Exactly my stand on this subject.

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.

People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.

Agnosticism is an entomological position, Atheist is a religious position (or a position on religion). But he and I am nearly on the same page. I have always been against categories to, they seem to usually be vessels of group think. Even while I claimed Christianity, people weren't satisfied with that answer alone, and wanted to know WHAT KIND, I always wised I had the bravery to respond...the me kind. I am a me kind of me, I feel ya Tyson.

As a non-golfer I'm outraged at this video.

Everyone's an atheist, if they're not a theist. One is active one is passive. This is what NDT hints at with his "why does this word exist". Recently Atheist has become a label for the more active, atheist "preachers" if you will, but that's a re-definition of the word. The conflation of meanings into that one word is confusing, and seems to get even NDT on thin ice.

Agnostic is not what he says it is. It is only "I don't know, I make no claim either way". Not a middle ground as so many people seem to think it is. Everyone is agnostic, unless they're will fully ignorant. Not everyone has made up their mind on theism, but I will make this bold claim, everyone lives as if one or the other, whether they consciously thoughtfully make the choice or not, I've not devoted much thought to the existence of a Loch Ness Monster, and I don't have to because it has never influenced my being in the world. I have made up my mind on bacteria, and I thin they're real, and I live as if they are real (wash hands etc). I have not really given much thought to UFOs, as in aliens in planes, but I'm assuming they don't exist and I live as if they don't exist.

When you talk about such an important claim as a god, a being that influences EVERYTHING, you do take it into account in your daily life, because if you don't you would, if you were wrong, already be condemned, so you live as if it doesn't exist (unless you actively live as if it does).

@GeeSussFreeK Entomology is the study of insects, I think you're looking for Epistomology.

In any case, whenever someone goes "I don't care" or "I don't want to spend/waste my time contemplating that" I count that as a win for secularism.

I've tried so hard to make the point that atheism isn't a stance at all. The golfer analogy is a good one. Don't know why I'd never thought of making an analogy.

I also like @gwiz665 's point about how everyone -- knowingly or not -- orients themselves towards belief in god one way or another.

Well when people ask, I say I am from a Christian background, specifically Baptist. It's hard to get rid of that. However, I am not prepared to say there is no higher power/God/being/whatever. I do see many links and ideas shared between religions of today, but I won't say one is better/right/whatever...I can't say that. Since it's all basically "proven" after you're dead.....why bother with trying to figure it out. I personally think if people live up to the better points of each religion, we really wouldn't care whose a member of what religion...but far too many people are quite the opposite of what their religion tells them to be. Which is why I have a hard time even entertaining the thought of ever being a member of any religion as an adult, it's too much "do as I say, not as I do" or "ignore what horrible thing I did yesterday, Im a Christian!"

I tend to just tell people Im agnostic, I don't mind hearing about stuff when I ask. But seriously, don't keep harping on about it...that's a good way to make me totally ignore your group altogether and funnily enough it applies to politics as well. You really don't need people in lockstep with you if you both perhaps hold one idea that makes you part of whatever group, but generally if you're part of a group...the "core" of it should be shared. And even in politics the "core" issues/points/whatever is hardly consistent. Which I don't like trying to sort through all the -isms and -ists that people throw out like insults, it's not conducive to discussion at all. And like he said, it carries a lot of baggage because people spend far too much time taking what they don't agree with an assigning to the "opposite" group.

"At the end of the day I'd rather not be in any category at all" -NDT

This sounds good, but is, at best, cute.

I like NDT, and I understand his (small p)political reason for taking this "position", but I don't believe him.

I do believe that he does not want to deal with it, but that does not reflect well on him.

Remember this is a man who tells a story of how he was the first black expert on TV who was an expert in something other than being black.

Black people in the US don't organize and identify as a group to share vit-D suppliments, but because there are very real socio-political disadvantaged be being a member of a non-white group. Yet NDT not only does not balk at taking this non-label, which would be completely non existent in the absence of whiteness as a label, but embraces it.

I think it's great that he publicly discusses his blackness, our society feels this is good to such an extent that it would be considered offensive if he were to disclaim being black, or to argue that it did not concern him.

