Some poor atheists living in America can't get it over to people that not only are they not Christians, but they also don't believe there is a god. Agnostics are more accepted, not only as into the human race, by Amy Christians, but also in understanding by christians that agnostics have to do SOMEthing with god, so they don't reject it as much, there is a little bit of god in their lives, not like for atheists, who are walking burnt-out shells of inhuman spiritless life, and whose thought-world revolves around how to kill more babies, and how to recruit more people into gayhood, and how to be cowards and decry the War against Better Judgement.

So... I think each of us, atheists, must build a mental library of words that we can say to Christians, when they ask us, "What's your religion?" The true answer, "atheist", just doesn't cut the mustard.

Here are a few examples, and I would like to read your thoughts on this and your own creativity to say what to the question.

the words:

I am a Canthroponean.

I believe in the great Asperg.

I believe in the good Ness.

I am a doctrinated promarshall of the Probii.

I follow the Shishkebab.

Please don't stand that close to me. My religion prohibits me.

I am a convert since the time when I saw a great ball of fire descend from the heavens. It may not have been fiery, and my dada says it was in a baseball park. Anyhoo, that's what I believe in.

I am a Cambodian.

I am an idealist, I refuse to disbelieve that Wikipaediea exists. It's south of Peru, I think.

Your humor keeps these threads entertaining. Thank you for that. :)


I usually say I am a free thinker. There was a strong movement at one time concerning the idealogy of free thinkers.


In reality I enjoy Buddhism as a philosophy. I even read a book called the Buddhist Atheist. The guy was a monk but got away from it because he couldn't overcome the thought on how buddhists believe in reincarnating depending on how you lived your life. If you did alot of bad deeds you end up as a earthworm or somekind of bug later on. If you did alot of good deeds you end up rich and happy or a human with a good life in such a way. In the end he became a atheist but enjoyed the philosophy of buddhism except for the part I explained earlier.

I like the term "Free thinker" just because I listen and then give an opinion on the issue or situation.

I am a crusader as Christians would term it against any mediterrenean mythology. I believe they are very dangerous cults that somehow pertain to the majority of the population. I am talking about Jews, Christians, and Muslims and the 100,000 of denominations thereafter. If they leave me alone with their mumbo jumbo I usually will leave them alone, although I do express my disdain on their beliefs occasionally. I think the younger generation need to know how dangerous this movement is. I want them to think about it at least before making any decision on joining anykind of belief system first.

So free thinker it is and most have a hard time accepting that as a religious identity.

Then I just say I am a Earthling that worships mother Goddess. I enjoy her gifts at virgin springs in remote locations. lol

Down here in Florida mentioning that you are a atheist usually gives a scorn of somekind or a "I am so sorry you don't believe in a God. I hope you will find him soon."

I usually say: I hope god is a lady. lol

Agnostic is my choice just because in reality we just don't know. I mean there is no evidence so it is easy to conclude there is no god, but perhaps a god, goddess, alien, spaghetti monster (what have you) did create everything and just left us abandoned?? Who knows really?

So I am a earthling- agnostic- free thinker that enjoys eastern philosophy whenever it is presented to me.

Am I acceptable in society because of my odd beliefs. Probably not, but I don't care. It is important that I feel good with what I believe. If I don't then I can't offer my best to anyone.

I am very lucky to have not been confronted with anykind of religion while growing up. My family believed it is my right as an adult to make that decision on my own. Now that is free thinking if you ask me!

i'm an atheist and i don't believe in ghost,spirits,god or gods,i don't believe we exist for a purpose we just do exist.i also think that when your dead your dead,no spirit going to some other place ****.

GreenEyedMan

"Agnostic is my choice just because in reality we just don't know"

It is true we don't know. But atheism is my choice because while it's true we don't know, I choose to beleive there is / are no god/ gods.

Faith is not a consequence of knowing, both for the godless and for the godful.

At least we can choose in this time and age what we feel is best. If it is atheist, agnostic, or the spaghetti monster god. We would have had a hard time anytime before the 1700s in many parts of the world. We would be considered heretics, infidels, charged with heresy and burned with a black cat. If I recall a pope wrote 14 volumes on the reason to burn or kill heretics to continue the crusade of transforming every human being to the same religion. I have a book that offers explanations of 8,414 superstitions yet to read! The world will continue to struggle to experience peace and compassion to anyone as long as superstitions exist.

true but knowing is a consequence of faith. we agnostics cannot know therefore we cannot have faith.

