Is there a Difference between Atheist, Agnostic and Unreligious

[bryant69]

Or how significant is that difference?

I see three seperate buckets -

Athesits are those who have philosophically grappled with the issue of religion and came up with there's no there there. They believe there is no God and that religion is nonsense (and in some cases dangerous nonsense).

Agnostics simply say that they don't know one way or anther - they have probably spent some time thinking about religion but not to the extent that an atheist has. They simply say that they don't know one way or another and they don't think anybody knows either.

Unreligious are those who don't care one way or another - maybe God Exists maybe he doesn't, but either way it wouldn't make any difference in how they live their lifes - the questions posed by religion just don't interest them. To put it another way, if there was definitive proof of the existence of non-existence of God, it would probably change both Atheists and Agnostics opinions - but would have little to no effect on the unreligious.

Let me say something else, Unreligious is a clunky term - because of course an atheist and an agnostic are unreligious as well - perhaps disinterested would be better?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EST]

1. Most atheists I know would fall in your "unreligious" category.

They just don't give a shit' one way or the other unless something religious intrudes, uninvited.

[bpeale]

4. that is so untrue

as an atheist, i have grappled with it ... and i just came to the conclusion that there is no god and there is no life after this one. to me, that is the end of the subject. as it is defined above, i have considered it, and i don't believe it. the bible is a nice story, but thats all it is. end of subject.

[EST]

I, too have grappled with it and fully understand.

" i just came to the conclusion that there is no god and there is no life after this one. to me, that is the end of the subject."

Perhaps you could explain what I posted that is "untrue?"

[bryant69]

5. I don't know about that

I don't mean to make it seem like Atheists are evangelical about their atheism. Some are, but most aren't.

But consider this hypothetical - say one knows one can move up the corporate ladder if one pretends to be a Christian - goes to church a few times, fakes it ok, and then you'll get the promotion. I suppose that what I am labelling an indifferent would do it, while an atheist wouldn't. Or at the very least it would be a lot tougher decision for the indiferrent.

[EST]

19. Hmmm...

I don't see where we differ.

"I don't mean to make it seem like Atheists are evangelical about their atheism. Some are, but most aren't. "

I grew up in a world where to be other than deeply religious was unheard of. For my first twenty years or so, I had to adapt protective coloration. Then came the militant stage when I was actively fighting the scourge of "blind faith." At that point, I knew no atheists, personally, only books.

Now, approaching the end of a fairly long life, most of the atheists that I know do not proselytize, are not evangelical and really don't give a shit what you or anyone else does with your lives-your problems, your choices.

If the "religious" folk leave me alone, I am perfectly willing to allow others to talk their way into whatever hell or purgatory they wish. It ain't my problem and I refuse to deliberately produce more angst in the world by taking offense at others' foibles in re their imaginary castle building.

[bluerum]

2. If there wasn't a difference, there would not be three words in the

language to represent them all. I suppose the differences are significant mostly to agnostics, atheists, and the unreligious.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Yes

An atheist comes from the position that deity does not exist (or is not relevant, due to the lack of evidence.)

An agnostic comes from the position that the existence or non-existence of deity is unknown or unknowable.

"Unreligious" does not fall on the continuum you are listing, as it refers more to practice rather than belief, ie a person may believe in Christianity but not attend church services; that makes him a believer and unreligious both.

[Zhade]

7. Strong atheists only; the rest of us simply lack belief.

NT!

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. DOH!

I had meant to make that distinction, sorry. Now it's too late.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. You forgot freethinker and secular humanist.

[bpeale]

8. shouldn't this discussion be in some other forum?

i don't want to see flame wars started for the 4th day in a row over religious crap. put this discussion where it belongs.

[bryant69]

9. It is in the Religion Theology forum

Where is it supposed to be?

I thought this was the appropriate place.

[Ellis Wyatt]

10. I would say

"unreligious" is bucketed with "agnostic". I don't care one way or another. I think being absolutely positive that there is no God is just as baseless as being absolutely positive that there is a God. It's all faith either way.

Not believing (or caring) whether there is or is not, agnostic, in my mind - and that includes your "option 3"

[Warpy]

11. "They believe there is no God"

is an incorrect statement. The proper statement is "They acknowledge openly that they have seen no evidence of god or gods."

There really is no "there" there. No belief, just a lack thereof.

Most atheists put themselves into the "not religious" closet, but there are other folks there, as well, believers who are uncomfortable with organization, liturgy, dogma. They range from unafilliated Christians, Jews, Muslims and a dozen other faiths to atheists who just don't want any trouble from religious militants.

My mother was in the "don't know and don't care" category of agnosticism. I'm generally out of the closet as an "I haven't seen gods or fairies or leprechauns or any of the other spooks, so show me already" type of atheist.

Nobody has ever shown me any of them. Oh, they wax terribly poetic at time, but poetry is not proof.

Now bring on the flames from the believers who can't imagine anyone who lacks belief, although they can imagine all sorts of people who lack other things.

Atheism is a belief like not playing football is a sport.

[bryant69]

13. I apologize for the abuse you've suffered at the hands of believers

And I apologize for my miststatment. Clearly there is a distinction between saying there is no God and saying I've never seen proof of God.

I will note though that the importance you place on the correct statement of your opinion, does underline the distinction between the Atheist and the Unreligious/indifferent camp. It clearly matters to you that your opinion is stated clearly. I have to think it wouldn't if you were indifferent to the question of religion altogether.

Bryant

[Warpy]

23. Religion in this country is pervasive

and getting more so every day that Stupid and his band of merry Calvinists remain in office.

How can one be uninterested?

Whether we're mainstream Christians or militant atheists (which I'm not), we need to fight these people. To fight them effectively, we need to know them and that means knowing everything that's making them tick.

[Speck Tater]

12. I will disagree on one detail

You say of the agnostic "...they have probably spent some time thinking about religion but not to the extent that an atheist has."