I don't see how this disowning of this other marginalized group, presumably just because people in it can "pass" by waiving their hand about agnosticism, is any less offensive.

@gwiz665

Sorry, type-o, hope it didn't bug you to much (tee hee)

There is actually an implicit atheist; one whom doesn't even know of an idea of "God". You can say we all start off that way really, and some people in far off lands that haven't been exposed to the idea of religion can still maintain that. Once exposed, though, you either are or you aren't! I don't think the golf analogy is perfect because golf isn't a belief system. Golf by nature is an activity, you can be a golfer without golfing currently just by being the type that regularly golfs. The same doesn't hold for religious thoughts, as they start and end with thinking.

Many of us on the sift and pretty clear on the literal meanings of agnostic and atheist, but those other denoted meanings are pretty meaningful when talking to the public at large. I classify him in my non-angry atheist camp, which is what atheist has unfortunately come to mean, and agnostic now kind of means a non-mean atheist...which is also wrong. In the end, though, those connotation can't be helped, and when you are trying to address the public at large about how you believe, you have to talk their language, yo. He has always been such a positive person when I see him, and for that, I have always enjoyed hearing him talk about how he treats different religious ideas from people of faith in his field.

I think most atheists — whether they know of the idea of a god or are oblivious to any concepts of god(s) whatsoever (babies, cats, dogs, etc) — would agree that if undeniable evidence of some supernatural being were to be there, it would definitely change their mind (or make them aware). I've heard many "militant" atheists even take that stance. I believe even Dawkins himself has said so. I'm in the same boat, but that makes us all agnostic atheists, meaning that we don't know for sure, and we definitely don't subscribe to any particular religion or idea of god. At the same time, if this is true, we'd have to put "believers" in the agnostic category as well. Since they don't know any more than anybody else. The fact of the matter is, there is no objective evidence. Some people have faith and don't need the evidence, some of us need an objective source of data, not just anecdotal evidence.

We're all agnostic.

I agree with his overall message. I dislike labels because you are automatically assumed to have all the traits of others with that label.

This is rarely the case, of course, and it's sad to see a genius such as NDT make this point and then turn around and say, essentially, that all atheists are activists.

If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. That's it.

Why does the term exist? Because the religious ancient Greeks needed a pejorative to hurl at non-believers. It's comparable to calling someone 'godless' or 'heathen' today.

And of course, while NDT may be an agnostic (it would seem to be consistent with how he's talked about knowledge elsewhere), he defines it incorrectly. Agnosticism is the view that the truth about the existence of gods is unknowable.

(A)theism is about what you believe. (A)gnosticism is about what you think can be known.

sorry, but you're wrong and it just strengthen's NDT's point

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

I can't reject what I don't know exists or not.

Therefore, I'm not a theist, and I'm not an atheist. Get over it. You're only giving atheism a bad name by continuing to assert that agnosticism falls under atheism, desperately seeking increased political power by claiming to be a bigger group than you actually are...same as theists. Shit like this just further proves to me that atheists are no better than theists.

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.

I think what has the atheists confused is that they conflate the existence of god with accepting one or all of the major religions currently. They're one and the same to them.

If god exists, then you MUST be a Christian/Jew/Muslim/etc. If god does exists, then religions "win"

Both of these statements are false.

Let me make it simple for you. Religion is mostly bullshit and I do reject that. Religions like to claim ownership of god, but that claim of ownership is the same flawed argument as atheists' claim to reject a deity's existence. God is not the problem, religion is. Atheists seem to think that if they can disprove god, that it will make Religion wither and die and go a way. But they forget the basic tenet of faith, They believe in this stuff regardless of what logic and evidence says...so why the hell do you think they'll respond to more logic and evidence? It's ridiculous. If scientists somehow proved tomorrow that God does not exist. Nothing would change obviously, If God never existed from the start, that never stopped religion before...why would it stop them now? Atheists continue to insist that logic and reason will be effective against people who have long ago rejected logic and reason.