Several writers wrote over the ages that a person can't influence his own belief directly. Belief is a complex mix of indoctrination and personal resolution. Sometimes the professed faith is not the same as the felt faith. Many relgious have doubtful moments, and many atheists too.

The first decree of the individual's will not being lord over his relgious belief was codified in law in Hungary in the fifteen hundreds. Hungary was divvied up into three parts, and in one of these three, Catholics, Reformationists, and Islamic Turks lived together in more-or-less equitable proportions by numbers. The Parliament there and then decreed, as a secular law, and after much deliberation, both in sessions and by reperesentatives sole and lonely meditative thoughts, that ... nobody has command over his or her religious beliefs.

So why you can't have faith is, I contend, not because you can't know. I still say the functions of knowledge and faith are very separate. Agnostics are people who don't have a definite faith, but they admit that both faiths are possible and equally likely. That is actually also not a fact, because ultimately one but not the other is true. Unfortunately we have to decide between the two BEFORE proof is presented. Thus, agnostics simply choose both or neither, in equal proportions. To have free will, in a Christian sense, they could choose; but they can't, coz the two options are equally likely, equally motivating. It's like which way does a rope move, in a tug of war, when the two teams are equally balanced? according to the free willists, it ought to move some way. But it never does. Similarly, an agnostic is not without faith, but exactly halfway between the gravitational pulling force between two different and opposing kinds of faith.

So in order to choose between religious faith and atheist faith is not a choice, but a given temperament, a given -- yes -- faith in the superiority of theological non-biassed-ness. This is also not a choice, it is a given, although agnostics like to think that they choose agnosticism for a valid reason.

Well, if that were true, please become an atheist for one day, then wait a few days, and for another be a Christian. If you can do that, I give you this argument.

not so in the least. an agnostic thinks that the human mind is incapable of ever knowing of the existence of gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. a strong atheist believes it to be fact that god does not exist. the faithful believe it as fact that god does exist. an agnostic understands that neither can ever prove himself correct and the other wrong. what you speak of is a weak atheist. one who sees no evidence of god but who believes god could be known to exist if the evidence were presented.

I have a higher standard for the word knowledge myself, so would disagree.

I am an agnostic atheist in regard to the generic aspects of supreme beings that could create lesser beings, or the god as nature kind. Deism for the most part could work and thus I am forced to accept an Agnostic position for my atheism. (I would however argue that the deist is smashing and reshaping definitions to allow for this, and I would just call it the universe, or nature not god)

However for most specific gods I am an Gnostic Atheist. I believe that a natural system that works without direct conscious tinkering rules out gods of the Mediterranean variety, I have no reason to accept any breaking of causal relations and have no reason to accept supernatural explanations when natural ones work.

what makes you think you've "a higher standard for the word knowledge" when you don't even know my standard for the word. i think the term "agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron. agnostic means the unknown and unknowable where a strong atheist KNOWS there is no god and a weak atheist sees no evidence that god exists but could know god exists if evidence were presented to support such a notion. an agnostic thinks that god can never be known to exist or not to exist.

a strong atheist believes it to be fact that god does not exist. the faithful believe it as fact that god does exist. an agnostic understands that neither can ever prove himself correct and the other wrong.

This is true, with some modification. It is not only an agnostic who understands that neither the existence or the non-existence of god can be proven. Everyone understands that who is capable of basic or little better understanding. An agnostic is not agnostic because he understands the above, but he is an agnostic because of the same basic reason or same type of motivation, but of differnt parameters, that an atheist is an atheist and a theist is a theist.

Also, a strong atheist may or may not believe that it's a fact that god does not exist. He believes god does not exist. Whether that is a fact or not, is not in the realm of the faith that decided for the atheist to not believe in god. In fact, if he is sure that the non-existence of god is a fact, then he is not only an atheist, but a low-IQ or non-thinking atheist. This is not a feature of "strong" or "weak" atheism. A belief will not make a fact happen, no matter how strong you believe in that fact, in order to make it happen.

Compare this with that new brand of New Age stuff, the power of wishful thinking, I can't remember the name of the movement right now.

Same in reverse, for the theist.

"where a strong atheist KNOWS there is no god"

With all due respect to the strong atheists: they are all brawl and no brain. They are too muscular and the steroid use destroyed their brains. If they had just some reason, they would surely know they are stupid, because what they claim to know is a thing that can't be known.

