What philosophy/religion do you follow?

[nynysuts]

As the title says!

[Peace-Phoenix]

Atheism all the way. Although I disagree with your decision to split it from anti-theism. For all intents and purposes, I agree with Dawkins, though don't shout quite as loudly as him. It's a continuum of non-belief, just as religious belief can be held to different levels or can take a proselytising or a more passive form....

[verseau_miracle]

I clicked "other". No recognised religion, no rituals, no books or lack of open-mindedness or anything, but both of us are most definitely believers in things that could never be called atheism and Ive never liked agnostic (that kind of implies either abivelance or uncertainty to me, but we do have beliefs) I dont think theres a name for it. Im glad about that, I think thats a natural position to be in

I guess out of all those listed we most closely resemble Buddhism. Still, its miles away really

[nynysuts]

Fair dos, and I missed out paganism, sorry pagans!

Yay for atheism :)

[lithium]

You also missed out "new age", which I suppose comes under "other", that general vague belief in an undefinable something and borrowing of the best bits of various traditions which tends to gain ground when people see through the absurdity of the ancient organised religions. It's very difficult for many to give up this vague "spirituality" because it's such a fundamental part of human nature to be superstitious and to project aspects of our psychology onto the external world...

I think many more people are happy to self-identify as atheists nowadays, something I lay at the door of the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens etc), a few years ago it was practically a dirty word. Dawkins and Harris have helped to make it a positive term capable of including a sense of awe and wonder and respect for the universe and life...

[verseau_miracle]

You also missed out "new age", which I suppose comes under "other", that general vague belief in an undefinable something and borrowing of the best bits of various traditions which tends to gain ground when people see through the absurdity of the ancient organised religions. It's very difficult for many to give up this vague "spirituality" because it's such a fundamental part of human nature to be superstitious and to project aspects of our psychology onto the external world...


I cant help finding this slightly arrogant. I have beliefs which are not "superstition", or merely "projections of my psychology", theyre spiritual philosophies, often based on my life experience and even science, logic and mathematics which deserve respect

My beliefs are not "vague" and I do not need to "give them up"

Now Ive just woken so I dont mean to sound crabby, but I can say with certainty your words are tinged with arrogance and disrespect, and I think if anyone here is projecting THEIR psyche and splattering it all over other peoples views and the world around them, its you here

[Peace-Phoenix]

You know Lithium, he likes projecting things he can splatter over women....

[snocbor]

My own.

[Peace-Phoenix]

I cant help finding this slightly arrogant. I have beliefs which are not "superstition", or merely "projections of my psychology", theyre spiritual philosophies, often based on my life experience and even science, logic and mathematics which deserve respect

My beliefs are not "vague" and I do not need to "give them up"

Now Ive just woken so I dont mean to sound crabby, but I can say with certainty your words are tinged with arrogance and disrespect, and I think if anyone here is projecting THEIR psyche and splattering it all over other peoples views and the world around them, its you here

More seriously, though, I don't believe Lithium was being arrogant or dogmatic in his atheism. What he has hit upon here is the mechanism by which belief is formed and sustained. In fact it's a highly rational mechanism, which I think was best explained by Horkheimer and Adorno. In the beginning, the earliest stages of human civilisation, mankind was very much competing against the elements for its own survival and very often failing. Storms, for example, were unknown and unpredictable phenomena which were hazards to human life and habitation. Attempting to explain a storm, in this context, is highly rational. The belief in gods, such as Thor god of thunder, not only afforded people an explanation of the storm, but the possibility - or the idea of a possibility - that they could control it. Through prayer and offerings to Thor, people would no longer need to live in constant fear that their village might be wiped out by a random event. Of course, it was the wrong explanation and a futile attempt to control it, but in the context, it was a rational one and a rational projection of human psychology onto the external world....

[verseau_miracle]

Ah well. Sure

[verseau_miracle]

Sorry, was in a shit of a mood

[silverhippy]

I had to check other. I subscribe to Hedonism and total self indulgence. It's really the only way to go.

