[SypheDMar]

It's what I said throughout the post. There is no reason to deny who you are.

[Bobboau]

yeah, the only difference between an atheist and agnostic in general usage is that atheists are typically more confrontational and agnostics are more backoffish. the actual belles held are exactly the same.

[Luis Dias]

Great, now go and convince MP of that basic truth and get him off his high epistemological horse.

[karajorma]

Play nice.

yeah, the only difference between an atheist and agnostic in general usage is that atheists are typically more confrontational and agnostics are more backoffish. the actual belles held are exactly the same.

That's only cause militant agnostics are rather rare. Atheists in general aren't more confrontational, it's just that there are a few who dicks about it and taint the opinion of the rest of us.

[Lorric]

Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?

[Bobboau]

That's only cause militant agnostics are rather rare. Atheists in general aren't more confrontational, it's just that there are a few who dicks about it and taint the opinion of the rest of us.

it's more due to the fact that "atheist" has cultural baggage, you self select into these groups, the only difference is people react more outraged at the atheist label than they do the agnostic label, if you self select into the more uncomfortable name then you are more likely to be taking an attitude of "you know what **** you"

Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?

this might help to explain this to you, people who go under the atheist banner often consider solidarity important in order to confront many of the cultural and legal biases against non-beleif. one of our goals is to present our selves as a powerful voting block, we've got our number up to 20% now
keeping in mind there is little organized effort, so "goal" here is just sort of a common desire.

[karajorma]

it's more due to the fact that "atheist" has cultural baggage, you self select into these groups, the only difference is people react more outraged at the atheist label than they do the agnostic label, if you self select into the more uncomfortable name then you are more likely to be taking an attitude of "you know what **** you"

I don't disagree, but that's pretty much just a different angle on what I said.

Why are you people chasing MP-Ryan? Does it matter what he chooses to label himself if you believe his beliefs are the same as yours? Surely that's all that matters?

Well first cause he claimed that agnosticism is better than atheism. Which is nonsense if he is also an atheist too.

And second cause there is a second type of person that call themselves agnostic too. People who believe there is a god or gods, but that current religions are wrong about who or what they are. And there are quite a large number of those. For instance people who say they are spiritual but not religious. Atheists frequently have to explain that Atheism isn't just another religion, and it really doesn't help when people who aren't believers say that they are part of a group that also contains people who are. The second we start getting an agnostic theist explaining what they believe but also simply calling themselves an agnostic, the whole issue becomes much more confusing.

That second issue doesn't exist with Atheism. You occasionally get atheists who claim to believe in God, but all they prove is that they don't know what an atheist actually is.

[Lorric]

An agnostic theist is not an agnostic then, they're a theist. Unattached to a religion, but a believer in God.

Where did he say Agnostic > Atheist? He has stated why he is comfortable with being an agnostic, but I never got an impression he views it as superior. Unless you're going to take that as automatically him saying Agnostic > all the rest, as I suppose you kind of default to that or you wouldn't believe in something.

Anyway, I don't want to get sucked into any drama, or go speaking for someone who is quite capable of speaking for themselves. I just wanted to know why you wanted him to change. But keep in mind, he's not going to change unless you give him a reason to change which benefits him. He is clearly very comfortable with identifying as agnostic, and honestly I don't think you'll be able to move him. I'd suggest just letting it go.

[haloboy100]

An agnostic theist is not an agnostic then, they're a theist. Unattached to a religion, but a believer in God.

They can still be qualified as agnostic if they do not believe that God is an explainable entity or is directly relevant to human life.
In the later case, they may sound intuitively unsound, but it is still valid.

[Dragon]

That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general. Atheism is defined as rejection of theism in it's broadest sense (the existence of a god). Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists, but doesn't reject that possibility. An atheist believes that there's no God. An agnostic believes that we can't really know that. A Deist believes there is God, but he isn't doing anything we don't see (meaning he may be running the weather or determining dice rolls, but isn't going to make anyone walk on water).
The key difference is that an Atheist is certain about God not existing (well... at least as certain as a Theist is about His existence), while an Agnostic says that we don't know that and we most likely can't.

Also note, those terms are not religions in their own right, those are merely beliefs. For instance, an Atheist can also be a Buddhist, especially if we're talking about deeply philosophical Zen (that roughly describes my beliefs, BTW). Same with agnosticism. A Deist can believe in any God, though obviously would be at odds with most organized religions.

