Define Atheist, Agnostic, Non-Theist, Anti-Theist [Archive]

Benster

August 4th 2004, 01:50 PM

(Sorry if this is a recurring topic)

Atheist: Someone who does not believe in God. (Still open to the possibility, however small, that there might be one.)

Hard Atheist: Someone who is pretty darn sure that there's no God! Believes that the existence of God is impossible.

Agnostic: Someone who can't himself prove (by logic, reason or science) that God exists.

Hard Agnostic: Someone who believes that it is theoretically impossible to prove that God exists.

Non-Theist: Euphemism for "Atheist"? Or someone who doesn't usually go to church, although no one knows what they really believe, since they can't be dragged into theological discussions.

Anti-Theist: Someone opposed to the practicing of religion or spirituality of any kind, for moral, political and/or social reasons.

The reason I've posted this is that I come across people who claim to be agnostic, when they are really atheists, as well as agnostics. They just don't like the word. In the west, we are all agnostics, according to the above definitions. Even the pastor of my church doesn't claim that man can prove that God exists. Not since the enlightenment/age of reason, and all that.

BTW, I'm all of the above, except for the "Hard Atheist".

EvoUK

August 4th 2004, 04:57 PM

Atheist: Lack of belief in god(s) or supernatural being(s).

- Weak atheist: the definition above actually applies to "weak" atheism best. It's also known as "agnostic atheism" because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons (seen on here most- no evidence to show belief in god is a logical conclusion to take).

- Strong atheist: goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. The most common veriety of atheist in the west is weak atheist towards the idea of a god, and strong atheist towards defined gods they're aware of.

Agnostic: The theory that man does not have the knowledge to claim that a god does or does not exist.

Non-Theist: means the same thing as an atheist. If you aren't a theist (you can't say 'I believe in a god or gods'), then you are by definition, an atheist.

Anti-Theist: Either an atheist who actively dislikes people who believe in gods (usually kept to the politically active theists), or a theist who dislikes a defined god. The latter is usually on the way to becomming an "emotional atheist", and in turn finally becomming a logical atheist. Though it depends on the person.

Seasanctuary

August 4th 2004, 06:23 PM

I don't really like either "Atheist" or "Agnostic" precisely because there's so much variation in both terms. Taken one way I'm both...taken another way I'm neither.

Superbug

August 4th 2004, 07:45 PM

I don't know how to classify myself. Am I an agnostic or an atheist? I don't think that God exists but it might exist and we can't prove it.

Seasanctuary

August 4th 2004, 07:55 PM

I don't know how to classify myself. Am I an agnostic or an atheist? I don't think that God exists but it might exist and we can't prove it.
Are you saying that it's possible that a God exists whose existence we can't prove...
or are you giving the more blanket statement that we can't prove that God exists at all?

I'm totally with you on the first one...and would ask you how you can be so sure about the second one.

EvoUK

August 4th 2004, 07:56 PM

It sounds like you are a "weak atheist"- otherwise known as an agnostic atheist. Basically, simply by not being able to say "I believe in a god or gods", you are, by definition an atheist. However, as you are very much open to be possibility of a god existing (you didn't specify if you meant a defined god such as the christian god, or an undefined, deistic god), you are known as a "weak" atheist.

Actually, the "weak atheist is the most common form of atheist- atheists like myself being a close second, i.e. we are strong atheist towards defined gods, and weak atheist towards undefined, deistic ones. Strong atheists are the least common, seeing as they have the positive belief that gods don't exist, rather than simply not believing that they do.

Superbug

August 5th 2004, 03:26 AM

Are you saying that it's possible that a God exists whose existence we can't prove...
or are you giving the more blanket statement that we can't prove that God exists at all?

All I'm saying is that at the moment we can't prove that God exists.

Superbug

August 5th 2004, 03:30 AM

However, as you are very much open to be possibility of a god existing (you didn't specify if you meant a defined god such as the christian god, or an undefined, deistic god), you are known as a "weak" atheist.

I'm open to any possibilities but the defined gods are a particularly unlikely possiblity in my opinion. I guess I'm a weak atheist.

