism doesn't believe in a supreme being, by his definition, it is not a religion.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> That depends on your definition of religion. For instance, Amocholes would disagree with you because his definition is "an organization whose core belief is the existence of a supreme being." Since Secular Humanism doesn't believe in a supreme being, by his definition, it is not a religion.


Then neither is Buddhism, which, I assume, is commonly accepted as a religion by most people.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> Then neither is Buddhism, which, I assume, is commonly accepted as a religion by most people.


Exactly! It all depends on your definition of religion, which is why it is important to state your definition and not assume that everyone shares it. In fact, it is important to state your definition of certain terms, otherwise there will be nothing but futile argument that could have been avoided.

For instance, I've gotten recently to a slight argument over someone because of my belief that exposure therapy alone would be effective enough for SAD. He, on the other hand, thought that cognitive restructuring should be implemented as well. It got kind of confusing because he thought that when I stated exposure therapy, he thought I believed that habituation was enough to treat SAD. However, I thought Exposure Therapy was effective because it actually involved cognitive restructuring being that thoughts, feelings, and behavior are interconnected.

Luckily, after our conversation, I sent him a message and clarified what I meant by exposure therapy and why I thought it was effective.

Remember, define your terms.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

> A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth


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

By this definition Buddhism qualifies but Atheism does not.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Amocholes said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
> 
> By this definition Buddhism qualifies but Atheism does not.


Neither does Secular Humanism since it isn't an "organized approach to human spirituality."


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I'll put down Jedi, it sounds good.


----------



## Sunshine009 (Sep 21, 2008)

becoming Catholic.


----------



## Mr Deuce (Nov 14, 2008)

UltraShy said:


> I seem to recall a recent post by an SAS member in which she described herself as a Satanist. Of course, Satanist usually refers to Anton LeVay's Church of Satan and his Satanic Bible -- which shows them to Atheists with ritual & flair. Those Satanists don't believe in a literal Satan (or any other supernatural stuff), only using that name as the ultimate rejection of x-tianity.


This is correct. :yes And although the majority of Satanists are Laveyan or Symbolic, there are also Spiritual Satanists who believe in a deity.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

Amocholes said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
> A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth
> 
> By this definition Buddhism qualifies but Atheism does not.


Secular humanists seem to see the existence of humans as an ultimate truth. That's why I call it a religion. Their religious belief is that every human should exist as long as possible.

I had an idea for a story I might write some day, loosely based on a South Park episode, about a future "holy war" between libertarian nihilists and socialist, nanny state secular humanists.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

I'm in the whatever makes you happy group, guess Agnostic.


----------



## copper (Nov 10, 2003)

I grew up as a Methodist. I use to go to the Methodist church that was next to our house until I was in 8th grade. I haven't been to church since. I could care less about religion, but I don't look down at people that do. If it makes people happy then go ahead. I feel that God or even Jesus doesn't care if I go to a church. Churches were a creation of man. I also believe there isn't one right religion.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

copper said:


> I also believe there isn't one right religion.


That would be one of the major problems I have with religion. They all claim to hold the truth, yet the "truth" at one church can be the polar opposite of the "truth" at another.

This would be like sending several people into a room to have them report back to you what color the walls are painted. One says white, the next says black, another says red, another says green, and the last says it has wallpaper with flowers. Now if you've never seen the room you don't know which, if any, are right but you know that at least 4 of them are surely wrong. Similarly, I can know which church, if any, if right, but I know for sure that many must be wrong when they disagree.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Because (at least I) are not against religion in any way, but simply don't believe in any of its teachings, or at least that I'm not 100% convinced there is no god but logically none of it really makes much sense to me. I'm of the view that if it makes you happy then all the power to you and the world is a better place because of it.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

listenjusting said:


> What kind of non-religious person cares enough to know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?


They are about as different as you can get. Agnostics are unsure if a God or higher power exists, Atheists believe that there is no God or higher power.

Now, it's true that both groups don't like organized religion of any kind, but they aren't very similar after that.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Hank Scorpio said:


> Secular humanists seem to see the existence of humans as an ultimate truth. That's why I call it a religion. Their religious belief is that every human should exist as long as possible.


Ultimate truth? What is that and what does that have to do with religion?

Also, do you have any quotes from Secular Humanist to support your main point?