I think it's the other way around. You cannot prove a negative so taking the position "God does not exist" is a less defensible, and less well thought out position than the agnostic position. I pretty much started out with the easy assumptions of atheism, but the more deeply I delved into the issue the more agnostic I became. Atheism is based on faith, pure and simple. It accepts something that is unproven and unobserved, and, in fact, unprovable. The agnostic is the only scientific one of the bunch. Everyone else is either a true believer in the existence of God or a true believer in the non-existence of God. Neither stand is justifiable as anything but blind faith.

[bryant69]

15. You and Warpy above could have an interesting discussion

Bryant

[Evoman]

17. I don't understand your reasoning.

"Atheism is based on faith, pure and simple. It accepts something that is unproven and unobserved, and, in fact, unprovable"

Why is it unprovable? Why is there an automatic assumption that we can not prove that god exists? If there is a god, and he has any effect on the real world, then his existence should be someday provable. We may not be able to do it just yet, but what do you base your statement on?

I think the problem I have with agnosticism is that agnostics somehow believe that you can believe or not believe, and each position is 50% likely, so they abstain. Many atheists look at it more in terms of probability...god may or may not exist, but since there is no evidence of his existence and, if he is as powerful and omnipotent as most people believe he is, there should be, non-existence has a higher probability. There is no evidence, so I won't believe in god until there is better evidence. Other atheists have no belief, simply because there is no reason to.

"You cannot prove a negative so taking the position "God does not exist" is a less defensible"

I agree with your first point, but your conclusion does not follow. When there is no evidence, a position of non-belief is the only rational position. Believing in something with no evidence is obviously not rational...because proving a negative is impossible, by believing in god you close yourself off completely to the idea that he does not exist. Because no one can possible prove you wrong. If something DOES exist, you should be able to prove it...its no longer "proving a negative". So if your an atheist, and somebody proves god exists, you can easily weigh the evidence and change your mind.

Agnosticism seems a superior position in principle, but in practice, its not. After all, very few people can claim neutraility. Just as it is silly to claim neutrality on the "There is a english teapot circling mercury" idea, it is silly to, in the long term, remain purely agnostic about god.

The most rational position, scientifically, is agnostic atheism, in my opinion.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Maybe someday I'll be as enlightened as you are.

For now, I'm just a mere atheist.

As Evoman stated, I'm not trying to prove the negative. There is no proof of god. There is no need for inserting god into anything in our world to explain anything. Every single concept of god is shown to have no proof. Why would I believe in any of that without proof. Are you agnostic about magical leprecauns living in trees? unicorns? the tooth fairy?

Sorry if this is overly snarky. Perhaps I am too touchy right now; it's been a long day of classes.

[Random_Australian]

29. How much time does it take to find out what atheists think?

After all, the most of us don't use the position "God does not exist".

So it looks like your further assumptions that agnosticism is the only scientifically reasonable and that atheism is based on faith are also incorrect.

Want to argue that I am wrong? Or will you ask me what I, as an atheist, believe?

[trotsky]

14. Atheist is a noun, agnostic is an adjective.

Their opposites are theist and gnostic.

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

[bryant69]

16. OK - except that's not how I've heard the words used in the past

Rather almost everybody who says either Atheist or Agnostic has a pretty clear idea of what they mean.

I've heard Agnostic used as a noun my whole life.

[trotsky]

18. The reason why it doesn't make any sense for "agnostic" to be a position

is exactly why people have such a tough time labeling folks as being agnostic or atheist. They can be both, because (a)gnosticism is a statement about knowledge, (a)theism a statement about belief.

[bryant69]

20. I suppose the simplest way is just to let them describe themselves

If a person says he's Atheist, he's an Atheist. If a person says he's an agnostic he's an agnostic.

Bryant

[iverglas]

130. this is the answer, and it needs to be repeated:

They can be both, because
(a)gnosticism is a statement about knowledge,
(a)theism a statement about belief.

An atheist does not believe.
An agnostic does not know.

The two things are entirely different -- belief and knowledge. (Sometimes belief is based on knowledge -- I believe it is not raining outside, because, well, it isn't.)

I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods or anything else supernatural.

I am also an agnostic. I do not know whether there is a god or there are gods, or anything else supernatural exists. I would be a moron to say I know there isn't. Just as anyone who says s/he knows there is, is a moron. It seems to me that if there is a god etc. the whole bleeding point of it would be that I could not know it; if I could know it, either it would not be a god or I would not be a human being. So there may be such a thing/things. I'll never know while I'm alive, and I believe I will not know when I'm dead. (And really, the idea that I'd become capable of knowing such a thing when I'm dead is just too weird for words.)

An atheist who claims to know that there is no god is not speaking as an atheist, s/he is speaking as a person who claims to know that there is no god.

Just as a theist who claims to know that there is a god is not speaking as a theist, s/he is speaking as a person who claims to know that there is a god.

As for gnostics/agnostics ... that whole thing got twisted a very long time ago. But basically, gnosis is "knowledge of spiritual mysteries", and a gnostic is someone who has knowledge of spiritual mysteries. Presumably, of the solution to such spiritual mysteries. Whatever a spiritual mystery is; I don't have a clue, heh heh -- just don't see any mystery, myself. And how one could have knowledge of such things without being a god, or insane, I dunno.

Anyhow: atheist and agnostic are two different things, which describe people according to two completely different kinds of characteristics. An atheist has no belief; an agnostic has no knowledge. An agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. Presumably a gnostic would be a theist -- unless s/he has discovered that the answer to the spiritual mysteries is 42.

Oh, and unreligious? Somebody who isn't religious. Presumably, one can be a theist and not have a religion. Obviously, an atheist would be unreligious.

[kiahzero]

24. I have a question, this thread seems a good place to ask:

Often there's a distinction made between Believe("No God") and Not Believe("God"). While I understand and recognize the validity of that distinction, it raises a question for me. Sometimes, people making that distinction and asserting that they are will ridicule any who Believe("God"). I understand it coming from somone who holds the position Believe("No God"), but it doesn't make much sense to me otherwise.