[mjn.mixael]

I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.

Not reading the 6 pages of the thread. However, the only issue I take with this other than the silliness of the atom logo is that they claim to be doing this for equality and yada, yada.. but from what I understand of the article, their bench pretty clearly is making fun of the Christian religion. That's not helping. As they are encouraging the other religions to put up their monuments, are they also encouraging them to poke fun at those they don't agree with? What if the Muslims put up one that pokes fun at the Athiest bench?

+1 for a Bench monument with a bench logo and nothing else. That would have been much more in line with what they are saying.

[haloboy100]

This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple.

[Lorric]

Anyone want to try their hand at designing an atheist logo?

How about a hand or a pair of hands grasping the Earth? To signify that human hands shape the World, not Gods.

[haloboy100]

That seems even more theistic, IMO, since it looks like Earth is being molded by god-like hands.

I kinda like the atom logo used here, but were it not for the A, I would have associated it with scientology*.

*I have no idea what scientology actually is. My point here being that the logo doesn't really convey an atheist message other than the fact that it's related to secular science.

[redsniper]

I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.

Not reading the 6 pages of the thread. However, the only issue I take with this other than the silliness of the atom logo is that they claim to be doing this for equality and yada, yada.. but from what I understand of the article, their bench pretty clearly is making fun of the Christian religion. That's not helping. As they are encouraging the other religions to put up their monuments, are they also encouraging them to poke fun at those they don't agree with? What if the Muslims put up one that pokes fun at the Athiest bench?

+1 for a Bench monument with a bench logo and nothing else. That would have been much more in line with what they are saying.

Maybe you should read the thread then, since a few of us already expressed the same sentiment.

[Lorric]

That seems even more theistic, IMO, since it looks like Earth is being molded by god-like hands.

I kinda like the atom logo used here, but were it not for the A, I would have associated it with scientology*.

*I have no idea what scientology actually is. My point here being that the logo doesn't really convey an atheist message other than the fact that it's related to secular science.

Yes, amusing irony. It would be a fun logo, wouldn't it, the religious people might like it as well. Everyone is happy!

[Nuke]

This is why Nihilism is awesome: Everything is wrong. Simple.

here, i made a nihilism logo:



wacha think? too flashy?

[swashmebuckle]

I looked around and the only half-decent nonbeliever logo I could find is the Humanist Human. Even that one looks like it belongs on a heath insurance company though. It seems we're just gonna have to come up with our own. I'll get things started:

The Shining Beaker

The Vulcan Hand Thing

The Beaver Rampant

[Hobbie]

If you really, really want to distill it down to the base level, the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that the agnostic is open to the idea of a creator deity, and the atheist is closed to it. That's really about it.

[karajorma]

No, it really isn't. As I keep pointing out, it's possible to be both agnostic and atheistic, only one, or neither agnostic nor atheistic. See below.

That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general. Atheism is defined as rejection of theism in it's broadest sense (the existence of a god). Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists, but doesn't reject that possibility. An atheist believes that there's no God. An agnostic believes that we can't really know that.

That's wrong on pretty much every count.

Agnosticism is defined as belief that it's impossible to know if a deity exists

No. Agnosticism is defined as a belief that one doesn't know whether or not God exists. Strong Agnostics further believe that it is impossible to know. Weak agnostics believe that no one knows now but that the question may one day be answered.

That would be more properly called a Deist. They believe that reason and empiric observation is enough to prove the existence of a god, therefore invalidating things like miracles and organized religions in general.

No. Basically all deists are agnostic theists but not all agnostic theists are deists. Especially if you're limiting deism to classical or modern deism.

An atheist believes that there's no God.

No. An atheist doesn't believe in God. I know that sounds like a nitpick but there's actually a very important difference. The lack of a belief. Someone who has never heard of god would be an atheist. Some atheists may go further and actively disbelieve in God but this derives from the lack of a belief in god.

I know that both versions of the definition are used all the time, I've probably used the same one you have. But if we're defining what an atheist is, let's get it correct!

Also note, those terms are not religions in their own right, those are merely beliefs. For instance, an Atheist can also be a Buddhist, especially if we're talking about deeply philosophical Zen (that roughly describes my beliefs, BTW).

While true, I really wish people wouldn't do that. It makes an already confusing topic even more confusing. Same has how although Buddhism isn't technically a religion, it makes more sense to include it with the religions.