What philosophy/religion do you follow?

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

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

 

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.

 

Eclectic pagan here.

 

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.

 

None.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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*