[Random_Australian]

31. It's a lot like that agnostic saying that everyone but them took their

position on pure faith (well, sort of like it); basically, the appearance that others are believing incorrect things.

Well, there is a little more to it but that is the basic thing.

Not, of course, that there are many people at all who 'ridicule any who Believe("God")', of course.

:)

P.S. I like your notation. :)

[Finder]

25. Sort of like Leftist, Liberal, Progressive-- depends on who is doing...

the labeling.

[ulysses]

26. "but not to the extent that an atheist has"

You base that on what, exactly?

[frogcycle]

27. Let me know when

you guys figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I'll look at this completely pointless thread again.

Let's get democrats elected!

[Random_Australian]

28. wow!Am I to be the first to argue that his definition of atheism is wrong?

Looks like most of the atheists are worn out. Oh well, anyway:

Atheists are more often implicit atheists, who lack belief in God but don't assert God cannot exist, after all, you can't prove a negative is the argument we use. (The best counter argument I've heard was about inherit contradiction)

Before I continue, you may notice sometimes I use 'atheist' and 'implicit atheist' interchangeably sometimes. Meh.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics put the two competing ideas on more equal footing, whereas us implicit atheist use more H(0) vs H(1) terms.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Yeah, must be because the rest of us are too busy "grappling" with God.

And we lost again, dammit.

Gobby managed to get him in a choke hold but Evoman just HAD to use the opportunity to pull one of his Three Stooges stunts and stuck his fingers in God's eyes.

[smirkymonkey]

30. I have philisophically grappled with the issue and have come to

the conclusion that I really can't know one way or the other about God (although even the term "god" presents me with semantic issues) but that one thing I know for certian is that religion is a sickness. I guess that would make me an agnostic of sorts.

I differentiate between an individuals spiritual journey and his/her relationship with what they define as "god" and the oppressive, patriarchal institution of monotheistic religion. Personally, I think once you try to capture and contain matters of heart and spirit, the more fucked up everything gets.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Your red herrings are really stinking up the place, bryant69.

You were so busy using your own narrow definitions to make a point, you forgot what it was.

Maybe christians should stop trying to redefine what we are and concentrate instead on pointing out the intolerance of their fellow christians in Washington.

[cyborg_jim]

34. Hmm

I don't think religious people like the fact that to state oneself's an atheist doesn't provide enough material in order to form a prejudice about their view of reality and therefore are determined to cram extra philosophical baggage onto what is a very simple concept of denial.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Some need to convince themselves (and others) that we reject their deity.

Like I could reject something that cannot be defined even by those that believe in it in the first place. :eyes:

[cosmik debris]

35. One more time.

The only attribute that all atheists have in common is that theists disagree with us.

The only statement to which all atheists agree is "I do not believe."

When you attribute other traits or beliefs to atheists you are trading in stereotypes. This is mildly offensive behavior. I know that you will not stop, but you should understand that you are being offensive.

So, shall we play with Christian stereotypes? Is that fair play?

[bryant69]

36. DU Atheists play with Christian Stereotypes all the time

And a lot harsher than this.

This is at least an attempt to understand, rather than simply mock.

But I apologize for trying to understand Athiests.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Your apology is as sincere as your attempt to "understand" us.

Shall I do a search to find out how many times I and my fellow atheists have explained this to you?

[bryant69]

39. Explained what to me?

That all atheists are different and I shouldn't attempt to categorize them?

If that floats your boat, go right ahead.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Hell no. I can see how the tolerance of that position repulses you.

An atheist should never ask a christian to live up to the ideals of their savior.

We're more than happy just pointing out the obvious


HYP.


OC.


RI.


SY.

[cosmik debris]

40. You express regret for trying to understand

But you declined to express regret for being offensive. Is this a Christian attribute?

[bryant69]

41. I apologize also for giving offense. Such was not my intent.

I was trying to get a definition of those words, but clearly I shouldn't have.

As for the other question, let me think. What would I call someone who gives offense, but has no interest in apologizing for his offense. I guess I would call that person an asshole. I mean he just pisses people off but doesn't care that he does so? Yeah, that would be an asshole.

I'd say that being an asshole is not a Christian Attribute, but I'm sure there are many who would disagree.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

42. You've contradicted yourself

When you said "I was trying to get a definition of those words"

If you want to get something, you ask for it or you just take it. Instead, you GAVE something, a bogus definition based on your own bias.

Your words betray your true self.

[bryant69]

43. Hmmmmm. And what is my true self?

You've piqued my curiousity

I gave my definition as a starting point for discussion, obviously you disagree with it, as did several others. There's nothing particularly sinister in that, I don't think. It wasn't like an offensive definition, except in so far as any definition is going to be incomplete.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

44. See rule #3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[bryant69]

45. I'm not sure I understand the connection

You mean you aren't going to tell me what my true self is, because it would violate rule #3?

Or that I violated rule #3 when I said "Athesits are those who have philosophically grappled with the issue of religion and came up with there's no there there. They believe there is no God and that religion is nonsense (and in some cases dangerous nonsense)." I see that I mispelled Atheist there, one of my finer moments.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

46. I will not violate rule #3

Even though you invited it.

[bryant69]

47. OK

Well congratulations on your high moral standards.

I'll just imagine a couple descriptions. Hmmmm. Asshole. Fuckhead. Dishonest Pig. Secret Freeper. Jackass. Hypocrite. Total bastard. Liar. Moron. Dipshit.

Could be any of these or all of them I suppose. Or additional ones I haven't thought of. I suppose there's no way of knowing, so I'll just assume you think they all describe me.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

48. I never accused you of being a liar!

Don't put words in my mouth.