In other words, if you keep saying that "strong" atheists "know" there is no god, then the theists could reply, "yes, the best of you are the stupidest as well. That proves that the more atheistic you get, the stupider you get, the more likely it is to happen that you lose some cranial capacity". I don't think we should fuel the fire under and for such a rap to aid the theists.

And aside from that, it's not a valid classification, to call a person "strong" or "weak" atheists. It would be more fitting to call the two, given the existing parameters, as "stupid" and "not-so-stupid" atheists, respectively.

---------

I say this because in order to "know", some proof must exist. Proof does not exists, pro or con atheism, so the "strong" atheist is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word "to know". This means mental retardation on his part.

Strong atheist

Weak atheist

Holiday retreat atheist

dumb agnostic

smart agnostic

the jolly green monster believer


I am whatever "name" you want to call it that says this - I don't know if a god exists. There is a possibility and there isn't. Either way I don't know and won't make up stories claiming there is one to make people believe in me.

So that makes me...... a human that doesn't know but doesn't discredit the possiblities. No name needed!

I’ve decided to start my own religion of which I am the sole adherent. My religion is called the loyal order of IAN. when questioned about the religious dogma of I Ain‘t Nuttin, my answers are simple. For instance when asked:


What do you believe? Nuttin’

What do you think created the universe? Nuttin’

From what was man created? Nuttin’

What do you tithe at church? Nuttin’

What becomes of us when we die? Nuttin’

Do you have scripture for your religion? Nope, nuttin’ (some answers are more complex than others.)

that is funny!

but it works!

I find it interesting that no one is taking into account the actual definition of the term "atheist". Breaking the word into "a" (without) and "theism" (practice of religion) and the word only means a person who is not a practitioner of an organized religion. Their actual belief in a "divine power" is not defined within the actual construction of the word (and to be clear on that, Einstein defined divinity, or God, as the splendor of the universe and everything within it that can be known or not known). There is no "strong" or "weak" associated with the word itself ... if you don't believe in the practice of religion, for any reason or lack thereof, the strength of that non-practice is not affected. A "weak" atheist doesn't practice now and then; nor must a "strong" atheist decline every notion of spirituality or the "supernatural" ... it just means (s)he is not a practitioner of a religion.

The extreme I believe you are trying to describe with "strong" is rather called "anti-theism" ... those who ultimately prefer or demand the abolition of all organized religion. However, even that is not exactly correct because, while it would certainly pertain to Christianity or Judaism or Islam, etc, that does not exactly exclude all supernatural existences or ideas of divinity.

That said, getting back to the OP's question, a more properly associated term would be best.

To describe my personal belief, I am certainly an atheist ... I believe all organized religions, if not originally intended as a scam, at least began to be exploited in that manner somewhere along the way and that none of them are based on any truth whatsoever. I base this on the idea that if any of them were, we would certainly all know ... without doubt. None of those jealous and wrathful Gods would, for any stretch of time or imagination, allow anyone to believe otherwise.

However, on the other side of that argument, I do not profess to know or be able to know, on any level, whether the "supernatural" or "divine" actually does or does not exist. I require (as any scientist would) proof either way and until that proof exists, the matter will remain unsettled. So in this, I am certainly agnostic.

I've often thought of "anti-deist" to describe a pure lack of belief in all things divine. Certainly that would be a more appropriate term to define the lack of faith in any deity, a step beyond all religious connotation.

You said knowing is a consequence of faith, I disagree. Knowing for me is a consequence of the scientific method arriving at a plausible explainable and reproducible outcome. What I believe to be true may or may not conform to this standard. Where I have worked hard it will conform closely, where I have slacked it may deviate.

Beliefs are not the same as knowledge, the majesteria overlap, but they are not the same set, and do not have the same criteria for membership, there for believing there is no god is not the same as excepting that one cannot know about it, vice versa ad infinitum.

We have gone over this before where I have dissected your understanding of what it means to be agnostic and I have disagreed with your equivocation of knowledge and belief before, it was discussed at great length with links ect If I remember correctly.

All of this however must be predicated on what someone means when they say god.

So if someone bases the definition on a naturalistic, deism based approach that essentially states all of existence is god, then it becomes unnecessary for me to not believe in this "GOD" because from my perspective it is no longer a god to be believed in, I believe that existence exists, I believe that nature is the totality of existence, I believe in this "god", but disagree with the label. The substance remains the same and therefore I am forced to believe in it, even when I would correct someone for calling this a god belief.