Peace

[verseau_miracle]

Good move. Sign me up

[Jaitaiyai]

Hinduism. :cool:

[Bonsai Ent]

More seriously, though, I don't believe Lithium was being arrogant or dogmatic in his atheism. What he has hit upon here is the mechanism by which belief is formed and sustained. In fact it's a highly rational mechanism, which I think was best explained by Horkheimer and Adorno. In the beginning, the earliest stages of human civilisation, mankind was very much competing against the elements for its own survival and very often failing. Storms, for example, were unknown and unpredictable phenomena which were hazards to human life and habitation. Attempting to explain a storm, in this context, is highly rational. The belief in gods, such as Thor god of thunder, not only afforded people an explanation of the storm, but the possibility - or the idea of a possibility - that they could control it. Through prayer and offerings to Thor, people would no longer need to live in constant fear that their village might be wiped out by a random event. Of course, it was the wrong explanation and a futile attempt to control it, but in the context, it was a rational one and a rational projection of human psychology onto the external world....



I think personally, that assuming all modern religion is nothing more than an explanation-mechanism is fairly arrogant.

A great many Atheists simply use these things to dismiss religion, without taking the time to find out what people believe and why, which tend to be complex and different for each person, even within organised religion.

If you've ever had someone tell you that your atheism is just your way of dealing with how angry you are at god, you can imagine how a religious person feels when an atheist tells them their complex and rich philosophies are just psychological coping-mechanisms

[Quoth the Raven]

Anti-theist I suppose comes closest.. technically it's nontheism - atheists believe (if that's the right word) in a lack of controlling deity, agnostics don't know one way or the other.. nontheists don't give a fuck. it really doesn't matter to me if there is one or not.. I assume there isn't but if there was incontrovertible proof that there was a god, I wouldn't act any differently.

Ethics != religion.

[lithium]

I think personally, that assuming all modern religion is nothing more than an explanation-mechanism is fairly arrogant.

The theory may be offensive to some but I think it's inaccurate to call it "arrogant", it's not associated with any assumption of superiority. It's just a theory which explains the phenomenon of belief and superstition in naturalistic rational terms and in accordance with the evidence we have about the nature and history of religions and how the mind works.

I apologise if my expression seemed arrogant or disrespectful, really it was just a short-hand and somewhat haphazard way of condensing a whole slew of ideas. I respect peoples right to have any belief they wish whether I agree with it or not.

[Peace-Phoenix]

I think personally, that assuming all modern religion is nothing more than an explanation-mechanism is fairly arrogant.

A great many Atheists simply use these things to dismiss religion, without taking the time to find out what people believe and why, which tend to be complex and different for each person, even within organised religion.

If you've ever had someone tell you that your atheism is just your way of dealing with how angry you are at god, you can imagine how a religious person feels when an atheist tells them their complex and rich philosophies are just psychological coping-mechanisms

Did I ever say that all modern religion is nothing more than an explanation-mechanism? I was simply describing one element of the rationality of belief in early human societies as an example of psychology projected onto the outside world. I never even mentioned the cultural, the philosophical or the social elements of religion and their inherent positives and negatives. You've set up a straw man here, which is of course easy to knock down, but has little relation to my argument. For a more rounded elaboration of this argument, you might find this article (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg)quite interesting....

[silverhippy]

Good move. Sign me up

Hey does this mean you want to be a Hedonist too ? It's way cool. Plus you never have to feel bad about anything you do. Yay guilt free !

Peace

[verseau_miracle]

Im sure some would say Ive always been one

[silverhippy]

cool ! Then you know it's way better than all this conventional crap. The only person you have to worship is youself. And the only convictions you need to have is self pleasure. Joy !

Peace

[Bonsai Ent]

Did I ever say that all modern religion is nothing more than an explanation-mechanism? I was simply describing one element of the rationality of belief in early human societies as an example of psychology projected onto the outside world. I never even mentioned the cultural, the philosophical or the social elements of religion and their inherent positives and negatives. You've set up a straw man here, which is of course easy to knock down, but has little relation to my argument. For a more rounded elaboration of this argument, you might find this article (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg)quite interesting....


The discussion point by itself, in context, is not arrogant, but I think the way in which it is used often is, namely without context.
A religious person can expect to hear lots of variations of it, quite often, usually preceded by the phrase "religion is just..."

I didn't mean to imply you specifically were behaving arrogantly, just that the argument, whilst internally consistent, does not "explain" the diverse phenomena of beliefs, but is often presented as though it does.

The theory may be offensive to some but I think it's inaccurate to call it "arrogant", it's not associated with any assumption of superiority. It's just a theory which explains the phenomenon of belief and superstition in naturalistic rational terms and in accordance with the evidence we have about the nature and history of religions and how the mind works.

I apologise if my expression seemed arrogant or disrespectful, really it was just a short-hand and somewhat haphazard way of condensing a whole slew of ideas. I respect peoples right to have any belief they wish whether I agree with it or not.