[bryant69]

49. You haven't accused me of anything. You're obeying rule three

remember. But ok, I will ammend that list in my mind to include asshole, dipshit, moron et al, but to not include liar. Is that satisfactory?

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

50. How deep are you going to dig your hole? n/t

[bryant69]

51. How deep would you like?

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

53. Just keep digging.

We'll let you know.

Trust us.

[beam me up scottie]

54. sNort!

I wonder why he's so mad?

All you did is give him another shovel.

[bryant69]

56. I'm upset because no matter what I say Atheists treat me like a bigot

But actually it's been enlightening -it's taught me a valuable lesson. There's no point in worrying about offending some atheists - I'm just going to do it anyway no matter what I say.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cosmik debris]

57. That's right

You should always blame other people. There is certainly no point in taking personal responsibility for the situation! And changing your own behavior to be less offensive would infringe on your rights as a god fearing American! Stand up for your rights! Don't let those damned atheists push you around or the terrorist will win! Atheists just hate America!:patriot:

[bryant69]

58. There it is

That's what I am - a conservative Christian Freeper here to slam into atheists. I mean what other explanation could there be for my posts.

And that's what I'll be with you Cosmik Debris no matter what I say - I can say this for example.

"Atheists can't get elected - but who cares, right?

I mean basically being an atheist is a real handicap in getting elected in America, because most people believe that atheism is un-American - but you atheists shouldn't worry about that - because there are plenty of good Christians who believe in pretty much all the same things you believe in and who will push for the programs you like - I'm sure you can think of lots of Christian politicans who are also good people and good representatives, so why should it matter that Atheism is a handicap to running for public office in America?

Because it cuts to the heart of your identity as an America (hence the phrase identity politics). This policy of not electing Atheists positions Atheists as second class citizens, no matter how wonderful the Christians are that get elected in their place. It says that Atheists aren't real Americans, and I can't help but imagining that that's very hurtful and painful (and in my opinion is something that should be done away with).

The problem dissappears, obviously, if you abandon your American Identity, but I don't get the sense that many Atheist Americans want to do that." --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2421469&mesg_id=2423972

Means nothing.

I can even say repeatedly that people probably shouldn't say "President BUsh isn't a Christian around here" and again it means nothing - because I had the gal to say that how Atheists intepret taht and how it was actually meant might be two different things.

So in clonclusion - yeah you are right - I shouldn't let you or Trotskey or Zhade or Beam Me Up Scottie push me around - or even worry about you at all - because as long as I'm playing the game with, I'll end up in the Conservative Christian Freeper category.

Allow me to admit, that of course you didn't actaully call me a Conservative Christian Freeper - you just implied as such with your comments above, however it's possible I misunderstood those comments. But certainly putting the words "Atheists just hate America" in my mouth paints a pretty clear picture in my mind.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

59. See rule #3

"I mean what other explanation could there be for my posts."

I believe we are back to rule #3. Need a shovel?

[bryant69]

60. I don't know why you think you are winning something

When you come back with that. But whatever. It just proves my point.

Of course referencing rule 3 is just another way of insulting me - because legitimate complaint isn't forbidden by rule three. If it were a problem we could work through, you could certainly find a way to discuss it. Bringing up rule three is a way of saying that I'm so fucked up there's nothing you can do, without violating the rules.

Do you get angry when you see Atheists disagreeing with your definition of what atheism is? You treated that Bloom person as a heretic, more or less, it struck me. But none of my business I suppose.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

62. Bloom criticized me for something I did not say.

It was clear from her first post that she was looking for a fight, not facts. It was clear from subsequent posts that she did not even read the post about which she was complaining. It was clear from her final post that she had taken mutually exclusive positions just to save face.

No, I don't get angry, this arena is for amusement only. People who get angry are in the wrong place. You and bloom are a more amusing than aggravating. Keep digging!

[bryant69]

63. You know something else interesting

The keep digging compliant - doesn't that imply that talking to you is a) a waste of time, b) just makes me look bad?

I mean basically you are encouraging me not to engage you in discussion.

At the end of the day, though it's a bit cowardly isn't it? I mean if we could honestly engage in what you have against me, maybe we could come to a resolution. As a Christian, I have to believe it is at least possible. But instead, you are taking pleasure in, well, I'd better not say, lest I run afoul of rule 3.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

64. I have nothing against you

To me it is like watching a football game. Other people do all the work, and I get to sit on the sidelines and cheer for winners and laugh and make fun of the losers. It doesn't matter to me whether it is Ohio State or Northern Michigan Technical & Community College. There is a loser in every game. But it is only a game. If you don't want to be the loser, be sure you set your schedule to always play weaker opponents.

Keep Digging (or change your schedule)

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

66. Your first sentence proved your second sentence.

Keep digging.

[bryant69]

67. Your kind of a cruel person aren't you?

I know that Atheists don't have inquisitors, being not a religion and all, but it seems like that would be a job you would be very good at. I mean anybody who strays from the orthodox path you feel you have to correct harshly and you are very particular about stating the doctrine correctly - you basically assume that failure to state the doctrine correctly or to agree with it in every particular comes from malice.

And of course there is that strain of cruelty.

It is a shame that Atheists don't have inquisitors, because you would be very good at it.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

68. I'm not the one doing the name-calling

Keep digging

[bryant69]

69. You think your failure to call names is kind?

It's far worse I should think - but of course all the great inquisitors hid behind legalistic systems as a way of distancing themselves from their cruelty.

What is the christian thing to do if you see someone digging himself into a hole? help them out of it.

What's the atheist thing to do if you see someone digging himself into a hole? Hand him another shovel.

But of course that's not what all or even most atheists would do, I would suspect. But it is what Cosmik Debris would do.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

70. Huh?

NOT calling names is worse than calling names???? We better alert the moderators. There will be a lot of us tomb stoned for not calling names!

Martyrdom becomes you. Keep digging.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Okay, he definitely needs to upgrade.

