So I believed that they had a set definition but I have heard alot of people under these names giving out a different story. In this thread I would like everyone to share what they think the definition of each one is, and eventually we all may be able to agree on a definition instead of making something untouchable logically. I'll start, I believe the definition for atheism, is the doctrine or belief or act of not believing in god, or believing there is atleast not one god. And theism, is the doctrine, belief or act of believing in at least one god. Hopefully we get somewhere.
I reject the doctrine and belief and act part of your definition of atheism. Not believing in god is enough of a definition. The active belief against gods is anti-theism.
My definition is similar ninja, but also slightly altered. Atheism: The belief that we have no living creator. Theism: The belief that there is a living creator that has placed us on Earth for a purpose.
The "a" in atheism is simply a negative pretext, define theist then use its negation for a definition of atheist. From my understanding atheism simply entails non belief in god. Side note I find it ridiculous to label yourself by your non beliefs.
I think its best to replace god with what your definition of god is. It has come to my attention that people can have rather obscure definitions of god. Maybe you could add which do you consider yourself to be and why? I think that could add to the discussion.
im an atheist. ATHEISTIC. without god. doesn't mean i dont entertain the possibility of being wrong.. but there's no sense in truly believing in something that i can't even prove to myself.
Truly believing is not possible without faith. You believe whatever your evidence has shown you to believe. If you cannot put faith in this belief, than you cannot truly believe it to be true. May I ask, what is your take on how we were created? Just curious..
there are varying levels of faith necessary to believe, depending on what we're talking about. if i can prove it to myself through facts, logic, and scientific proofs that are universally accepted..i'll believe it. but not prior to scrutiny. i don't really have a take on how we were created (by the way, what do you mean? humans? or life in general?). i've entertained plenty of possibilities but i see no reason to believe any of them until i can prove it to myself through the forementioned process. &@Entropy, that's what everyone says. it's not. agnostic was how i self-identified prior to arriving where i'm at now. when i still really believed there could be a god. my rejection of that possibility is too strong right now for agnosticism.
Agnostic is a view that truth values of certain claims are unknown or unknowable. I stand by what I said, it sound agnostic.
i stand by what i said.. i don't know why people always try to tell me i don't know what i believe. lol
I agree with you, however I'm hinting at the faith that you personally know by definition. I can sympathise with you over deciding what to choose as faith. There are endless possibilities.. I just recently came to the conclusion that I do have a creator, but not in the religious sense. More or a less a being that created this wonderful universe for the simple explanation of enjoyment. No self righteous idolizing in my beliefs. I think my god gave me the most precious thing a human can have, life. That is my belief.. but not everyone will agree. What is your envision of human creation?(I'm not talking sex, but beginning of human kind creation )
Cool, just from the one statement saying you see no point in believing something you can't prove to yourself sounds like classic agnosticism, though I could be misinterpreting what you said, oh well
yes, but the lack of belief in something is different from the presence of belief in something. there's a reason everyone responds the way you do.. it is difficult for me to explain how i feel on this subject. but if i had to take a leap, and say i knew for a fact there either was or was not a god.. i'd feel much more comfortable choosing the latter. i myself believe that there's no god. i'm just not so stubborn as to claim that belief as an absolute truth since i logically can't.
Your decision is "reasonable". Obviously believing in a god means you must rely on some un ordinary force that is "unreasonable" to some. The pathe you choose should always be chosen by reason and for this I commend you for looking at the evidence you have obtained and creating a belief. Now to just work on the faith part.
I am not telling you what you believe but those statements are agnostic. My wife has the negation of your belief and she considers herself agnostic, she will not make a stubborn claim in a absolute belief especially god because she feels it impossible or that she logically cannot come to a conclusion meaning she is agnostic by the standard definition. If you believe you cannot prove either way the existence of god that is agnostic.