If god does exist, again, this changes nothing. Homosexuals still exist, secularism still exists. Separation of church and state still exists. If god doesn't like it, it can stop us. It hasn't stopped us yet so why would it suddenly stop us now?

The existence/non-existence of god changes nothing. It's a stupid question and you should feel bad for worrying about it so much. Ignorance, Religious nutbags, and religious fanaticism are the problem, worry about that. God is not a popularity contest...god is not Tinkerbelle from Peter Pan where it exists/doesn't exist depending on how many people believe/don't believe in it or clap their hands. If god doesn't like what I'm doing or how I live my life, too fucking bad. I've got better things to worry about than the approval of a deity that may or may not exist.

Theists/Atheists are just running around chasing their tails.

>> ^LukinStone:

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.
People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.


My particular dislike is being told I'm simply a cowardly atheist.

FUCK YOU! [Edit: directed at the people who say that, not LukinStone]

>> ^VoodooV:


It's really rather disturbing watching atheists play the same "change the definitions" game that the right wing plays. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize agnostics as part of atheists is staggering.


The "changing definitions" parts of these arguments are what really make my head explode--along with it's weaker sister--the "No, No don't pay attention to the Primary definition, it's obvious that the Secondary definition is the correct one here." (correct because it reflects the meaning they want it to).

Atheists, take a chill pill and step away from the lectern for a minute or two--take a deep breath. We are with you on separation of church and state. Take "In God We Trust" off US money. Take "Under God" out of the Pledge. Why fight so hard over something which has no impact on you, or our common cause.

Agnostic (i don't know) is the most logical, justifiable and intellectually-honest position as the subject can neither be proved nor disproved (except by a God themselves).
Regular statement: i don't know..

Theist (i subscribe to believing) is a natural position to take due to survival based psychological tendencies. i.e we believe things that may or may not necessarily be true because doing so provides an internal beneficial effect.. it's called 'hope' which provides comfort and allows us to kick on without being held up on something, which is what we do in many situations across many subjects that are out of our control.
Regular statement (gist): you have to have faith..

Atheist (i do not subscribe to believing) is a defiant position, but one that would likely change given credible reason to do so as the only reason for the defiance is a lack of acceptable reason to commit. (before Atheists cry about the word 'defiant', shut up. Used to state the strength of ones value/requirement of evidence)
Regular statement (gist): show me genuine proof of God and I'll believe..

I say I'm an Atheist because most of what I've learned about the human mind points to (imo) 'it' being a survival system that would have been valuable in the past and still holds great value today.
Note, the subject 'it' here isn't God specifically, it's 'hope' re the unknown/uncontrolled. The God aspect 'the belief in a more capable entity than one's self with an aspect of caring for one' simply portrays human intelligence and creativity at reaching the pinnacle of concepts to support/maintain having such hopes in the face of any issue/concern.
In actuality I'm an Agnostic-Atheist (i don't know, but suspect not), but lean so close to Atheism (i believe not) in my comments/positions due to my suspicions that i see it as pointless saying I'm Agnostic in short exchanges, as it gets past all the explanations to which people would often then state 'ah, so you mean you're an Atheist'. Sure, whatever, it's a fine line between where I'm at and Atheist and am happy to be called either.

I understand why Agnostics don't want to be called Atheists, it's the same reason they don't want to be called Theists either.. it's because they're not. Stating 'if you're not a believer, then you are Atheist', is wrong and unfair because there is a 'don't know/don't care' stage between. Everyone deserves their own voice.

I hadn't heard NDT state his position but suspected Agnostic.. you can't be that intelligent and reasonable and be anything but. Was a bit off putting to hear the wiki changes but not surprising, who wouldn't want NDT!
Good to see it's (currently) saying Agnostic: under 'View'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

Edit: A personal belief in God or something of that nature is reasonable imo, it shouldn't likely have large impacts.. but i have no patience for religions and the unknowable knowledge's they claim, or discrimination's they push/support. Large groups of people can make impacts, the negative aspects of religions make many impacts in many countries. This is what i care about re God(s).

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens. Not only do you not believe in god, you're glad there's no god as the whole idea is abhorrent to you.