See if this can handle the load:

[bryant69]

75. Oh i'm not a martyr - really i'm sorry for you in a way

But yes - in this case very pointeedly saying "I know what you are but I'm not going to say it because it would violate the rules" is in fact crueler than just saying "Your an asshole" or whatever. Because it leave the interpretation open - it could be anythign from "Your kind of a nasty bloke" to "you're a . . . . " I'd better not say it I suppose.

Plus of course it sends the even crueler message that I'm just not worth fixing - that there can be no redemption for me. I don't know what atheists position on redemption as a concept is anyway (probably there are a lot of them), but I get the impression from you that you don't believe much in it. I could be wrong I suppose.

But I do appreciate you handing me another shovel - that's the sort of thing you do.

[cosmik debris]

77. Evoman has some real competition

For "Best Short Fiction"

Keep digging

[bryant69]

78. At least I got to say what I think of you.

Feels good getting that off of my chest.

But of course you keep all that bottled up inside - because of rule three - that might be bad for you.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

79. Laughter is the best medicine

Keep digging

[bryant69]

80. So is pretty much anything I say to you from now on

going to be met with "Keep digging?"

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

81. It is called "operant conditioning"

I say "Keep Digging" and you say something hilarious. I have become conditioned to perform a meaningless act in exchange for a meaningless reward. And it is all your fault.

Keep digging.

[bryant69]

82. You see what I mean about cruelty

There's nothing to win, there's no debate, there's no point - just you getting off on cruelty - but i think with that I have dug enough. Have a nice day.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

83. Now see, that's not hilarious

Give me back my shovel!

[beam me up scottie]

72. ACK! You fiend! You know not calling him names is cruel!

Bad atheist! :spank:

[Random_Australian]

91. Atheist doctrine?

Please, inform me what doctrine you are going against. Because, in all honesty, when reading up this subthread all I saw was this:

You saying atheists are pretty much evil mockers (proof to the contrary supplied by my reply)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92192&mesg_id=92346

Mutterings about offense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92192&mesg_id=92346

I presume you mean the crossing the doctrine occured there.

Please, share which part of those posts is the bit where you "stray from the orthodox part"

[beam me up scottie]

71. I think he broke another shovel when he said that.

Here, hand him this:

[cosmik debris]

76. Or he may have hit bedrock? n/t

[Random_Australian]

55. Oh, my, are you bieng oppressed? I call bull and back myself up.

Gimme some of these stereotypes. Then take a long look at the amount of discussion you generated when I actually posted stuff that might just help you to 'understand atheists' ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92192&mesg_id=92298 )

I suppose this is an example of how atheists just want to mock rather than understand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=79553&mesg_id=79553

It's not like atheists ever try to understand theists and vice versa:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=90266&mesg_id=90266

How they mock the believers! Actually, it looks more talking like everyone else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=89703&mesg_id=89703

See the stereotypes a-flyin!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=87694&mesg_id=87694

.... and of course, given the issue had never come up before, it is not like the assembled atheists were tired of it all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=89278&mesg_id=89278

never before...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84224&mesg_id=84224

but at least theists haven't destroyed threads to bring up the issue....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84197&mesg_id=84197

I just can't think why anyone could think it had been brought up before....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=65586&mesg_id=65586

look at them, just mocking!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=76022&mesg_id=76022

And I leave you with this, a time when there was an angry attack on Christianity. Atheists stepped in and stepped up to protect the believers. You have alleged that atheists mock and that you just want to understand. Go ahead, show me this evidence atheists mock. I myself have only chosen from entire threads, each of at least 50 replies. Feel free to post individual quotes of you can't find threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=75881&mesg_id=75881

Now is the time for you to back up your assertion. Go on, I dare you.

[bryant69]

61. I apologize for not responding to your post above

I obviously knew that there would be some that disagreed with that definition of Atheism - the question is whether I posted it out of Malice or Bigotry, or whether I posted out of ignorance as a way of starting a discussion. I leave it to you to determine which it is.

I'm not going to prove that DU Atheists and Wags have posted many many posts who's main point is "Christians are gullible morons" If you are interested, go back and look at all the "humorous" posts about the Rapture.

Bryant

[Evoman]

73. What do you want? If you make stereotypes, someones

gonna beat you to a pulp in here...thats just the way the cookie crumbles on all sides. I'm not going to harras you...I don't know you, and I don't know if you have ever argued with me.

Look at one of Random Australians links...it was started by me. It was a post DESIGNED to foster understanding by putting some stories about atheists, and why people converted or "de-converted" as I prefer. I put NOTHING about theism on it...just pure ol understanding, you get me. What happened? The same shit that always happens...people started calling atheism a faith, etc, etc. THEISTS RUINED MY THREAD. They got it locked.

So you see why I'm suspicious of people who say, "I just want to understand", and then spout nothing but stereotypes and falshehoods. There are plenty of theists here who I am on very good terms with, despite long disagreements. If your not one of them (again, I don't think we have had the chance to, but maybe we weill) then maybe somethings wrong with YOUR approach?

On edit: Here is the thread...read it, and see who started shit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=84197&mesg_id=84197

[bryant69]

85. I don't know a guy responded immediately likening belief in god

to a belief in Santa Claus - but he wasn't a theist I suppose.

That pushes my buttons in the same way that me saying "Athesits believe . . ." apparently pushes yours.

At any rate presumably we will get to know each other better as I plan to participate in this forum more often - after recieving such a warm welcome I look forward to spending a lot of time conversing with you and your fellows.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

87. You'd better get used to atheists calling you on your intolerance then.

Most regulars in here don't let anyone have a pass on bigotry, no matter what "side" they're on.

From religioustolerance.org :

We consider the following actions as exhibiting religious intolerance:

* spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;

[bryant69]

88. Of course I can only do my best

But I'm curious - the intolerent things I've said do you think it's based on ignorance or malice?