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Classified said:


> I'll put down Jedi, it sounds good.


not sure if youre joking or not but there is an actual religious movement made from the jedi knights


Cerberus said:


> Awesome. We have lots of hobbies then. Let me count my hobbies: I don't play football, don't work on cars, don't run, don't work on magic tricks, don't make model airplanes. . . wow, the term hobby doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore. I apparently have thousands of hobbies. No, to think not doing some hobby is a hobby itself is just a distortion of the term.
> 
> Also, when I'm in a great deal of pain, I enjoy it when that pain is taken away, so I guess this would be a hobby as well, which is obviously an absurd way to use the term. I think it's pretty obvious that a hobby is not just "something you enjoy."


actually i thought you were being sarcastic on your first post so i replied with a sarcastic comment


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Ospi said:


> Because (at least I) are not against religion in any way, but simply don't believe in any of its teachings, or at least that I'm not 100% convinced there is no god but logically none of it really makes much sense to me. I'm of the view that if it makes you happy then all the power to you and the world is a better place because of it.


Out of that comment, I think it is best for you to research on what atheism is to prevent misunderstandings in the future. You would be surprise on how atheists themselves define it as. For instance:

American Atheists


> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.


Infidels.org


> Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
> 
> Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."


religioustolerance.org


> Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.
> 
> 
> Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists and many individual Atheists.


----------



## Madison_Rose (Feb 27, 2009)

"Jedi" is recognised as an official religion here becasue at the time of the 2001 census, a lot of people thought "wouldn't it be funny if we all recorded our religion as 'Jedi,' because then it'll have to be recognised as an official religion." They did and it was. Things like this make me like my country


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

DepecheEyes said:


> Out of that comment, I think it is best for you to research on what atheism is. You would be surprise on how atheists themselves define it as. For instance:
> 
> American Atheists
> 
> ...


atheism is just not believing in a god/deity. your three quotes from those links state the samething :\


Madison_Rose said:


> "Jedi" is recognised as an official religion here becasue at the time of the 2001 census, a lot of people thought "wouldn't it be funny if we all recorded our religion as 'Jedi,' because then it'll have to be recognised as an official religion." They did and it was. Things like this make me like my country


but intolerance against the jedi religion isnt protected by the UK government though is it?

edit:


> In 2005, a draft of the "racial and religious hatred bill" in the UK specifically excluded Jedi Knights from any protection, alongside Satanists, Scientologists, sexists, racists, and believers in animal or human sacrifice


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


----------



## Madison_Rose (Feb 27, 2009)

Hank Scorpio said:


> Secular humanists seem to see the existence of humans as an ultimate truth. That's why I call it a religion. Their religious belief is that every human should exist as long as possible.


Where did you get that from? Sorry, but that's just wrong. From http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism:

What humanists believe

Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason - humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfillment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.

* Humanism is a naturalistic view, encompassing atheism and agnosticism as responses to theistic claims, but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these reactions to religion.
* Humanists believe in individual rights and freedoms, but believe that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.
* Humanists believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems, so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.
* Humanists are positive, gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.

Humanists believe that we have only one life, it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

nubly said:


> atheism is just not believing in a god/deity. your three quotes from those links state the samething :\


Of course! I did that in order to show the person that most atheists accept that definition and I especially made sure to quote from a non-atheist source. If I had only quoted one source, what good would that do?


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Classified said:


> They are about as different as you can get. *Agnostics believe in a God or higher power*, Atheists believe that there is no God or higher power.
> 
> Now, it's true that both groups don't like organized religion of any kind, but they aren't very similar after that.


No. Agnostics believe that is impossible to know whether a god or higher power exists. Atheists are like theists in that they believe they know.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> No. Agnostics believe that is impossible to know whether a god or higher power exists. Atheists are like theists in that they believe they know.


Well, so much for all the quotes I made from two atheist sites. Seriously, this annoyed me because either you are ignoring the quotes I made or you are simply accusing atheists as being liars. If the latter were true, then I would say you are mind-reading.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

Madison_Rose said:


> "Jedi" is recognised as an official religion here becasue at the time of the 2001 census, a lot of people thought "wouldn't it be funny if we all recorded our religion as 'Jedi,' because then it'll have to be recognised as an official religion." They did and it was. Things like this make me like my country


I think that's a myth isn't it, that they recognised it as an official religion. I heard that somewhere but can't be bothered to look it up.

My brother put down that he was a Jedi. I told him to at least be original and claim to be a Yoda's Witness or something, but he wouldn't listen.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

DepecheEyes said:


> Well, so much for all the quotes I made from two atheist sites. Seriously, this annoyed me because either you are ignoring the quotes I made or you are simply accusing atheists as being liars. If the latter were true, then I would say you are mind-reading.


It makes more sense for atheism to mean _believing_ there there are no gods, and agnostic to mean you don't know either way. That's what I've always heard, and that's what the word roots imply, also.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

LostPancake said:


> It makes more sense for atheism to mean _believing_ there there are no gods, and agnostic to mean you don't know either way. That's what I've always heard, and that's what the word roots imply, also.


thats what kelly said and thats my understand too

im really confused by what youre trying to get around saying depeche eyes. are you saying atheists and agnostics have the same views on this subjetc?