Iconoclastithon

February 3rd 2008, 06:13 PM

Atheist: "Classic Atheism" from greek- ATHEOS; "no god", "godless"{Non-theist; Agnostic,Atheist,Deist,etc}. Modern day version/intrpretation of Atheism= "lack of belief in the existence of any sort of creator intelligence".

Hard Atheist: Modern day Atheism with teeth.

Agnostic: Uncertain about the existence of a Deistic Creator. May also be uncertain about exietence of theistic god; but is more commonly used to refer to one uncertain as to the existence of a simple deistic creator; between deist and atheist. But believes it "possible".

Hard Agnostic: Someone who believes that it is theoretically impossible to prove that God exists.
{first posts quote, did'nt feel the need to altar it; good definition}

Non-Theist: What it says, someone wh's NOT a "theist"{no belief in personal deity or deities}; includes Atheists,Agnostics,Deists,Buddhists,Taoists,Modern Satanists, Symbolic Pagans,etc.

Anti-Theist: A rationalist opposed in principle to the concepts of revealed religion, faith, and "theism"{belief in definable personal deities}. Includes Atheists,Agnostics, and Deists{agnostic-deists to be specific, with varrying degrees of agnosticism added to modern deistic views-NOT classic deism/borderline liberal theism}.

Myself, I am an open-minded rationalist; Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist{ApaDeist} myself.

In Reason:
Icono

Zeluvia

February 4th 2008, 12:10 AM

Iconoclastithon

February 4th 2008, 01:09 PM

Agree, Non-theist does not = atheist.

Exactly, same goes for Anti-Theist. :wink:

In Reason:
Icono

hippop47

February 8th 2008, 02:48 PM

hamandcheese

February 8th 2008, 08:14 PM

I think that Agnostic should also be the neutral. If only for convenience. This is because I don't think a Baby can be an "atheist" or "theist" until he/she is exposed to the idea of god. Before that, not only does he/she not know, but is not even aware of the concept.

Zeluvia

February 11th 2008, 05:40 AM

Strong atheist - I do not believe there is a god.

Weak atheist - I do not see any evidence that there is a god.

Non-theist - I do not seek god.

Apathetic - I do not care about god.

Theist - I believe in a personal god.

Anti-theist - I do not believe in a personal god.

Deist - I believe in a non-personal god.

Weak Agnostic - I can not prove there is a god.

Strong Agnostic - I do not think it is possible to prove there is a god.

Ignostic - I need a definition of god before I can discuss this.

Pantheist - I believe god is the universe and the universe is god.

Panentheist - I believe the universe is part of god.

I did not intend for this list to be all inclusive and would welcome any criticisms or improvements to it.

You kinda left out the transcendent idea of god. The main issue I have with this list is that you are expressing the belief in relation to the word god, and really the name for the belief or lack of express an IDEA of GOD.

It isn't the name that changes, its the GOD idea that changes.

Also, non-theist does not mean I do not seek for god, but that you don't believe that a PERSONAL relationship with a PERSON god is possible, because there IS no Personal god that is LIKE A PERSON for you to have a relationship with.

Anti-theist is a fairly new category, and I take it to mean I am against PEOPLE that believe in Personal Gods, and like to pretend to speak for their personal gods.

So put me in the ignostic category, but I do think you are mixing things up some, since the IDEA of god changes so much as you go through those categories.

SlapShot

February 11th 2008, 06:25 AM

Militant Agnostic = I don't know, and you don't either! :wink:

Zeluvia

February 11th 2008, 08:20 AM

Militant Agnostic = I don't know, and you don't either! :wink:

You forgot part of that

"I don't know, you don't either, so shut up already"

hippop47

February 11th 2008, 11:49 AM

It isn't the name that changes, its the GOD idea that changes.

I didn't assume anything for the word god. Before any discussion of god takes place, one must have a defininition. I have friends who think god is nature and another who thinks god is a force. I am atheist to the Christian God, but agnostic toward other types of god. It all depend on the definition.

Also, non-theist does not mean I do not seek for god, but that you don't believe that a PERSONAL relationship with a PERSON god is possible, because there IS no Personal god that is LIKE A PERSON for you to have a relationship with.