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

99. Well, since you've been saying them for over a year despite our protests,

you're either undeniably ignorant or a phony who thinks he can keep grinding his personal axe in this forum using passive/aggressive polls under the pretense of "understanding" us.

Let me know which hat you're wearing today.

[bryant69]

100. I have stayed out of this forum for the most part

You find an example from a year ago and example from this week - well for most of the intervening time i stayed out of this as much as possible.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

102. One example? Hardly. There are dozens of them.

In GD as well as R/T.

Your faux naivete is amusing.

Keep digging, you're almost to China.

[bryant69]

103. There are dozens of examples of me dong what, exactly?

Mistating atheism?

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

104. I'm not playing with you. Do the research yourself.

Amnesia my ass.

[bryant69]

105. I suspect that even if I did research every post I'd made on Atheism

in the last year, and individually apologize for each misstatement, it wouldn't change what you've decided I am at heart. I'd still be that thing that you aren't allowed to tell me because of Rule 3.

Right?

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

106. Why would you even need to research your previous attempts to redefine

atheism?

You posted them, you argued with us, and then you did it again.

And again.

And again.

Claiming each time that you were oblivious to the offensiveness of your posts.


If I were to do the same thing except redefine christianity as a belief in a sky daddy and/or a mental illness, how long would you put up with it before you called me out?

Actually, disregard that last question. You wouldn't have to do that because my posts would have been deleted long ago.




Keep digging.

[bryant69]

107. "Keep digging" is starting to sound a lot like "fuck you"

But that's probably my fault I suppose.

On a weekday I usually make about 15 to 30 posts a day, and start new maybe 2-3 posts a week. I suppose from your perspective I'm in here banging on redefining atheism all the time - I admit I've been in here a lot the last few days. If I'm doing it constantly I'm not conscious of it - rather the opposite - I've been staying out of her for a while, and trying not to post on religous posts, till the rapture posts started me back up. I had come to the conclusion that discussing this issue was pointless, and bad for business - nobody ever goes and looks at my blog based on talking about religion or the lack thereof (on the other hand vieled accusations of being a secret freeper go up considerably).

At any rate, believe it or not, but I don't have any particular, other than to defend religion when it is attacked. Come to think of it, I supppose I doubt you will believe me.

For the moment my opinion is that it's uncharitable to walk away from this particular conversation - so I may as well keep trying.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

108. Oh brother. Now there's some logic.

This little jihad of yours is retaliatory?

And all because some DUers made fun of the Rapture Ready Talibornagains?

Did you forget the fact that many, if not most, of the people doing that were christians?


Hey, I understand, it makes perfect sense to repeatedly bait DU atheists because we have the audacity to dis religion in an increasingly theocratic nation.

[cosmik debris]

109. So that's what this is all about!

"nobody ever goes and looks at my blog based on talking about religion or the lack thereof..."

You are trying to generate traffic on your web site! Now I understand. Well, I understand better.

[bryant69]

110. Actually no that's not accurate

If I waneted people looking at my blog I would get out of this forum, and shut up about religious matters and atheist matters entirely. Truthfully it would be better to keep my Christianity quiet. That's not to say Atheists are persecuting me (present company excluded of course) just that i've noticed over the years that the times I spend a lot of time on religious matters, hits at my website take a nosedive.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

111. D'oh!

And here we are persecuting him again. We fell into his fiendishly clever little trap.

[cosmik debris]

112. We are cruel

Not only did we not call him names, we didn't visit his blog either.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Once we refused to show deference to his religion it was all downhill.

Goddamn uppity atheists.

[Random_Australian]

90. Oh lovely.

I show you posts, in fact, entire 50+ threads, and you tell me 'go look for yourself!'.

That really supports your position.

And FWIW, most of those 'humorous' posts about the rapture were by theists, and they damn well were humorous.

I don't care about your motives - I'll look at your actions, thank you very much. Thus far a lot of what has gone on in here is just off-topic arguing, like this.

[bryant69]

92. They were humorous from a certain point of view

A few were genuinely humorous - but most repeated exactly the same damn joke, and it wasn't that funny.

Let me ask a question - why is "Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause" less insulting than any sentance that begins "Atheists believe . . ."

Of course in my opinion both are insulting and should be avoided (although I have said Atheist believed before - and I was mistaken to do so, and it probably reveals a latent anti-Atheist bigotry, a stain upon mysoul if you will).

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

93. Let me ask a question - what's with the loaded questions?

" Let me ask a question - why is "Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause" less insulting than any sentance that begins "Atheists believe . . ." "

You know, you could have - just once - asked someone if they think it is not insulting, rather than telling them.

Just for you, have a look at the OP of this particular thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=78983&mesg_id=78983

And do you know, in this post I did include an example of where the atheists came to the defence of the theists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92192&mesg_id=92503

And you'll note a great deal of the defence comes from Bmus, a person who you've labeled as someone not nice.

So it is a bit disengenous of you to say that the DU atheists are here to mock, like you did before.


And finally, I accept that you did not know it was insulting. The fact that the most of the atheist had not realised the santa claus was offensive means you have the opportunity to do the same with the atheists.

(Don't believe me? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=69094&mesg_id=69094 )

[bryant69]

94. Really - you guys hadn't realized it?

It never occured to you that comparing belief in God to belief in Santa was insulting? Well ok.

As for my previous polls - I had had it pointed out to me in some detail that both saying "George Bush isn't a Christian" is insulting to Atheists and non Christians. So I started from that point.

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

95. Alright then, what do you want to know about atheists, agnostics,

and the unreligious?

Time to start some discussion! :)

[bryant69]

101. Well the obvious first qustion is that

Are there things you can say about all atheists? I mean statements of their opinions, that most atheists would share?

Or is it fairer to say, that asking you questions woudl tell me what Random Australian thinks about these issues?

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

114. Depends on what you ask.

The one thing common to all atheists is that we lack belief in God.

My views are moderately similar to many atheists.

However, of course, asking me questions will tell you what Random_Australian thinks about the issues.