However if a person asks me to consider my belief . . . . oh say . . . . in the Calvinist Judea Christian god, I can use science and the absence of evidence to form my beliefs. Knowledge of this god may very well be impossible to gain (and if its non-extant rightly so), that does not remove my ability to absolutely positively believe it does not exist, just like the invisible pink 3 toed ethereal dragon living under my bed.

What does it even mean to have knowledge of a thing that does not exist anyways? How would the lack of knowledge from non-existence be different than the lack of knowledge from a hidden existence?

These questions illustrates the gap from belief, and knowledge, and how agnosticism is an apple to the orange of theism/atheism.

Just sayin . . . .



Then you sir are like myself, an agnostic atheist in regards to most god claims.

However if someone asks you if you believed in a pink invisible 3 toed ethereal dragon living under your bed, what would you say?

If you said, no I do not believe that, and they further asked, "do you believe its possible that one might live under your bed and knowledge of this event is just hidden from your faculties", would you then admit its possible and that your unbelief is provisional based on new knowledge, or would you like me explain loudly and with great gusto that, its stupid, wrong and is clearly not true with regard to knowledge of its absence, then in that case you are a Gnostic Atheist for at least this singular claim and believe that the absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence which forms your knowledge of its non-existence. BOO YAH!

This makes me a Gnostic Atheist in regards to invisible pink 3 toed ethereal dragons living under my bed. I BELIEVE my KNOWLEDGE of science rules out such things, and thus have no compulsion to accept such things as even provisionally, or possibly true.

you and i can argue definitions all day long but i certainly did not coin such terms as strong or weak atheist. others refer to themselves as such. often times, terms and words take on entirely different meanings than defined in a dictionary, expecially in the context of religion. few people agree on what evidence is much less what an atheist is. and just start up a discussion about agnosticism and see how confused people get.

i used "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" as i understand many people define the terms so as to communicate my thoughts clearly. i even went so far as to state how those many people define the terms AS I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE. there's simply more to effective communication than having a dictionary close by.

no, i asked "what makes you think you've a higher standard for the word "knowledge." it's been obvious for weeks that we dissagree on such words as "knowing" as we can't even agree on what an agnostic is. it was einstein who said that humnans can never know anything absolutely not long after he refuted newton's law of gravity which for three centuries had been held as the gold standard of "knowing" how gravity works. we "knew" newton was right and now we "know" that he was wrong. so just what is this "higher standard of the word 'knowledge'" of which you speak? i use the word as einstein would, as hawking does, in that the scientific method determines plausibility but never proves to be absolute knowledge. a plausibility can be tested and shown to produce perdictable and repeatable results but all that really does is show that the plausibility passed the latest test. it does not mean it will past the next test with updated understanding an improved tools.

Ha! Well, absurd questions deserve equally absurd answers. If I am in the mood to take the metaphysical approach, I'd say "yes, it does exist since it can be imagined, it must be so."

If I were feeling particularly long-winded, perhaps I'd start by pointing out that anything invisible (not subject to the effects of light in the visible spectrum and therefore, its reflection) could not possibly be pink. Then I would state that, if ethereal, the dragon cannot to be constructed of solid matter and must be subject to the destructive power of air-flow, much like gases, smoke, mist, etc. And while I'm willing to agree that its certainly possible that any volume of gas or smoke may, at any point, chance the form of a three-toed dragon (perhaps a cloud), that form is not sustainable outside of a vessel specifically crafted to maintain that shape ... and that vessel (or at least the effects of that vessel) would surely not be intangible.

Or, I'd buy a dragon statue and put it under my bed so I can bring it up later and pull it out and say "You were right! Since I wasn't looking at it, it was certainly invisible to my eye and since I wasn't touching it, it may be considered metaphysically incorporeal. In the end, its just a dragon statue." :D



While I've never heard anyone actually refer to themselves as "weak atheists", I'll not argue your usage of the term and clarify that it wasn't intended as a slight. My intent was to bring the OP's original question back into focus by pointing out exactly how inappropriate the ideas of "weak and strong atheism", no matter who uses the terms. He's right that while agnosticism is pretty self-explanatory, "atheist" is a broad term that doesn't exactly specify (by its definition, as I provided) the varying levels that lie outside of theism or the belief in God(s) and/or metaphysical and supernatural phenomena.

Most people consider atheism the opposite extreme of fundamentalism. I don't believe it is. I tend to believe that intellect and reason is the extreme opposite of fundamentalism. And like the rectangle and the square, atheism may be the disbelief in religion, but the disbelief in God(s), metaphysical and/or supernatural occurrences may not strictly be atheism.