"Not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity."
I consider my husband a non-theist. He doesn't have a need to know god and therefore doesn't seek him. He lives his life without god, and makes not claims about existence. This is what I meant by not seeking God. Perhaps it was sloppy. Maybe I should have said, "I don't seek a personal relationship with god."

Anti-theist is a fairly new category, and I take it to mean I am against PEOPLE that believe in Personal Gods, and like to pretend to speak for their personal gods.

How about "I am against those who believe in a personal god."

Zeluvia

February 11th 2008, 09:00 PM

I didn't assume anything for the word god. Before any discussion of god takes place, one must have a defininition. I have friends who think god is nature and another who thinks god is a force. I am atheist to the Christian God, but agnostic toward other types of god. It all depend on the definition.

But that is my point, some of these terms such as deist, theist, ect are not about belief in god, but what DEFINITION of god you accept.

"Not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity."
I consider my husband a non-theist. He doesn't have a need to know god and therefore doesn't seek him. He lives his life without god, and makes not claims about existence. This is what I meant by not seeking God. Perhaps it was sloppy. Maybe I should have said, "I don't seek a personal relationship with god."

See, I wouldn't define your husband as non-theist. To me a non-theist has rejected the idea of personal god, and is out looking at some of the other ideas of god. I would define your husband as apathetic agnostic.

How about "I am against those who believe in a personal god."

Technically, they are not against personal beliefs, they are against theism in the public arena. They are against making policy and other decisions that govern all of us based on the say-so of people that CLAIM to speak for a personal god. So it isn't so much the belief they are against, it is the manifestation of that belief in society, and the people that try to make it so.

Doug Shaver

April 10th 2008, 10:10 PM

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

teos

September 10th 2008, 05:04 PM

I would define atheist as identical with nontheist with agnostic just meaning noncommital on theism.

I would define atheism as:

There is no being such that it imposes a wholly non-subjective moral obligation on someone to worship it.

Defined thusly, I am committed to atheism. However I am agnostic on the question of whether there might be a being such that it is morally permissible to worship for someone and also on the question of whether there might be a being such that it is morally obligatory to worship for someone where the moral obligation is grounded at least partially in a subjective way (i.e. it depends at least partially on contingent facts about the subject)

lao tzu

September 17th 2008, 06:23 PM

I would define atheist as identical with nontheist with agnostic just meaning noncommital on theism.

Agnosticism does not imply lack of commitment, merely lack of knowledge. It's entirely consistent with either belief or disbelief. "Seebs," who posts at both CF and was at one time a moderator at IIDB, identified himself as an agnostic theist, and one of the most thoughtful theists I've ever met on the web.

Welcome to TWeb!

As ever, Jesse

teos

September 21st 2008, 05:00 PM

Since many professed Christians insist that their epistemic relationship with God is not one of knowledge but a kind of faith that they say is exclusive of knowledge, all these Christians then would be "agnostic theists."

Terms can be defined at our convenience. In general, they are not associated with substantative issues. A terminological disagreement to the extent that it is a disagreement of any value is one over the usefulness of one terminological scheme over another. But even here, it does not necessarily correspond to any metaphysical disagreement.

So for example, here, I would acknolwedge that it is possible for someone to be committed to theism, but also be committed to lack of knowledge as to theism's truth. I also acknowledge that someone could define the terms "agnostic" "theism" "committed" and "knowledge" in ways that in some cases would be coincident with my own definitions and in other cases not so and be consistent in saying that he is an "agnostic theist"

So, there's no real metaphysical disagreement; just a terminological preference.

lindenosk

September 30th 2008, 10:20 AM

Thanks everyone. Now I'm going to have to change my faith status back to atheist from agnostic (twice changed already).

oldandtired

September 30th 2008, 12:31 PM

It seems to me that when we define, that is, create a label for something, we are exhibiting our will. We are saying that is what “I” think. Let us assume that the universe, and then life, were “willed,” defined, or created by what we label as “natural laws” meaning the laws of physics, biology, etc.