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> Well, so much for all the quotes I made from two atheist sites. Seriously, this annoyed me because either you are ignoring the quotes I made or you are simply accusing atheists as being liars. If the latter were true, then I would say you are mind-reading.


This post makes no sense to me whatsoever. :sus

Classified said agnostics believe in a god or higher power. This isn't true. If this were true, they'd be theists and not agnostics.

Edit: Okay, to clarify, there are two types of agnosticism. The first is weak agnosticism. This means that the individual person doesn't know whether or not there is a god for themselves, personally. The second is strong agnosticism. This means that the individual believes that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists at all.

I am a strong agnostic.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> This post makes no sense to me whatsoever. :sus
> 
> Classified said agnostics believe in a god or higher power. This isn't true. If this were true, they'd be theists and not agnostics.


This has nothing to do with Classified's post. It had to do with your post that atheists believe they know of God's non-existence. I assumed you are saying that all atheists believe they are 100% certain of that. That last post was in response to that interpretation of it.

Edit: well, it seems a lot of people are confused over my last post. :b


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> This has nothing to do with Classified's post. It had to do with your post that atheists believe they know of God's non-existence. I assumed you are saying that all atheists believe they are 100% certain of that.


I was replying to Classified's post. If you think I'm not replying to him, but am somehow replying to something you've said, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I actually only skimmed this thread and have no idea what points you, yourself, have personally made. You are taking something I said personally as if I've said it about you, but I didn't. I have *no idea* what you're talking about, because I really didn't read what you wrote. Sorry. :stu

I'm really busy today and I just skimmed the thread, saw something that Classified said that was blatantly wrong and wrote a two sentence post in order to correct it. That's all.

Edit: And yes, now that you mention it, I do think that the definition of an atheist is someone who is 100% sure of a higher power's non-existence. If they were anything less than 100% sure, they would be agnostic. And, yes, as a strong agnostic, I am of the opinion that being an atheist requires taking the same leap of faith as being a theist. No one knows whether a god exists or not. To say for sure that they believe one does or does not is to believe in something that may or may not be true.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> I was replying to Classified's post. If you think I'm not replying to him, but am somehow replying to something you've said, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I actually only skimmed this thread and have no idea what points you, yourself, have personally made. You are taking something I said personally as if I've said it about you, but I didn't. I have *no idea* what you're talking about, because I really didn't read what you wrote. Sorry. :stu
> 
> I'm really busy today and I just skimmed the thread, saw something that Classified said that was blatantly wrong and wrote a two sentence post in order to correct it. That's all.
> 
> ...


Alright remember this statement:



Kelly said:


> Atheists are like theists in that they believe they know.


You posted that remember? I'm not responding to your correction of Classified but to that sentence in particular.


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

UltraShy said:


> That would be one of the major problems I have with religion. They all claim to hold the truth, yet the "truth" at one church can be the polar opposite of the "truth" at another.
> 
> This would be like sending several people into a room to have them report back to you what color the walls are painted. One says white, the next says black, another says red, another says green, and the last says it has wallpaper with flowers. Now if you've never seen the room you don't know which, if any, are right but you know that at least 4 of them are surely wrong. Similarly, I can know which church, if any, if right, but I know for sure that many must be wrong when they disagree.


This isn't true of all religions sikkhism accepts all religions lead to the same path insofar as we are all trying to merge with God and the religion is founded on respecting everyone. Unitarian universalism tries to respect and understand everyones believes, even athiest and agnostics are allowed to come in and worship. The all paths lead to the same place though is especially hated among christian and muslim extremists and has tried to be refuted because it goes against "believe what I do or go to hell" For myself a God/allah/whatever that is a giant spoiled child about earthly matters wouldn't be one worth worshipping, i'd rather roast in hell.

For some reason I find jedism hilarious it's up there with the church of the subgenius and pastafarians. George Lucas makes a better prophet than someone like L Ron Hubbard anyway :sus


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> You posted that remember? I'm not responding to your correction of Classified but to that sentence in particular.


I was editing my post while you were replying (ah, the joys of being online at the same time!) and believe I addressed this comment in the edit. (So, if you'll kindly scroll up a bit.) 

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> Edit: And yes, now that you mention it, I do think that the definition of an atheist is someone who is 100% sure of a higher power's non-existence. If they were anything less than 100% sure, they would be agnostic. And, yes, as a strong agnostic, I am of the opinion that being an atheist requires taking the same leap of faith as being a theist. No one knows whether a god exists or not. To say for sure that they believe one does or does not is to believe in something that may or may not be true.