No offense was caused, it's just mildly tiring to have such a wide variaty of different things so often lumped into one homogenous category, I appreciate this probably wasn't your intention at all

More a knee-jerk reaction from me than arrogance from you :)

I just think the issue of belief is vastly more complex, and can't be explained-away so trivially,

Take the old testament, books like Job or Ecclesiastes, the message of the books isn't one of man being safe or in control, quite the opposite, the message is that the universe is beyond comprehension, terrible, powerful and beyond man's abilities to master, that ultimately we can only hope to make peace with that fact.

The message isn't one of projection, but of reconciliation and acceptance of the world as it is.

Or with my own faith, Buddhism, where overcoming the human tendency to project psychology actually goes to the very heart of our teachings

Whereas the rationalist thought of the Enlightenment tends to take a highly optimistic, comforting, view of the universe, it tells us that everything can be understood eventually, that man can master his physical surroundings, that we are in control etc.

But despite this, I wouldn't dismiss rationalism as being left-over psychological debris, people adopt it for a variety of reasons, not least because it is rational.

Hope that sort of explains where I'm coming from

[Bonsai Ent]

, you might find this article (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg)quite interesting....




Oh I am going to hunt you down.

LIKE A DOG

[nynysuts]

I KNEW what that link was and I still clicked it :rolleyes:

[lithium]

I just think the issue of belief is vastly more complex, and can't be explained-away so trivially,

Take the old testament, books like Job or Ecclesiastes, the message of the books isn't one of man being safe or in control, quite the opposite, the message is that the universe is beyond comprehension, terrible, powerful and beyond man's abilities to master, that ultimately we can only hope to make peace with that fact.

The message isn't one of projection, but of reconciliation and acceptance of the world as it is.

Or with my own faith, Buddhism, where overcoming the human tendency to project psychology actually goes to the very heart of our teachings


You're talking about a lot of different things here, and as PP pointed out, the 'psychological projection' understanding of belief does not attempt to explain the whole range of phenomena associated with religious traditions. It does well explain the seemingly universal (http://condor.depaul.edu/%7Emfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm) human trait of supernatural belief in invisible agency, something common to all human cultures and underpinning most religious traditions, with the possible exception of Buddhism. This is not the only, and to some not the most important aspect of their belief/philosophy, but it is something so common and so often very important to the origin or core of religious traditions that it's not unreasonable to refer metonymically to this one aspect of religious traditions as simply "religion", or "spirituality".

But yes, there are many aspects of religious and spiritual beliefs which we can explain away in other ways;) Parts of the ancient religious texts for instance sometimes have little to do with the supernatural belief in invisible agents but can be seen as ancient philosophy and poetry, enriching and valuable in their own right.

I'm really tired so I hope this made sense.:cheers2:

[Bonsai Ent]

You're talking about a lot of different things here, and as PP pointed out, the 'psychological projection' understanding of belief does not attempt to explain the whole range of phenomena associated with religious traditions. It does well explain the seemingly universal (http://condor.depaul.edu/%7Emfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm) human trait of supernatural belief in invisible agency, something common to all human cultures and underpinning most religious traditions, with the possible exception of Buddhism. This is not the only, and to some not the most important aspect of their belief/philosophy, but it is something so common and so often very important to the origin or core of religious traditions that it's not unreasonable to refer metonymically to this one aspect of religious traditions as simply "religion", or "spirituality".

But yes, there are many aspects of religious and spiritual beliefs which we can explain away in other ways;) Parts of the ancient religious texts for instance sometimes have little to do with the supernatural belief in invisible agents but can be seen as ancient philosophy and poetry, enriching and valuable in their own right.

I'm really tired so I hope this made sense.:cheers2:

lol it makes sense, I get what you mean, though I might hazard an alternate explanation for supernatural belief, to me it seems quite often an extention of the human ability to use inductive, rather than deductive reason.
If we approached the world from the position of pure-logic, we wouldn't be able to approach it at all. A great deal of everything we do or assume is extropolation and guesswork.

We take things we do know, and then fill in the gaps.

The ability to believe in things we cannot see or measure, is hardwired into our very systems of logic and reason, and can offer direct evolutionary advantages, rather than just psychological comfort.