I can also speak about how many large sections of people who are also atheists often respond in general.

In other words, I know a fair bit about atheists, atheism, and other atheists, all of whom I can talk about if not necessarily for.

[Zhade]

133. The Rapture? THAT not-even-in-the-bible nonsense?

Why on earth would you have a problem with mocking something that was made up in the 1800s?

[beam me up scottie]

84. Outstanding research, RA!

The DU search feature comes in damn handy, doesn't it?

[Random_Australian]

89. Actually, I didn't even use the search feature.

The place is spotted with enourmous threads of atheists bieng nice to theists. :)

[beam me up scottie]

96. Well, I used it.

And our little friend here has been participating in these discussions for well over a year.

He's either being intentionally obtuse or else he's incredibly dense.

If it's the latter, hopefully you can educate him.

If it's the former, I suggest buying stock in the Acme Shovel Company.

[Random_Australian]

97. That's interesting.

I'm busy accounting for the 'ignorance' possibility - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=92192&mesg_id=92621

Let's see how it turns out. After all, perhaps he has not been in these kind of threads yet. I'll go check now.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Yet? Here's one from GD circa 2005 where this was explained to him.

Repeatedly.

As a matter of fact, this was a thread that he STARTED just like this one, and continued to argue with atheists about the correct definition(s), just like this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3377661#3377686

Let's do an instant replay the highlights:

bryant69 Tue Mar-29-05 09:05 AM

All religious beliefs, you mean?

Atheism is a religious belief; is that equally flawed?

bryant69 Tue Mar-29-05 09:15 AM

No but it is a hair style

Atheism is a belief about religion, a belief about God. That's my opinion anyway.

bryant69 Tue Mar-29-05 09:24 AM

I'd argue that Agnosticism is the absense of Religious Belief

Atheists have a belief when it comes to religion, it is just a belief in the non-existance of the basis of religion.

bryant69 Tue Mar-29-05 09:37 AM

Word games

Fun!

Does an Agnostic have a belief on the existance of a God or Gods? No, she believes that there isn't enough evidence one way or another.

Does an Athiest have a belif on the existance of a God or Gods? Yes, she believes that God or Gods definately do not exist.

What is the religion of a belief in God or Gods to most religions? Central (with a few notable exceptions).

At least that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

Well, if nothing else, at least he's learned how to use spell the check feature.

[bananas]

116. Several dictionaries say you're wrong

Like many words, the term can be used with several meanings.
The original post is using it with a widely-accepted meaning.
Are you really offended by the dictionary definition?
"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings."
"someone who denies the existence of god"


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist&x=0&y=0

3 results for: atheist

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
a‧the‧ist Pronunciation Key
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.



—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source a·the·ist (th-st) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

WordNet - Cite This Source

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" n : someone who denies the existence of godWordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[cosmik debris]

117. But reality proves the dictionaries wrong

Can you tell me another attribute common to all atheists?

Can you tell me a statement to which all atheists agree?

You can't! Because there is none.

Your dictionaries deal in stereotypes, not definitions.

[bananas]

118. LOL - the dictionary describes how the word is used in reality

Your "proof" is wrong.

[cosmik debris]

120. You certainly are not up to the challenge.

You can't find an attribute common to all atheist except the one mentioned. That proves that your dictionary definition is bogus.

Your use of stereotypes of atheists is offensive. This has been discussed in this forum several times. The dictionary definition is a stereotype written by theists. It is easily disproved. Your insistence on the obviously incorrect definition is a symptom of a closed mind.

[bananas]

122. LOL - the dictionary offends you?

That should be a big fucking clue.
Stay away from dictionaries and other books - they contain dangerous and offensive ideas.

Your "proof" doesn't jibe with reality.
That means you either started with a wrong assumption,
or made an error in your reasoning.
Or both.

But if you're so easily offended by dictionaries,
I guess there's no point in continuing this conversation.
Bye!


"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
— Albert Einstein
http://einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

[cosmik debris]

124. That would be #36 of the woo woo credo

http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm

[beam me up scottie]

125. sNort!

:rofl:

[bananas]

126. sNort! sNort! sNort!

Came across that quote after reading a thread in R/T about Einstein and religion,
describes R/T pretty well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=93974&mesg_id=93974
:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

127. That thread provides plenty of evidence

That your dictionary definition is BOGUS, but it doesn't surprise me that you would deny evidence in order to maintain your faith in a book! The book just can't be wrong, no matter what the evidence says!:)

[beam me up scottie]

129. She's what we call a Dictionary Fundamentalist.

Much like their cousins the biblical literalists, the idea that dictionary definitions can be outdated and wrong terrifies them.

Place your hand on the book and say I BELIEVE !

[beam me up scottie]

128. Oh, I like yours much better,

that's why it's been featured in my sig line series for a couple of weeks now.

Such ignorance and intolerance shouldn't go unnoticed.

And it hasn't.

:hi:

[varkam]

86. My $.02.

Or how significant is that difference?

I see three seperate buckets -

Athesits are those who have philosophically grappled with the issue of religion and came up with there's no there there. They believe there is no God and that religion is nonsense (and in some cases dangerous nonsense).

Well, it realy depends on which kind of atheist you're speaking about. There's two different "flavors" of atheism - weak and strong. Weak atheists just have simple disbelief in the theist's claim. In other words, for the weak atheist, the theist has not sufficiently proven the existence of God. For the weak atheist, not believing in God is like not believing that there is a small teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars.

Strong atheism, on the other hand, posits the assertion that there is no God. They think that, by looking at the evidence and evaluating the arguments, the conclusion is most likely that there is no God. I would say your definition fits here best.

One other point on your definition here - atheism doesn't say anything about the stance one should take towards religion beyond that religion is simply mistaken. Atheists don't necessarily think that religion is dangerous nonsense. The term for someone who thinks that, as far as I know, is an anti-theist. Anti-theism, in a nutshell, is the position that holds religion does great harm to humanity.