I think you are simply demanding for atheism to be defined as the 100% certainty of God's nonexistence. If you want to define it as that, then that's fine but please don't jump to conclusions that others accept your definition. Please don't assume that atheists are 100% certain of God's nonexistence just because they label themselves on a term that you define it as one way, while they define it as another.

I also don't assume that theists are 100% certain of God's existence. I know there are theists who simply believe that God exist and in fact, I believe most of them just believe with less than absolute certainty. I would also recommend not to jump to conclusions that all theists are dogmatic.

Also, some atheists accept themselves as agnostics as well. There are even atheists who call themselves "Agnostic Atheist."


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> I think you are simply demanding for atheism to be defined as the 100% certainty of God's nonexistence. If you want to define it as that, then that's fine but please don't jump to conclusions that others accept your definition. Please don't assume that atheists are 100% certain of God's nonexistence just because they label themselves on a term that you define it as one way, while they define it as another.
> 
> Also, some atheists accept themselves as agnostics as well. There are even atheists who call themselves "Agnostic Atheist."


Well if terms could be defined so loosely, do they have any real meaning then? And frankly, I don't see how someone can say, "I'm not 100% sure that a god does not exist. One might." and still then be able to call themselves an atheist. To me, that's the exact definition of an agnostic. They would be wrong in calling themselves something that they are not.

Personally, I lean towards "A higher power does not exist." This is a belief, since there is no evidence for or against it and no method exists with which to test it. But at the end of the day, there is still no way for anyone to know for sure. This does not make me an atheist. This makes me an agnostic. This is the very definition of agnostic, not atheist.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

DepecheEyes said:


> I think you are simply demanding for atheism to be defined as the 100% certainty of God's nonexistence. If you want to define it as that, then that's fine but please don't jump to conclusions that others accept your definition. Please don't assume that atheists are 100% certain of God's nonexistence just because they label themselves on a term that you define it as one way, while they define it as another.
> 
> I also don't assume that theists are 100% certain of God's existence. I know there are theists who simply believe that God exist and in fact, I believe most of them just believe with less than absolute certainty. I would also recommend not to jump to conclusions that all theists are dogmatic.
> 
> Also, some atheists accept themselves as agnostics as well. There are even atheists who call themselves "Agnostic Atheist."


ok i think i see what youre saying now. anyone who says they are agnostic atheist doesnt know what s/he is talking about. the straight defintion of atheist is not believing in god. agnostic means not having 100% proof that there is or isnt a god. anyone else who says otherwise is just grasping at straws


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Kelly said:


> Well if terms could be defined so loosely, do they have any real meaning then? And frankly, I don't see how someone can say, "I'm not 100% sure that a god does not exist. One might." and still then be able to call themselves an atheist. To me, that's the exact definition of an agnostic. They would be wrong in calling themselves something that they are not.
> 
> Personally, I lean towards "A higher power does not exist." This is a belief, since there is no evidence for or against it and no method exists with which to test it. But at the end of the day, there is still no way for anyone to know for sure. This does not make me an atheist. This makes me an agnostic. This is the very definition of agnostic, not atheist.
> 
> ...


Once again you are demanding these terms to be defined in only one meaning. Language isn't perfect and there are many ambiguous words out there, meaning that there are many words with different meanings: you'll just have to accept that. That is why it is important to define your terms as I had said before. *You can define atheism and theism to be that way, but nothing obligates anyone to accept your definition.*

This reminds me of a brief disagreement I had with someone on this forum over the efficacy of CBT for SAD. The person believed that CBT claimed that rational thinking was enough to "cure" mental illnesses. First, I clarified that CBT believed in the interconnection of thought, emotions and behavior and that they use not only cognitive techniques but also behavioral techniques. Second, I explained that CBT now emphasizes on realistic thinking rather than rational thinking. I defined the former as being empirical (looking for evidence to support or contradict the belief in question) while the latter as more involved on consistency of belief system, making sure there are no contradictions.

The person however argued that rational or logical thinking basically meant the same thing. In response, I argued that it wasn't and that people sometimes say rational thinking when they meant realistic thinking. The point is, that nothing obligates people to accept my definition of those two terms. If someone wants to define rational thinking as synonymous to realistic thinking then fine. But it is important that they are aware of those other definitions.

Anyway, I'm not going to be debating with you on this matter because I believe it is futile. I have already made my point.


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

nubly said:


> ok i think i see what youre saying now. anyone who says they are agnostic atheist doesnt know what s/he is talking about. the straight defintion of atheist is not believing in god. agnostic means not having 100% proof that there is or isnt a god. anyone else who says otherwise is just grasping at straws


Agnostic athiest is an oxymoron. My guess is they don't want to cop to being an athiest or use it to be a smarmy athiest like dawkins "I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

nubly said:


> ok i think i see what youre saying now. anyone who says they are agnostic atheist doesnt know what s/he is talking about. the straight defintion of atheist is not believing in god. agnostic means not having 100% proof that there is or isnt a god. anyone else who says otherwise is just grasping at straws





screwjack said:


> Agnostic athiest is an oxymoron. My guess is they don't want to cop to being an athiest or use it to be a smarmy athiest like dawkins "I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."