If we then assign a label to the power that can create or “will,” things and laws, including their consequences, into being, we might (and many of us do) use the label God. Should we do so, we find common ground in the fact that we all not only have a God (big G)that created us, but have the power to become as gods (little g), as stated in Genesis. If we accept the aforementioned premise, our definitions might become:

Atheist- doesn’t believe anything exists in nature.

Hard Atheist- doesn’t believe anything exists at all.

Agnostic- doesn’t want to be bothered with thinking.

Hard Agnostic- Thought once but only got confused.

Non- Theist- doesn’t know and doesn’t care.

Anti- Theist- thinks everyone who does care is nutzzz.

However, this could be considered inappropriate as it would offend so many people, which is not my intention. My point is simple. We might avoid conflict if we agreed to define God, not as some supernatural spook, but ,as a force that is equal in all our lives. This forum is restricted for those who are not theists.

Seasanctuary

September 30th 2008, 01:09 PM

Christians, even Christian Pantheists, aren't supposed to post on this forum.

Especially with a point that silly.

MikeDot

October 15th 2008, 11:20 PM

To disbelieve is to not believe

Atheist - one who doesn't believe in the existence of gods
Theist - one who believes in the existence of god or gods

Agnostic - one who claims to know and/or be able whether god(s) exist(s) or not
Gnostic - one who does not claim to know nor be able to prove whether gods exist or not

One can be an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist.

Quick Clarification:

All gnostic atheists are strong atheists, but not all strong atheists are gnostic atheists. You can believe gods do not exist without claiming to know or be able to prove they do not exist. These people would be strong atheists + agnostic atheists, depending on the category you're talking about.

Babies, trees, and squirrels are noncognitivists. They are neither atheist nor theist.

fluidmindorg

July 21st 2009, 05:31 PM

Agnostic - one who claims to know and/or be able whether god(s) exist(s) or not
Gnostic - one who does not claim to know nor be able to prove whether gods exist or not

Hee hee. Ooops. <GeneWilderVoice>Strike that. Reverse it.</GeneWilderVoice>

One can be an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist.

Unfortunately, however, we can't use "Gnostic" as the opposite of "Agnostic" for the simple fact that the term "Gnostic" is already an established term to refer to a particular ancient near eastern religious sect. So to say that someone is a "gnostic theist" is not to say that he is merely someone who claims to know that a god exists. It is to say that he is someone who holds some or all of the beliefs of the ancient Gnostic religion.

So, the categories would be more plainly put as: atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or theist.

--Dan

Jon_Day

July 30th 2009, 05:19 PM

it may be helpful to learn first what gnosticism is prior to attempting to define agnosticism...

atheism is simply a lack of theism...there is no strong or weak except in pseudointellectual overcategorization

theism - belief in deity

It's pretty simple...we developed theism...some people do not hold any theistic belief system, they are then by default atheists. there were gnostics, and then there were those who lacked the gnostic belief system...and they were by default agnostics.

I don't know why we have so much trouble with this...it's really pretty cut and dry.

Doug Shaver

July 30th 2009, 10:49 PM

it may be helpful to learn first what gnosticism is prior to attempting to define agnosticism...
Ordinarily, yes, it would be. But there is a complication. The word gnosticism had been current, with a specific meaning, for a very long time when Huxley coined the word agnosticism, and he coined it for linguistic purposes unrelated to the historic meaning of gnosticism.

atheism is simply a lack of theism
That is what we atheists keep trying to tell people.

there is no strong or weak except in pseudointellectual overcategorization
The distinction indicated by those words does exist, and it is useful to have labels indicating that distinction. The distinction is not relevant in all contexts, but for those contexts where it is relevant, there is nothing pseudointellectual about taking it into consideration.

there were gnostics, and then there were those who lacked the gnostic belief system...and they were by default agnostics.
Actually, there were several gnostic belief systems. The word gnosticism refers less to a particular belief than to a means of acquiring or validating beliefs.

I don't know why we have so much trouble with this.
Whenever a minority is despised by a majority (or even just a few members of the majority), it is typical for the majority opponents to conceive of and propagate various misconceptions about the minority. Once propagated, they become nearly impossible to eradicate.

