Topic: How to differentiate between | |
---|---|
If you acknowledge the possible existence of a g-d, does that not, by definition, make you an agnostic versus a non-theist?
Non-Theist is a general term which simply means "not a theist" (with theist defined as: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world"). One who is not a believer in god(s) MAY be (my interpretation): 1.Hard Atheist: Denies existence of gods 2.Soft Atheist: Doesn't believe but doesn't deny 3.Agnostic: Doesn't have an opinion and/or doesn't favor belief or non-belief 4.Religious Agnostic: Identifies as religious but doubts existence of a god 5.Ignostic: Maintains that the topic of god(s) cannot be intelligently discussed or decided until the subject (god) is identified and defined. (Google the term if unfamiliar) I, personally, do not care to accept any of the subdivision positions or labels, but prefer instead the general Non-Theist term. I sometimes add "tending toward Ignostic (not Agnostic)"; however, that confuses most people (or leads to platitudes like "God is love", "God is the creator", "God is my savior", etc – without any information about what "god" IS). |
|
|
|
why spend time or energy questioning it or being bothered by it?
There are moral, ethical and societal reasons for speaking out in opposition to what one considers false, misguided, destructive / damaging / dangerous, or fraudulent. If opposition views are not presented the prevailing propaganda is often taken to be truthful and accurate. Consider the recent whistle-blowers against government spying and coverups as an example. Statements claiming special knowledge of mysticism and supernaturalism are, in my opinion, one or more of the above. "I read it in ancient texts and listened to lectures so I KNOW it is true -- and anyone who doesn't agree will be punished after they die" masquerades as a valid statement. Some of us present opposing viewpoints (and are often demeaned or condemned by those who prefer to worship "gods"). |
|
|
|
Never heard of ignostic either.
I guess I have a much bigger problem with what you defined as the hard atheist. As I expect they are the ones who spend as much time as the extreme religious people reading the bible so they can argue with the really religious people. Either side of that coin drives me nuts. I'd rather deal with the people in the middle. lol |
|
|
|
Never heard of ignostic either. I guess I have a much bigger problem with what you defined as the hard atheist. As I expect they are the ones who spend as much time as the extreme religious people reading the bible so they can argue with the really religious people. Either side of that coin drives me nuts. I'd rather deal with the people in the middle. lol Hard Atheism and Religious Fundamentalism appear to be opposite ends of the continuum. However, those are typically the most vocal and visible positions stated in public. Perhaps eventually they will cancel out each other and more "centerist" views will become more publicized. There is some justification for the Hard Atheist to "study the opposition" in order to counter Fundamentalist Religion claims, stories, statements, threats and promises. Perhaps such "study to counter" is a bit similar to the effort put into battles regarding same sex marriage, gay rights, and abortion (apparently religion associated). If those opposed to homophobia and limitation of women's rights do not study the proponents position they are ineffective. Few of the Hard Atheists in my acquaintance pay attention to an individual's personal and private beliefs -- but do challenge public religious propaganda and pronouncements. |
|
|
|
Some believe or say we'll find out when we are dead if these so called gods exist.Then again not all theist accept there's an afterlife but most do.
Anyways all i can say is when we are all dead and gone i doubt we'll see each other again to say "i told you so". |
|
|