Would you also believe there was one who labeled himself as a probabilistic atheist?

Albert Ellis, PhD, renown as the grandfather of CBT and founder or REBT:


> Ellis most recently described himself as a probabilistic atheist, meaning that while he acknowledged that he could not be completely certain there is no god, he believed the probability a god exists was so small that it was not worth his or anyone else's attention.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

DepecheEyes said:


> Would you also believe there was one who labeled himself as a probabilistic atheist?
> Albert Ellis, PhD, renown as the grandfather of CBT and founder or REBT:


he can make up whatever defintion he wants but if he looks at any english dictionary, it would tell him he is agnostic


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

nubly said:


> he can make up whatever defintion he wants but if he looks at any english dictionary, it would tell him he is agnostic


Sorry but nothing obligates anyone to accept that definition. Plus, the dictionary is not an authority, but merely states what is the trend of the definitions of words. For instance, if you look at the Dictionary of Philosophy, it defines it as the lack of belief of God or the belief that God doesn't exist.

Stop insisting that words must have one meaning! Nothing obligates a human sound to have meaning. If it did we would all have one language.

In addition, if you define atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God then agnostics are also atheist because to be uncertain of God's existence is to lack belief in God.


----------



## Micronian (Nov 11, 2004)

I am a Roman Catholic, and happy to be one.

by the way, don't you find it a bit ironic that the posters without a religion (so to speak) are the ones arguing the most on this thread? :?


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Micronian said:


> I am a Roman Catholic, and happy to be one.
> 
> by the way, don't you find it a bit ironic that the posters without a religion (so to speak) are the ones arguing the most? :?


Well, Christians argue among themselves of course, I mean I don't think any non-believer said that they don't argue at all. It would be very naive of me to believe that groups don't argue among themselves.

Plus, a group of those who are not in a group isn't exactly unified. For instance, to being non-white American isn't much of a unified group when it is consisted of African-Americans, Latinos, French, Japanese, etc. Or being a non-Christian is consisted of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. isn't what I called a unified group.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

DepecheEyes said:


> Sorry but nothing obligates anyone to accept that definition. Plus, the dictionary is not an authority, but merely states what is the trend of the definitions of words. For instance, if you look at the Dictionary of Philosophy, it defines it as the lack of belief of God or the belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> Stop insisting that words must have one meaning! Nothing obligates a human sound to have meaning. If it did we would all have one language.
> 
> In addition, if you define atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God then agnostics are also atheist because to be uncertain of God's existence is to lack belief in God.


youre reading way too much into it


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

Strong agnosticism takes a leap of faith because it makes the claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. well, how do they know it's impossible? How can they make such a foolhardy claim about a concept that is so ambiguous and malleable? They've made a leap of faith. They've done essentially what theists do: they've made claim to special knowledge.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

screwjack said:


> This isn't true of all religions sikkhism accepts all religions lead to the same path insofar as we are all trying to merge with God and the religion is founded on respecting everyone. ...
> For myself a God/allah/whatever that is a giant spoiled child about earthly matters wouldn't be one worth worshipping, i'd rather roast in hell.


I was just reading about Sikkhism last night and it sounds really interesting. There were ten gurus, and the last one appointed their book of sayings and prayers as the final guru. Which is great - the guru system always seems so open to the possibility of abuse.

They meditate for a couple of hours a day on the names of God, and it helps detach them from the ego. And then they can be pretty ****ing fearless!

"Sikhism advocates the pursuit of salvation through disciplined, personal meditation on the name and message of God. A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself."


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

DepecheEyes said:


> Sorry but nothing obligates anyone to accept that definition. Plus, the dictionary is not an authority, but merely states what is the trend of the definitions of words. For instance, if you look at the Dictionary of Philosophy, it defines it as the lack of belief of God or the belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> Stop insisting that words must have one meaning! Nothing obligates a human sound to have meaning. If it did we would all have one language.
> 
> In addition, if you define atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God then agnostics are also atheist because to be uncertain of God's existence is to lack belief in God.


Yup. Arguing from a dictionary definition that a lexicographer provided is basically committing the fallacy of arguing from authority. The dictionary is not a damn holy book! After all, some of them list immorality as being synonymous with atheism. Let's cut the foolishness already. We all know that atheists are not exactly looked on in a positive light. They are one of the least tolerated groups in America, even less tolerated than homosexuals and Muslims. So, is it any surprise that the definition of atheism is looked at less charitably by non-atheists? I'm not surprised, which is why I generally say I'm not religious, instead of saying I'm an atheist or both an agnostic and atheist in RL. People like to go by the definitions that are in common use, but when groups of people have been so slandered that their label is associated with immorality or irrationality by most people, the common use of the term does not mean much and is indicative of the intolerance people have toward atheists.