[Peace-Phoenix]

lol it makes sense, I get what you mean, though I might hazard an alternate explanation for supernatural belief, to me it seems quite often an extention of the human ability to use inductive, rather than deductive reason.
If we approached the world from the position of pure-logic, we wouldn't be able to approach it at all. A great deal of everything we do or assume is extropolation and guesswork.

We take things we do know, and then fill in the gaps.

The ability to believe in things we cannot see or measure, is hardwired into our very systems of logic and reason, and can offer direct evolutionary advantages, rather than just psychological comfort.

The trouble with the god in the gaps idea, which many Christians I know adhere to, is that over time and with scientific progress, those gaps get a whole lot smaller. At one point rainbows were a peace treaty from the almighty, now they're refracted photons. At some point religious belief can only be sustained by faith, irrespective of logic, scientific understanding or knowledge....

[lithium]

lol it makes sense, I get what you mean, though I might hazard an alternate explanation for supernatural belief, to me it seems quite often an extention of the human ability to use inductive, rather than deductive reason.
If we approached the world from the position of pure-logic, we wouldn't be able to approach it at all. A great deal of everything we do or assume is extropolation and guesswork.

We take things we do know, and then fill in the gaps.

The ability to believe in things we cannot see or measure, is hardwired into our very systems of logic and reason, and can offer direct evolutionary advantages, rather than just psychological comfort.

I agree entirely, I think supernatural belief comes directly from our evolved instinct for detecting agency and personhood. These beliefs bear striking similarity to the kinds of thought-mechanisms pivotal to human survival, such as the detection of threats, the understanding of other minds, seeing the intentions of other agents, and the social import of certain behaviours. These things had a direct impact on the survival of our ancestors and as such provided an evolutionary pressure for our brains to develop in a certain way. As has been well demonstrated by experimental psychology, the existence of these inductive perceptual mechanisms by default results in certain kinds of cognitive errors, such as the over-detection of threats where none exist - that instinct we have to prick up our hackles at the slightest sounds. Those creatures with an over-active threat detection mechanism would tend to out-survive those with an under-active one, resulting in the evolution of cognitive biases towards making these kinds of perceptual mistakes. The same mechanism applies to personhood- and agency-detection and it is these which result in the cognitive error of supernatural belief.

And that's religion explained in one paragraph:tongue:

[Bonsai Ent]

The trouble with the god in the gaps idea, which many Christians I know adhere to, is that over time and with scientific progress, those gaps get a whole lot smaller. At one point rainbows were a peace treaty from the almighty, now they're refracted photons. At some point religious belief can only be sustained by faith, irrespective of logic, scientific understanding or knowledge....

lol true, but I wasn't advocating god-of-the-gaps.

That is more specifically when people use gaps in knowledge to justify the existence of god.

Such as "We don't know who created the world, therefore god did"

My biggest complaint about god-of-the-gaps thinking is that people tend to overfill those gaps.

Ultimately though, I think people tend to downplay the importance of faith in functioning human thought and existence. We need to take things on faith all the time, from our free-will to the truthfulness of our senses.
Even in ethics, one can never see all ends of an action, and must ultimately leap into the dark.

[verseau_miracle]

now they're refracted photons

I never understood why study of biology, ecology, chemistry etc could ever prove certain spiritual beliefs to be incorrect or invalid. Could the rainbow not be both refracted photons AND something more? Something more porjected by means of refracted photons (ok so your example was pretty farfetched, but you know what I mean) The science explains the HOW...it does not always explain the why. Thats spiritual and philosophical domain
I remember asking why the sky was blue as a kid, like Im sure lots of people did. I was given a basic analysis of that the air is made up of scientifically and all that stuff. I said but I said WHY, not HOW...
I also never undertood the whole "science has proven it is JUST..." kind of thinking...Just!? People who say things like that are blind to how incredible the world is, as proven by science! I know you dont think like that yourself, just saying:p

[lithium]

I also never undertood the whole "science has proven it is JUST..." kind of thinking...Just!? People who say things like that are blind to how incredible the world is, as proven by science! I know you dont think like that yourself, just saying:p

I agree, scientific explanations of phenomena previously not known or not understood are often awe inspiring and mind-opening, exciting and wonderful:)

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." "
- Carl Sagan

[verseau_miracle]

I agree, scientific explanations of phenomena previously not known or not understood are often awe inspiring and mind-opening, exciting and wonderful:)