Jon_Day

July 31st 2009, 03:30 PM

Ordinarily, yes, it would be. But there is a complication. The word gnosticism had been current, with a specific meaning, for a very long time when Huxley coined the word agnosticism, and he coined it for linguistic purposes unrelated to the historic meaning of gnosticism..

You're correct...in this instance I am the one making too vague a generalization.

That is what we atheists keep trying to tell people..

:-)

The distinction indicated by those words does exist, and it is useful to have labels indicating that distinction. The distinction is not relevant in all contexts, but for those contexts where it is relevant, there is nothing pseudointellectual about taking it into consideration..

However...it seems to me that creating these distinctions does not a have a solid basis or foundation, in that they can too easily be adjusted, and adjusted, and adjusted until there really isn't any distinction at all...and we have to develop a new subcategory. Rather than just accepting that there is the general, and that the general breaks off on an individual basis...we instead prefer to take those individual breakoffs and attempt to generalize once again...it isn't really our fault necessarily, as this is how our brains are wired to understand the world. Categorization.

Actually, there were several gnostic belief systems. The word gnosticism refers less to a particular belief than to a means of acquiring or validating beliefs. .

Exactly...gnosticism...in general refers specifically to the ability to obtain divine knowledge. If the gnostics believed that we have the ability to gain divine knowledge...it would stand to reason that agnostic would simply mean believing that there is a lack of ability to obtain divine knowledge.

Whenever a minority is despised by a majority (or even just a few members of the majority), it is typical for the majority opponents to conceive of and propagate various misconceptions about the minority. Once propagated, they become nearly impossible to eradicate.

Certainly the case...especially if we look in American cultural development, and the white supremacy movement...of course at one point...the majority of Americans were living as white supremacists...even if on an individual basis...those beliefs were not held.

Doug Shaver

August 1st 2009, 10:11 AM

However...it seems to me that creating these distinctions does not a have a solid basis or foundation
The difference between strong atheism and weak atheism is real, and it would exist regardless of whether we attached any label to it. Whether the difference is worth arguing about is another matter. In my experience on this and similar forums, once the subject comes up, substantive discussion nearly always ceases, and that is generally the fault of both the theists and the non-theists who are participating in the exchange. If the question is "Should we or should we not believe in God?" then the issue of what we should call people who don't believe is purely diversionary.

If the gnostics believed that we have the ability to gain divine knowledge...it would stand to reason that agnostic would simply mean believing that there is a lack of ability to obtain divine knowledge.
Assuming that "divine knowledge" means "knowledge about the divine" . . . The gnostics did believe that, but it was the way they claimed to acquire divine knowledge that distinguished them from other theists. It is not the case that all their adversaries denied any ability to gain divine knowledge. Orthodox Christianity has generally claimed to have plenty of divine knowledge while condemning gnosticism as heresy.

In modern usage, agnosticism is just the denial of having any knowledge, period. It seems to have been Huxley's intention, when he coined the word, to include the implication of nonbelief as well, and common usage does include that implication. Strictly speaking, though, one can affirm a belief in God while also claiming to be agnostic. I don't recall ever meeting anyone who does that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few of them around.

StephenR

September 14th 2009, 09:44 PM

Here's how the terms are usually used at my uni.

Theist - Believes in at least one personal deity.

Atheist - Believes there are no gods.

Agnostic - Uncertain if there is a god (or gods).

Deist - Believes there is at least one impersonal deity (usually a hands-off creator).

Pantheist - Believes that nature itself is god. (Panentheists believe god is the divine reality manifested in nature.)

Non-theist - All people who are not theists (atheists, agnostics, deists, etc).

Anti-theist - this is usually a moral or political commitment against theism. Anti-theists generally feel that god-concepts are harmful in some way.

------

But it depends on who you ask. Among philosophers, many who are atheists are so as a consequence of naturalism.

Griggsy

March 10th 2010, 09:54 PM

We ignostics find that with no referent as First Cause,etc., and He has incoherent, contradictory characteristics, He cannot exit. See my signature.