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

Cerberus said:


> Strong agnosticism takes a leap of faith because it makes the claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. well, how do they know it's impossible? How can they make such a foolhardy claim about a concept that is so ambiguous and malleable? They've made a leap of faith. They've done essentially what theists do: they've made claim to special knowledge.


What, that sounds silly you might be able to say that about athiests but being on the fence dosen't require a leap of faith. It was my understanding that agnostics think it isn't possible to know if their is a God or not at the moment, i'm sure if science proved that there was or wasn't a God they would believe or not.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

screwjack said:


> What, that sounds silly you might be able to say that about athiests but being on the fence dosen't require a leap of faith. It was my understanding that agnostics think it isn't possible to know if their is a God or not at the moment, i'm sure if science proved that there was or wasn't a God they would believe or not.


Weak agnosticism does not require a leap of faith.

I have not seen a definition of strong agnosticism that qualifies the impossibility of knowing whether there is a god or not with it being impossible "at the moment." Anyway, what moment? How do you know it is impossible "at the moment?" Impossible for you or other people? Why? Moreover, science is not necessarily needed to know whether there is a god or not.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Cerberus said:


> Strong agnosticism takes a leap of faith because it makes the claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. well, how do they know it's impossible? How can they make such a foolhardy claim about a concept that is so ambiguous and malleable? They've made a leap of faith. They've done essentially what theists do: they've made claim to special knowledge.


No leap of faith is required. We currently have methods in place that can only reveal information about the physical world. And while a higher power may or may not be a physical being (like I said, I don't know), the tools we have aren't (yet?) sophisticated enough to reveal any information about its existence or not. It's just saying, "As things stand, there is no way of knowing if a higher power exists or not." That's not a leap of faith. It's just a basic fact.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

DepecheEyes said:


> Once again you are demanding these terms to be defined in only one meaning. Language isn't perfect and there are many ambiguous words out there, meaning that there are many words with different meanings: you'll just have to accept that. That is why it is important to define your terms as I had said before. *You can define atheism and theism to be that way, but nothing obligates anyone to accept your definition.*
> 
> Anyway, I'm not going to be debating with you on this matter because I believe it is futile. I have already made my point.


So what you're basically saying is that words can mean whatever people want them to mean. So one person could realistically claim to be an atheist even if they believe that a fluffy, pink bunny named Norbert who likes ice cream and kittens and who lives on Jupiter created the universe and everything in it, if their personal definition of "atheist" is "someone who worships a fluffy, pink bunny named Norbert who likes ice cream and kittens and who lives on Jupiter and created the universe and everything in it."

I know meaning is fluid sometimes, but you're taking it to an unreal extent. You're trying to justify people who are wrongly categorizing their beliefs. Words are still symbols and have standardized meanings behind these symbols, whether you want to accept it as part of your reality or not. :stu

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

Cerberus said:


> How do you know it is impossible "at the moment?" Impossible for you or other people?


Since I don't see on the front page of the newspaper "proof of God found!" or "God disproved!" i'm pretty certain there is no proof one way or another that God is there. Strong personal faith is not concrete proof and this just devolving into semantic and logical puzzles. You might come to the conclusion that there is a God by us being here or the bible or the koran or whatever but there is no objective proof one way or another.


----------



## teniralc21 (Oct 24, 2008)

I consider myself to be a Unitarian Universalist, even though I haven't gone to church in years.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

So the conclusion is, from the arguments presented, atheism is a disorganized mess. You have also veered way off topic. It was a simple question.

What religion are you?

The answer should have been straight-forward. It did not require further discussion. It should have been a simple "I am a Ba'hai." or "I am a Hindu". This is why threads of a religious nature usually get locked.

I also find it interesting that those who are arguing, claim to be atheist or agnostic. Usually it would be the Baptists, Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses who are thought of as evangelists.


----------



## DepecheEyes (Aug 19, 2008)

Amocholes said:


> So the conclusion is, from the arguments presented, atheism is a disorganized mess.


Atheism is not an organization nor was it intended to be. Under that logic, theism would also be a disorganized mess because not everyone accepts the same definition of God.

But anyway, you are right the topic has veered way off topic and I'm not going to go on any further with the debate on what is atheism.


----------



## Madison_Rose (Feb 27, 2009)

Amocholes said:


> So the conclusion is, from the arguments presented, atheism is a disorganized mess. You have also veered way off topic. It was a simple question.
> 
> What religion are you?
> 
> ...