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." "
- Carl Sagan

Heh nice quote, never read that before

I think ultimately a lot of peoples philosophies with more spiritual beliefs and those of scientists or logical thinkers actually compliment eachother and give a much more wholesome answer when analysed together. And I agree with you. I personally can get far more excited over the biology of something supposedly simple like a leaf than I can over some fusty old books and rules. To me thats the whole point. THERES the awe, the miracle, the...well, God. But yeah, weve had the talk about that word. So lets just say its pretty damn awesome:)

[verseau_miracle]

Its like astronomy making people of certain religions feel small and frightened. The vastness of the universe, all these incredible discoveries...Im probably weird but that makes me SECURE. That adds to the whole experience. How amazing that out there floating in space is not just us, but millions of stars and planets, all making up something inconceivably huge. How that can put doubt about how great life is into peoples minds Im not sure

[Peace-Phoenix]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

- Douglas Adams

[verseau_miracle]

The beauty of a garden can open the mind, if youre feeling it right, like the beauty of all nature

Fairies is Im afraid where it stops for me:p

[nynysuts]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

- Douglas Adams
Ooh we used that quote in philosophy!

I'm probably most famed for quoting Robert M. Pirsig in an essay:
'When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity, when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion'.

Very, very true.

[verseau_miracle]

Both "sides" have too much to learn from eachother yet mostly have cotton wool in their ears, that seems to be the problem to me. Obviously doesnt apply to aspects of religion or spirituality which are plainly ridiculous, so its not always 2 way, but mostly

[Bonsai Ent]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

- Douglas Adams

Isn't it enough to just appreciate the fairies, without labelling them Homo Breve first?


:P

[Peace-Phoenix]

Isn't it enough to just appreciate the fairies, without labelling them Homo Breve first?


:P

I thought fairies were labeled Homo Sexuals....

[Bonsai Ent]

I thought fairies were labeled Homo Sexuals....


I think you're thinking of Homo Homo Sapiens

[Peace&LoveNTimesOfWar]

I am a full-blown "Born Again" (a name people use at my school. supposedly an insult. I don't get it though)

I believe that God is the almighty savior and creator of all. I respect other religions too. I can see where they come from and they have just the same amount of freedom to express their religion and beliefs as I do.

I believe in the God of peace and love for all. The God who had his son born of a virgin in a stable ment for animals. The God who's for anyone and everyone. The God who died with all our sins layed apon his shouldures and died the most tragic and painfull death ever imagined. The God who conquered death and lived again!

Find me another god who can do that!

God bless you and may his love overwhelm you!

[lithium]

The God who conquered death and lived again!

Find me another god who can do that!

http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/edm25.jpg

[verseau_miracle]

:smilielol5:Noel...of course!

[verseau_miracle]

Actually a few Gods and Goddesses were said to have risen from the dead throughout mythology
Also, wasnt it Jesus that rose from the dead in your religion, not God? Also, could you ask God to bring me an immaculate conception? Im tired
Good on you for being what you are and letting other be
Ill get off this thread now
:leaving:

:cheers2:

[Moon_Beam]

Well Jesus was God in human form was he not.

[lithium]

Actually a few Gods and Goddesses were said to have risen from the dead throughout mythology

Yes it's a common feature of many of the ancient gods, Jesus was a bit of a latecomer to the whole rising from the dead business...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

[verseau_miracle]

Well Jesus was God in human form was he not.

I thought he was his kid?
If our kid pops out and Scott declares a mini him is now on Earth Id be mightily miffed
Also what i read of the Jesusy parts of the bible, he was mellow and peace loving and generally a nice guy...now the parts I read about the Christian God gave me nightmares as a kid, tbh

[Moon_Beam]

I thought he was his kid?
If our kid pops out and Scott declares a mini him is now on Earth Id be mightily miffed
Also what i read of the Jesusy parts of the bible, he was mellow and peace loving and generally a nice guy...now the parts I read about the Christian God gave me nightmares as a kid, tbh

I agree Jesus does seem to be mellow and peace loving whereas God is dominant and powerful, which follows there roles. Depends how you look at it I think. I can't say God has ever given me nightmares though!

[nynysuts]

In ethics we had to write an obituary for God, and in it I stated that Jesus was rebelling against his Father's willfull ways by being a peace loving hippy and that this annoyed God so much he was moved to crucify him...

[Moon_Beam]

In ethics we had to write an obituary for God, and in it I stated that Jesus was rebelling against his Father's willfull ways by being a peace loving hippy and that this annoyed God so much he was moved to crucify him...