Wolvrik

September 15th 2010, 05:23 PM

Non-theist

There are many definitions of the word non-theist floating around out there. When this term is applied to Buddhism however, it has a meaning unique to Buddhism.

For the atheist and the agnostic there is no path to what would be referred to in Christianity as "salvation" nor do they concern themselves with this pursuit. For the Buddhist (non-theist) there is a clearly defined path to salvation or liberation. This path to liberation does not rely on "God" or a god in order to achieve it's goal. Buddhists don't deny that gods or demons exist, they are just seen as beings like ourselves that are subject to the same laws of karma and therefore are not that special. Because of this, the idea of an omniscient creator god is rejected and in this sense I suppose you could twist the atheist designation around to fit. The following excerpt states the Buddhist view fairly nicely:

Shambhala Sun | July 2001
Religion Without God

Theism implies an inherent limitation to human nature. It declares that to attain the ultimate, we must look outside of ourselves and our immediate experience. It establishes a reference point for reality that resides somewhere else and directs us to seek confirmation of the self in relation to that.

The doctrines of original sin or inherent human depravity would be examples of theism in its more extreme forms. They are typical in asserting that we can connect ourselves to the ultimate only by making a relation with that which is exterior to us, and that we can do so only through the agency of a savior, a holy book, a religious institution, and so on.

In Buddhism, the meaning of theism is best understood when set in a wider context. In a larger sense, theism refers to anything outside of us that purports to solve the human predicament. It may be spiritual; it may be secular. Some people seek salvation in an external deity. But others seek it in a philosophical viewpoint or political movement, in a relationship, in social status, or in material acquisition.

In each case, the individual seeks ultimate confirmation and fulfillment by looking outside. What is already present within his or her experience, what arises throughout the course of a day or a life, is discounted as being without ultimate value. In a sense, whether the external "answer" is materialistic, psychological or religious does not really matter.

The Buddhist approach states that what is ultimately required for human fulfillment is a perfection of being that is found in who we already are. This is the meaning of the Buddha's advice given shortly before his death and recounted in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, in which he councils his followers to be lights unto themselves, to seek refuge in themselves, and to seek no other refuge, using the dharma as a means to that end.

Griggsy

September 29th 2010, 07:28 AM

Wolvrik, Buddha's Wrong Path, doesn't have a creator god is why some cal it atheistic. Its divas are godling, no more real than other polytheistic gods. No reason exists to postulate them whatsoever; they fill no niche. Perhaps the right term is adeism or adevism- no interference in our affairs as were those of Epicurus as opposed to those of Greek mythology, who could interfere in the world but none have the power of creation; something created and the Titans before them..
And ignoramuses created Yahweh!
Buddha himself stated for people to question matters rather than have faith as children, in effect. as I fathom that faith. We rationalists note his advice to seek ones own inner resources : she who helps herself, does that without any God at work on her!
We naturalists do have concerns over reincarnation and karma as no evidence can exist for them.
Buddha didn't tell people to go to Hell! No one has to succour to him!
Yes, that notion of human depravity is overkill! most people are good most of the time. Study Albert Ellis's " The Myth of Self-Esteem."

Wolvrik

September 30th 2010, 08:09 AM

@Griggsy - Thanks for the reply. I guess I mistakenly responded to your post, sorry. I was just posting a better definition for non-theist as seen from a Buddhist perspective.

I was not making a case for the existence of a "God" ,"god", "gods", supernatural beings, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only reason it was mentioned is that there are branches of Buddhism that incorporate these ideas into their flavor of Buddhism. When this occurs (for better or worse) these "beings" are seen as explained above. Zen Buddhism is less involved the esoteric ideas. Granted karma is a theory but cause and effect are not. As for reincarnation, really who knows? I like the idea but I won't make a case for it because none can be made. Still, it comes down to "pick your metaphor". I like to see the world the way I see it as a Buddhist. I can't claim this is the "correct" or completely rational way to see it but with that always in mind, I like it. There is also the possibility that it could be correct, or not.

I do find your designation "Buddha's Wrong Path" unnecessarily condescending.