They're only arguing about the meaning of words, not about who's atheism is "better" or "more true."

And I'm a convert. I'm going to worship a pink fluffy bunny named Norbert 

Edit:Oh, and thanks for not locking it, because I thought bits of the discussion were interesting, even if it was a massive drift


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

Kelly said:


> No leap of faith is required. We currently have methods in place that can only reveal information about the physical world. And while a higher power may or may not be a physical being (like I said, I don't know), the tools we have aren't (yet?) sophisticated enough to reveal any information about its existence or not. It's just saying, "As things stand, there is no way of knowing if a higher power exists or not." That's not a leap of faith. It's just a basic fact.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Kelly


You've just shifted the goal posts. No one qualified it with "as things stand." If we are to say that it is impossible "as things stand," wouldn't that entail that it could be possible in the future? So, it is possible to know whether there is a god or not, just not now or not "as things stand?" This makes strong agnosticism seem pretty convoluted and perhaps too convoluted for common usage or standardized usage. Fine. Whatever. Go ahead and use that definition.

I'll just call a truce. You go on with your agnosticism is more enlightened posturing, and I'll go on with my posturing of being too enlightened to stick with one label, hence why I can be labeled by any of those labels, dependent on the definitions.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

Amocholes said:


> I also find it interesting that those who are arguing, claim to be atheist or agnostic. Usually it would be the Baptists, Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses who are thought of as evangelists.


Huh? I don't see any atheists/agnostics evangelizing here.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I made one little mistake and it all falls apart. It was early in the morning and I wasn't awake yet when I posted that. Sorry.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

Zephyr said:


> Huh? I don't see any atheists/agnostics evangelizing here.


What do you call it when someone tries to convince others of their beliefs?


----------



## screwjack (Dec 19, 2008)

Amocholes said:


> What do you call it when someone tries to convince others of their beliefs?


It is possible to share your beliefs in a respectful manner. Personally I don't think this would have turned into an argument if instead of athiest the poll had said none instead. Athiesm/agnosticism are beliefs not religions.


----------



## Sunshine009 (Sep 21, 2008)

I plan to become Catholic but I may go back to Protestantism of some sort but either way, I don't think it matters.


----------



## yellowpaper (Nov 13, 2007)

I'm a nothingist. Unless that's something, then I'm not that. I don't believe in anything at all and I don't think about it ever.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Kelly said:


> No leap of faith is required. We currently have methods in place that can only reveal information about the physical world. And while a higher power may or may not be a physical being (like I said, I don't know), the tools we have aren't (yet?) sophisticated enough to reveal any information about its existence or not. It's just saying, "As things stand, there is no way of knowing if a higher power exists or not." That's not a leap of faith. It's just a basic fact.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Kelly


I hate to drag this more off-topic than this thread already is, but oh well...

At what point would you accept something as evidence for or against God's existence? The evidence doesn't seem to be 50/50, so it seems like it would be rational to be able to make a decision. We do this all the time on topics outside of religion. We weigh the evidence, look at the arguments, and make a decision based on that. We don't have to be certain about it as long as we have a cogent argument to backup our belief. We can always adjust our decision in light of new evidence. In this way I would not call a belief for or against God a leap of faith if they are based on evidence and claims that can be evaluated. We simply have a shifting degree of certainty I guess.

This is why I call myself a weak atheist. I'll take the stance that I don't believe in God, because I think that's what the evidence leans towards. At the same time, I couldn't say "I know there is no God". I don't think this belief really requires any faith on my part. Perhaps this whole argument in the last few pages is one big semantic misunderstanding...lol.


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

Christian


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

whiterabbit said:


> I don't care enough to label myself as anything. I was thinking...I wonder if there's a word for someone who isn't interested in proclaiming either a belief or a disbelief in god. Maybe an apatheist? So I googled it and it's actually a word, haha. So, yeah, I'm an apatheist.


I'm so glad that you've found & relayed this term to us, how amusing


----------



## Madison_Rose (Feb 27, 2009)

huh said:


> I hate to drag this more off-topic than this thread already is, but oh well...


Normally I'd say "Why not start a new one?" but in this case, I suspect a thread called "Does god exist and how can we be sure?" might be doomed. Having said that, I'm constantly impressed by how much SASers do discuss highly emotive subjects without flaming and thread-locking. Go, SAS!



huh said:


> At what point would you accept something as evidence for or against God's existence? The evidence doesn't seem to be 50/50, so it seems like it would be rational to be able to make a decision. We do this all the time on topics outside of religion. We weigh the evidence, look at the arguments, and make a decision based on that. We don't have to be certain about it as long as we have a cogent argument to backup our belief. We can always adjust our decision in light of new evidence. In this way I would not call a belief for or or against God a leap of faith if they are based on evidence and claims that can be evaluated. We simply have a shifting degree of certainty I guess.


