agnostic, athies, believer

[10001]

pease confirm, (spelling also)

agnostic: do not have any faith in earthly religion, but belives the posibility of higher plane, being, existance. i didnt like to say 'higher'. anyway...

athies: just dies and that is it. nothing after or before. no god


then the 'believers

 

[BJQ87]

atheist* existence*

an atheist does not believe in God, but they may believe in an afterlife (though this is unlikely)

 

[GodMark2]

a- = prefix for (not or none or contrary or without)
gnosis = knowledge
theo = god(s)
-tic = person suffix
-ist = person suffix

agnostic = person without knowledge. Agnostics don't know. Some profess that we cannot know, others that we simply don't know yet (without answering the question of knowability).

Atheist = person without deity. Some believe there is no god, others simply have no allegiance to any god (without answering the question of existence).

http://www.virtualsalt.com/roots.htm

[edited for stupid i-before e rule being too deeply ingrained]

 

[Complexity]

BJQ87 - Only a superstitious **** believes in an afterlife.

 

[c4ts]

atheist* existence*

an atheist does not believe in God, but they may believe in an afterlife (though this is unlikely)

Not that unlikely. There are atheistic Buddhists who believe in reincarnation.

 

[Correa Neto]

The existence of god(s) and an afterlife are tied together by most religions, usually to provide you a reward for being a nice person and help maintaining the society you live in stable during your lifetime. Afterlife is a concept that may not necessarily be linked to the existence of god. One can think -better use the word believe- that god exists but there's no afterlife. And some belive in an afterlife but not in a god.

One may belive that god may exist, but not belive in the god of the bible, for example.

So, the words don't have the exact meaning you wrote.

Agnostics just think that there may or may not be a god -and you must remember that they apply such reasoning to a certain concept of god. Some concepts will be rejected. For example, I consider myself an agnostic. I reject the concepts of the god based on the Bible, but I think that a rather hazy, problematic and fuzzy concept of a "god-in-the-gaps" may be possible. A god that created the universe, set the initial conditions and stood aside observing its evolution without interferring. But the existence of such god is unlikely IMHO, but I cant really deny this (very small) possibility, despite the standards problems that we all already know such, such as not testable, falsifiable, etc. Note also that this concept of god is utterly useless. The existence or not of such type of god has absolutely no impact in our lives.

 

[Rufo]

BJQ87 - Only a superstitious **** believes in an afterlife.

And atheists can very well be 'superstitious ****s'. A atheist can believe in afterlife, alchemy, cryptozoology, that the world is flat, clairvoyance, astrology, ghosts, spirits, voodoo, telepathy, chi, divination, levitation and Santa Claus. A atheist just doesn't believe in God.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, but an atheist materialist randibot believes in none of those things.

~~ Paul

 

[Ryokan]

Not that unlikely. There are atheistic Buddhists who believe in reincarnation.

There are very few Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, though. Offhand, the only denomination I can think of that believe in reincarnation is Tibetan Buddhism.

Oh, and I'm an atheist Buddhist

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I was reincarnated from a famous 19th cen. sceptic, which is why I don't believe in reincarnation.

 

[Tricky]

There are very few Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, though. Offhand, the only denomination I can think of that believe in reincarnation is Tibetan Buddhism.

Oh, and I'm an atheist Buddhist

What's the whole "karma" thing then? I had always heard it was about spiritual growth through various incarnations.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

pease confirm, (spelling also)

agnostic: do not have any faith in earthly religion, but belives the posibility of higher plane, being, existance. i didnt like to say 'higher'. anyway...

athies: just dies and that is it. nothing after or before. no god


then the 'believers

I've said elsewhere, and it bears repeating, that it is far more interesting to find out what people believe than what particular label they use to describe those beliefs. I call myself atheist, but many would have said my position is more agnostic, based on thier own little definition of atheism.

In general, though, I'd put it like this: Expect someone who calls themselves an atheist to range from certainty that no gods exist to strong doubt that any gods exist; expect a self-described agnostic to have anywhere from strong to mild doubt about the existence of gods; expect someone claiming believer to have from mild doubt to certainty of one or more gods' existence.

 

[Iamme]

The existence of god(s) and an afterlife are tied together by most religions, usually to provide you a reward for being a nice person and help maintaining the society you live in stable during your lifetime. Afterlife is a concept that may not necessarily be linked to the existence of god. One can think -better use the word believe- that god exists but there's no afterlife. And some belive in an afterlife but not in a god.

One may belive that god may exist, but not belive in the god of the bible, for example.

So, the words don't have the exact meaning you wrote.

Agnostics just think that there may or may not be a god -and you must remember that they apply such reasoning to a certain concept of god. Some concepts will be rejected. For example, I consider myself an agnostic. I reject the concepts of the god based on the Bible, but I think that a rather hazy, problematic and fuzzy concept of a "god-in-the-gaps" may be possible. A god that created the universe, set the initial conditions and stood aside observing its evolution without interferring. But the existence of such god is unlikely IMHO, but I cant really deny this (very small) possibility, despite the standards problems that we all already know such, such as not testable, falsifiable, etc. Note also that this concept of god is utterly useless. The existence or not of such type of god has absolutely no impact in our lives.

Very well put. You have company.