Definitely a different way of looking at it:p

[verseau_miracle]

Heh I like that:)

[fountains of nay]

some Shinto from when I was living in Japan and I have been known to say a few "Nam Myoho rengo kyo's" with my Nichiren Buddhist friend, but I don't subscribe to any religion really.

[Sorrel]

Compassion and self understanding.

[j700]

The poll was biased in as much as the OP purposely split the atheist vote into 3

[Bonsai Ent]

The poll was biased in as much as the OP purposely split the atheist vote into 3

Hardly bias, Atheist doesn't describe anything except a lack of belief.

You can lump a thousand completely divergent philosophies in the same group if you're using "atheist" as the only identifier.

[prax]

i follow the religion of science and logic.

its very good. :tongue:

[lithium]

And Lo! Richard Dawkins created the heavens and the earth, and he saw that it was good:p

[Fingermouse]

Compassion and self understanding.

Yeah me too but Im thinking of converting

[prax]

Yeah me too but Im thinking of converting

convert! come to the darkside. we will be waiting maxi! :D

[Fingermouse]

Im already there. I hate everyone and everything. I might kick something and spit int he street. Am I doing this right?

[prax]

Im already there. I hate everyone and everything. I might kick something and spit int he street. Am I doing this right?

yep. perfect. try aiming for the people when you spit too.

you're allowed to like animals though, even hitler liked dogs.

[yumyum2k5]

Rastafarian all the way and in the great words of Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia Jah Rastafari.

'None should judge the faith of others, for nobody can know the will of God'

I think we can all see the benefit to be gained from that in todays world.

[spirit of the night]

Eclectic pagan here.

[Some call me Jim]

i am an Existentialist. i would slap people about with Nietzschean volumes, knockin sense into their little heads.

i joke. i'm a nice guy.

[Cherea]

None.

[McFuddy]

I suppose I consider myself to be agnostic, although I tend to think the difference between atheism and agnosticism is a bit muddled.

I'm also a little confused about the issue; on one hand, I think of myself as agnostic because it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that atheism and theism proffers a kind of certainty that just is not possible. However, to be agnostic about it is also sort of silly; because since their is just as much evidence to believe in lephrechauns as their is to believe in a god, shall I be agnostic about lephrechauns?

What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? I do not ask this question rhetorically. My understanding is that the atheist denies the existence of god, and the agnostic says he does not know. But in essence, since the agnostic does not affirm a gods existence, is he in some fashion denying its existence? Probably not, maybe I just need to get myself a cup of coffee.

[lithium]

I'm also a little confused about the issue; on one hand, I think of myself as agnostic because it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that atheism and theism proffers a kind of certainty that just is not possible. However, to be agnostic about it is also sort of silly; because since their is just as much evidence to believe in lephrechauns as their is to believe in a god, shall I be agnostic about lephrechauns?

What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? I do not ask this question rhetorically. My understanding is that the atheist denies the existence of god, and the agnostic says he does not know. But in essence, since the agnostic does not affirm a gods existence, is he in some fashion denying its existence? Probably not, maybe I just need to get myself a cup of coffee.

Agnosticism ("without knowledge") is the claim that questions like the existence of god are ultimately unknowable. Atheism ("without theistic belief") is the absence of belief in a metaphysical concept like god. They answer different questions, so you can be both agnostic and atheist. You could also be an agnostic theist (one who has faith but thinks the truth is unknowable), or a non-agnostic atheist (one who does not believe and is certain there is no god).

This difference between agnostic atheism and non-agnostic atheism has been articulated as the difference between "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism, "strong" atheism being a certainty about the non-existence of god. This position is logically untenable since a universal negative cannot be proven, and implies a level of faith similar to that of he non-agnostic believer. By this definition I would say most atheists are "agnostic atheists"; for instance Richard Dawkins, often used as an example of a staunch public 'fundamentalist' atheist would actually be a "weak" atheist - he does not claim certainty that there is no god, just as we cannot be certain there is no cosmic teapot or flying spaghetti monster. Being agnostic about these issues does not suggest you believe they are equally as likely as not, though. It's simply a point of logic that we cannot be certain about something's non-existence, so in principle we have to admit of the possibility of there being giant space turtle gods, however remote or unlikely it is.

Sorry for the essay, hope this answers your question!

[Fingermouse]

agnostic theist (one who has faith but thinks the truth is unknowable)

I think thats me. Except my faith isnt from a book or social conditioning or anything. And I wouldnt really call it "faith". More like ideas and feelings I suppose *shrug*