If anyone wants a scientific, evidence based approach to the existence of god, I recommend "God: the Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger, available free on scribd.com, here

I've read it and discussed it at a Brights meeting. Broadly, I agree with Stenger, but I'm really incredibly bored of the whole issue now. I know that there is no god. Other people know that there is. We're not likely to convince each other anytime soon.



huh said:


> Perhaps this whole argument in the last few pages is one big semantic misunderstanding...lol.


You said it!


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

atheist


----------



## Jnmcda0 (Nov 28, 2003)

Agnostic atheist...I don't actively believe in any deity, but wouldn't go so far as to say a deity absolutely does not exist.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

Canadian Brotha said:


> I'm so glad that you've found & relayed this term to us, how amusing


You're welcome.


----------



## Futures (Aug 27, 2005)

Athiest


----------



## Black_Widow (May 23, 2008)

I think the most accurate way to describe myself would be as a 'weak agnostic' as this is in line with my current beliefs


----------



## Mr Deuce (Nov 14, 2008)

The Left-Hand Path :yes:evil


----------



## TheDaffodil (Jun 20, 2009)

*I don't classify myself as any one religion. I listen and learn from all religions and kinda just have my own beliefs. They're very open beliefs. I guess I'm more spiritual than I am religious. I come from a non-denominational Christian family, though, so I accepted that as my religion as a kid but never felt particularly attached to it.*


----------



## chagota (Oct 25, 2010)

i was born and raised as a Roman Catholic..but then i eventually grew sick and tired of it. There was just too many rules, traditions and other crap that obscures the original purpose. It took me 17 years to realized that "and thank Catholic school, thank you Nuns and Priest for being such bunch of hypocrites".. but i still believe that there is a God though.. btw, i voted on Hinduism cause it seems like a very interesting religion. ive always wanted to try it, who knows it might help save my life . i like the thought of being Enlighten..


----------



## RayOfLight123 (Dec 4, 2009)

I suppose Im a pagan..but I wouldn't say it was my religion


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

I am a Know Nothing


----------



## danberado (Apr 22, 2010)

Reading from this, it would be interesting to have a "composite belief" choice for the spiritual dabblers amongst us. It's actually the approach to spirituality that I admire the most.

I like that "probabilistic atheist" term. Just because I acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong, doesn't mean I'm going to waffle and sit on the fence pretending to be undecided.


----------



## turdusmerula (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm a free thinker. not in any religion but i believe in one true god. That's all.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

i can't choose one religion. there are too many interesting ones, and of course i think a lot of them are giving the same message from a slightly different perspective. 

sometimes i feel like i relate more to hindiusm, other times i feel closer to buddhism or gnostic christianity, so it really all depends on my mood i guess.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I'm a Unitarian Universalist.


----------



## alex911 (Oct 25, 2010)

Muslim! Hail Allah!


----------



## sacred (May 25, 2009)

im a i dont give a ****ing crap. im also a too bad when we are both dead and there is nothing but blank i wont be able to tease the **** out of you for be such a sucker and drone with your time on earth.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

sacred said:


> im a i dont give a ****ing crap. im also a too bad when we are both dead and there is nothing but blank i wont be able to tease the **** out of you for be such a sucker and drone with your time on earth.


 Hence, the expected response when I saw that you'd posted in this thread! Glad I clicked on it. :lol


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

Christian


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

Kevin001 said:


> Christian


----------



## Sus y (Aug 30, 2017)

Kevin001 said:


> Christian


You need to repent kevin, you shouldn't give CPR to a dead thread (I'm kidding, of course, don't repent lol).


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

Karsten said:


>


----------



## SD92 (Nov 9, 2013)

None.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Aug 10, 2014)

69 Atheists 

hehe


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

taoist and other


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

*there's no difference!*

weekdays are all the same. no job to do. breathe, eat, get bored. every day's boring. Sunday can be the best when I get to see friends, dogs, cats...
or they are miserable for me when all families are so joyous, so I'm not

no different months or years. all just lonely

when I was occupied, every day was perfect, forever, and better when I had a girlfriend to sleep with too.

me atheist, but always put christian on a form for the sake. 
religion doesn't matter what person you are. what other people do to you +/- makes you who you are. every act / attitude towards _you_ changes _us_

we all need loads in common to be friends with people (employer, boss)!

I ask my Indian colleagues their faith who told me, which I didn't understand enough

Life experience is foremost. religion could be a secondary factor or lower
My general prompt would be 'religious or not?' to anyone (interviewer, psychologist?)... threatener, challenger... doc, lawyer, ...


----------