 

[username]

What's the whole "karma" thing then? I had always heard it was about spiritual growth through various incarnations.

I am not a buddhist, but I am seeking to understand it better. As such I believe I am able to answer this question factually, but prefer the answer of Ryokan who is far more knowledgable and experienced with buddhism than I am.

Reincarnation is generally rejected by buddhists. Reincarnation is of central importance to hindus. Buddhists speak of rebirth, but this is nothing the same as reincarnation and the buddhist idea of rebirth is a negative, not a positive.

Reincarnation starts with the belief that there is a soul. Buddhists reject the notion of a soul, *as a rule.

Hindus believe that the soul goes through many bodies as it perfects itself and eventually becomes one with the divine.

Buddhists do not believe in the existence of the soul and have nothing to say about the divine *(as a rule).

Karma is a concept within both buddhism and hinduism, but it means different things to each. To both karma reflects a cause and effect relationship. Hindus believe in 3 kinds of karma, but the one most are familiar with is the idea that our actions in this life good and bad are tallied up and this determines the next body we inhabit whether it be a human or other animal, a human born to rags or riches etc.

In buddhism karma simply teaches that good actions have positive consequences and wrong actions have negative consequences. It is kind of a ripple effect and the encouragement is to commit good, positive actions that result in helpful repercussions in our lives and the lives of others.

* To add to the confusion buddhism and hinduism have some geological overlap so when buddhism catches on in a hindu society it becomes flavored by hindu beliefs just as when buddhism catches on in a christian society it because flavored by christianity. For 'westerners' it can be difficult to seperate the universal teachings of buddhism from the cultural and religious traditions of those cultures which adopted it.

One buddhist teacher likened buddhism to tofu. Tofu goes with most any dish (religion, culture) without overwhelming it. Tofu is tofu, not the dish it is a part of.

 

[Ryokan]

What's the whole "karma" thing then? I had always heard it was about spiritual growth through various incarnations.

username explained it very well.

One problem we Buddhists often face, is that the Buddha 'stole' a lot of terms from Hinduism, but changed their meanings.

So karma is simply cause and effect. The rebirth in Buddhism is not a literal reincarnation of the self or soul, but rather a continuation of the karma you have accumulated. Your deeds have a ripple effect into future generations.

Like one poster on this forum once said (Sadly, I've forgotten who); one generation doesn't strengthen the levees, the next generation suffers for it.

 

[Huh-What?]

I've said elsewhere, and it bears repeating, that it is far more interesting to find out what people believe than what particular label they use to describe those beliefs. I call myself atheist, but many would have said my position is more agnostic, based on thier own little definition of atheism.

...

I have been called a gnostic(sp?) atheist.

I say there is no god. Not; I don't believe in god.

 

[EdipisReks]

i personally believe that the term "agnosticism" was simply a reaction to pejorative definitions applied to atheism in the west during the modern era. anyone who professes any definite knowledge, at this point, about the existence of god/s is not an atheist; someone who states that there is no god, with absolute authority, is simply a non mainstream form of theist, in spirit.

 

[EdipisReks]

I have been called a gnostic(sp?) atheist.

I say there is no god. Not; I don't believe in god.

i would call you an antitheist.

 

[Huh-What?]

i would call you an antitheist.

I don't know?

According to Wikepedia the closest definition is;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheist

"Antitheism is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God.""

One definition has a Satanist as a antitheist. That would clearly be false for me. No God = no Devil.

The most amusing was by Christopher New under "Other Uses";
"in a thought experiment published in 1993. In his article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the supreme being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil.""

I could see some people arguing that this was closer to the truth when you consider natural disasters, famine, disease, and wars as toys for an evil creator.

Thanks, I had not heard this term before. Although I am not sure I qualify.

 

[Euromutt]

anyone who professes any definite knowledge, at this point, about the existence of god/s is not an atheist; [...]

Unfortunately for you, the commonly accepted of "strong atheist" (aka "positive atheism," "hard atheist," or "gnostic atheist") means precisely that.

This vein of argument floats around this forum in various guises continually, and the scenario is all too common. When a "strong atheist" outlines his reasons for believing there are no deities, the critics call his arguments into question primarily by the expedient of moving the goalposts (or, perhaps more accurately, denying the existence of goalposts altogether). That is to say, they come up with hypothetical examples of "gods" which can, admittedly, not be disproven, but which unfortunately bear almost no resemblance to any commonly used definition of the term "god."

Like Huh-What?, I say there are no gods, if we take the term "god" to mean:

any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity, divinity, immortal]

(source: WordNet 2.0®, via Dictionary.com)
By this definition (which pretty much covers every god posited by theistic belief systems throughout human history), a god must exert direct influence on human experience; the effect of this influence should be detectable, and thus provide evidence of the god's existence. The absence of such evidence, therefore, does constitute evidence of absence, since if the god's influence cannot be detected, that means that the entity either does not exist (except in human imagination), or does not meet the definition of "god" outlined above.
The God of the three Abrahamic religions, of course, has the benefit of many centuries of rationalizing why the above argument does not apply, but is vulnerable to the challenge to theodicy posed by the existence of suffering (not merely due to evil inflicted by "free-willed" humans, but also as a result of natural disasters).

I can't honestly lay claim to "definite knowledge," but strong atheism is not founded on mere faith.