Agnostics simply say that they don't know one way or anther - they have probably spent some time thinking about religion but not to the extent that an atheist has. They simply say that they don't know one way or another and they don't think anybody knows either.

To blow your mind a little bit, I am both a strong atheist and an agnostic. It is my belief that there is no God on the basis of evidence and arguments, but I admit freely that I can not know that I am right (nor do I think that anyone else can know if they are right either). In other words, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is concerned with belief whereas agnosticism is concerned with knowledge. I very strongly believe that there is no God, but I do not have knowledge that there is no God. The difference is simply one between knowledge and belief.

In that light, I don't think there is even a comparison between atheists and agnostics, as they deal with two different areas of cognition. People who tell me that they are agnostic are frequently met with "Yes, I agree with you there. But what do you believe?"

Unreligious are those who don't care one way or another - maybe God Exists maybe he doesn't, but either way it wouldn't make any difference in how they live their lifes - the questions posed by religion just don't interest them. To put it another way, if there was definitive proof of the existence of non-existence of God, it would probably change both Atheists and Agnostics opinions - but would have little to no effect on the unreligious.

Let me say something else, Unreligious is a clunky term - because of course an atheist and an agnostic are unreligious as well - perhaps disinterested would be better?

I would suppose that there are people who simply don't have an opinion at all on religion. They don't believe one way or the other, and they don't care. However, I've yet to meet someone who didn't at least have some opinion on the matter. In other words, I haven't met anyone who did have at least some interest in the matter.

Just my $.02.

[cosmik debris]

115. Kick

Just to help Bryant69 find the thread!

[Meshuga]

119. My 2 cents

The atheist does not believe therefore I assume they are unreligious.
I know agnostics who are religious and I know agnostics who are unreligious.
I know believers who are religious and I know believers who are unreligious.
The unreligious believers are those who think religion is bullshit but believes in a higher being and have their own definition of spirituality.

[Atheos_Prime]

121. Agnostic, Atheist and Non-religious

I would like to toss in my thoughts on this. Agnostic is a label, that comes from identifying with agnosticism. Agnosticism means "no knowledge", as its root "gnosis" literally means knowledge. Being agnostic deals with the domain of knowledge, being atheistic or theistic deals with belief. Knowledge and belief are distinct domains, however there is a relationship between them.

A person can be agnostic (lack of knowledge) and have a belief in god(s).

A person can be agnostic (lack knowledge) and lack belief in god(s).

Being an atheist means lack of belief in god(s). A person may be an atheist if they simply have no knowledge that meets their standards of proof, which is sometimes referred to as a "soft atheist". A person may be an atheist if they have some knowledge that does meet their standards of proof and actively deny the existence of a god or gods, known as "hard atheist".

Let me explain my own beliefs in this regard, and I hope it illustrates the idea. I am agnostic in terms of the existence of any god(s). While there indeed might be an entity out there hiding somewhere in the universe that could be defined as a god, goddess, etc.; I do not extend belief that some undefined god exists, or leprechauns either. I give both the ambiguous god(s) and leprechauns existing in the universe about the same probability, which is close to zero. In term of specific gods, I actively deny their existence because I do have knowledge which meets my standards of proof in regard to their existence. Thor, Zeus, Amen Ra, Baal, Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc. all violate basic logical axioms and can no more exist than a square circle.

Thus, I am agnostic in terms of some general concept of god, such as the deists believe in, and I thusly lack belief in it. I am not agnostic, but actively deny the existence of logically incoherent gods as related by the world religions, be they pagan or Abrahamic flavors.

Bruce

[beam me up scottie]

123. Bravo, Atheos_Prime!

You packed a hell of a punch in your second post.

I am agnostic in terms of some general concept of god, such as the deists believe in, and I thusly lack belief in it. I am not agnostic, but actively deny the existence of logically incoherent gods as related by the world religions, be they pagan or Abrahamic flavors.

That is possibly the most precise explanation of agnostic atheism I have ever seen.

Like you, I am an explicit as well as an implicit atheist, but I have never been able to coherently explain how it's possible to be both.

Welcome to DU, I look forward to reading more of your posts. :hi:

[iverglas]

131. oops ... me too!

as I was just saying in a post farther up before I read yours ...

Thor, Zeus, Amen Ra, Baal, Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc. all violate basic logical axioms and can no more exist than a square circle.

They also pretty much violate the believers' own supposed belief, since anyone who claims to know what his/her god(s) want(s) (as believers in the above tend to do) is pretty much denying the godness of the deity in question, seems to me. ;)

[ozone_man]

132. All three terms are quite compatible.

The atheist does not believe in god. Period. The agnostic doesn't know if god(s) exist, so he/she may believe in god(s) or not. I.e., there are both theist agnostics and atheist agnostics. Agnostic refers only to knowing, not to believing.

Unreligious, or more commonly, nonreligious, can apply to both atheist and agnostic alike. The type of agnostic this commonly refers is more likely to be the atheist agnostic, not the theeist agnostic, who usually has a larger stake in whether god(s) exist. I.e., he/she believes, they are religious.

The definition of terms usually defined by theists, goes theist, agnostic, and atheist. Atheists usually prefer the more descriptive definitions of gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and gnostic atheist. Most nonreligious, agnostics, and atheists really fall into the agnostic atheist category.

[Crunchy Frog]

134. I am unreligious, but don't consider myself to be either atheist or agnostic.

I have some sort of notion of the divine or sacred, but I don't associate it with any particular set of religious beliefs. I don't disdain religion, I just don't see it as personally relevant.

[TheBaldyMan]

135. unbeliever is a good old english term. I don't like the options offered.

I dislike the terms theist and deist as well. It strikes me that those terms were coined by someone who wanted to control any discussion of belief in very narrow terms, trying to pigeon-hole everybody into far too few categories.

Belief would be better described as a broad spectrum of varying shades and colours.