Griggsy

October 2nd 2010, 06:07 AM

Wolvrik, thanks for the civility.
Anyway, Buddhism doesn't proclaim a creator and sustainer God who would violate the Ockham and introduce indirectly intent into science
. Per Lamberth's atelic or telenomic argument, the weight of evidence rules out any divine intent behind natural causes and effects, so no intent behind the Big Bang, none for miracles, no intent for patterns as designs, and thus no referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist.
As Paul Edwards notes in " Reincarnation," the evidence is quite against reincarnation. He finds Stevenson erring. He finds the use of children as reincarnated erroneous.

Cause and effect, most certainly, but we don't always see justice done to murderers: Mao the greatest mass murderer of the twentieth century didn't get the effect of any karma!
I condescend in order to take away the sacredness of religions. Anyone else who says yea or nay to this policy, please comment.
Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters, eh?
What is it about Buddhism that is better than any other religion? I have a Buddhist critique of Christianity that fairly criticizes it.

Wolvrik

October 3rd 2010, 11:41 AM

All good points well taken. However, karma (presuming you accept the idea for arguments sake) is not "punishment" for humanly perceived "evils". Karma is just karma. It operates rather stupidly without making judgments. It has an undefiled nature that transcends duality. We are not always aware of the endless dimensions of cause and effect.

However, to accept any of these things requires some degree of faith which is something I could not ever understand. I've had people say to me "you gotta have faith", I respond, "Why do I have to have faith?" It is an illogical and unreasonable mental construct.

"Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters, eh?"
"What is it about Buddhism that is better than any other religion?"

That is your answer, "Buddha maintains that all should ever question matters."
At some point even the Buddha's teaching must not be relied on other than the looking to yourself for the answers. This is a unique position for a religion. I know of no other that entreats the follow to leave the teaching behind. As for reincarnation, Buddha was asked the question, "what happens after you die?" It is said that he "maintained a noble silence".

Anytime anyone takes a stand and says, "this is the way it is" this is the point where you should clearly understand that the person or teaching is in error.

Still, I like being a Buddhist and I like the rituals associated with it.

justsumguy

October 18th 2010, 12:04 AM

These are my definitions...
Atheist - insists there can be no god(s)
Agnostic - does not insist there is a god(s) or is not a god(s).
Theist - insists there is a god

Soft Atheist - thinks the belief in god(s) is stupid but is willing to grant the smallest of possibilities.

Militant Atheist - Insists we can't know and insists to know.

Soft Theist - thinks that atheists are stupid but cannot define their god in a way that makes any sense

Militant Theist - Insists God exists and those who do not believe them will be punished forever for daring not to believe them.

Griggsy

January 18th 2011, 10:39 AM

We ignostics find that as He has no referents as Primary Cause and so forth and that He has incoherent,contradictory attributes that He cannot exist so that positive[hard] atheism wins.
My form pervades arguments for and against HIs existence, and thus counters Alfred Jules Ayer and Theodore Drange's comments that ignosticism tells against both theism and atheism.:teeth:

Anti-theist

September 2nd 2012, 01:57 AM

I'm sorry but there is not wiggle room for Athiest's, because Atheism is " The doctrine that there is no deity." which makes it it's own religion, if anyone chooses to deny this then go look in up in a hard back dictionary. And guess what, Athiest's are just as bad as people of other religions and here is why, 1.Both have people who are ignorant of what they're preaching 2. Both preach that their's is the correct belief. And guess what people of the atheist religion your proof goes as far as people of any other religion, which is a dead end. I'm open not knowing because that's what puts the meaning into every decision a person makes, giving beauty to every moment your alive because it may be the last you experience. But good job showing your ignorance.

Doug Shaver

September 2nd 2012, 10:17 PM

I'm sorry but there is not wiggle room for Athiest's, because Atheism is " The doctrine that there is no deity." which makes it it's own religion, if anyone chooses to deny this then go look in up in a hard back dictionary.
I have looked up both atheism and religion in several dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, which is generally regarded as the most authoritative of them all.

And if you think the material used for the cover of any book is an indicator of its quality, then you are in no position to be giving anybody lectures about how to prove anything.