Personally, I fall into this camp. If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.

That said, I don't conduct myself like this in daily life. Why? Because it has no bearing on me. I live my life mostly free from the influence of religion. I have many friends who are believers. We don't agree on this issue, but meh, we also don't agree on whether pineapple should ever be on a pizza (for the record, pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination).

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist". Meaning, I'm not a theist at all, and I also don't spend my energy being against something. I just don't play the game, so leave me out of it, plzthx.

Although Dawkins himself is a very active atheist, I still believe the term really suits a lot of people's attitudes toward the issue of religion.

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).

@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens. Not only do you not believe in god, you're glad there's no god as the whole idea is abhorrent to you.
Personally, I fall into this camp. If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
That said, I don't conduct myself like this in daily life. Why? Because it has no bearing on me. I live my life mostly free from the influence of religion. I have many friends who are believers. We don't agree on this issue, but meh, we also don't agree on whether pineapple should ever be on a pizza (for the record, pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination).

That position shows a tendency to think of a god as one already defined by a religion.

If Yahweh shows up I'll be one of the first to join your resistance movement. I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.

But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?

My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

>> ^Boise_Lib:


That position shows a tendency to think of a god as one already defined by a religion.
If Yahweh shows up I'll be one of the first to join your resistance movement. I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

Well, you're kinda redefining the terms of the debate (not that your point isn't interesting or valid). In broad terms, I agree with you. If it turns out that we are part of some benevolent science experiment of just the expression of the universe made conscious or the force or any one of a hundred ideas we've all had stoned, I won't rush out to take up arms against that.

But I don't really believe in that. I don't have to contend with it. What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc). It's a man made thing, but on the extreme outside chance they're right, well, I've posted this before, but it's still a great quote, so take it away Carl Marsalis

"Even if you could convince a variant thirteen, against all the evidence, that there really was a god? He'd just see him as a threat to be eliminated. If god were demonstrably real? Guys like me would just be looking for ways to find him and burn him down."



>> ^Boise_Lib:

[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]


Heretic!

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.

But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)

In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...

How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

Sigh... I won't put you under the atheist umbrella but to put it that I am not making a sane choice is rather petty.
But since we are being petty, here is a my argument. He (Neil) says he is a scientist but isn't going to make a claim either way. Okay, so he doesn't know if God exists and won't deny (take a stand) about something if it hasn't been unproven (So un-scientist-like; no leap of faith here...)
In other words he doesn't even know if science works at all. After all, God could snap his fingers and science could be turned on its head and cease to function. Neil is saying this is 100% possible that science is fucking useless and God is all important. He is also saying that this scenario may not be the case...
How scientific of him to take this position. Now you might argue my point is more hyperbole or illogical but really it isn't. It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason... George Carlin I miss your jokes old man


We're talking about who or what created life, the universe, and everything. So yeah, I don't think I'm going out on a limb much when I say, "I don't know." However, asserting that you do know what did, or didn't does seem to be quite insane. Someday maybe we will know, but that day isn't today.

If you want to think that's petty, fine, but you seem to be projecting, IMO. Same with your "insights" into NDT's thought process. You seem to be putting a lot of words and thoughts into NDT's head that he didn't make...or assert to. These assertions that NDT and agnostics are cowardly is insulting and unfounded and again, if I dare say so, seem to be projecting your own insecurities onto NDT. And again, you're conflating the idea of god with religion. Atheists continue to make this flawed claim that if god does somehow exists, that obviously the theists are correct on religion and that god is this petty douchebag that likes to play with peoples lives and do shit like changing the laws of science for shits and grins. If god does exist, I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that god is nothing like Q from Star Trek.

I think it's quite the opposite of being cowardly and "not taking a stand" when one comes out publicly "takes a stand" to correct atheists that he is not an atheist. Obviously, if agnostics are the cowards you claim them to be, NDT wouldn't be coming out on this issue. Talk about being petty. Again, you doth protest too much. Atheists like to throw accusations of cowardice a lot for some reason....I'm sure that would be an interesting psychological study.

"It is just that the "safe" route is ridiculed for a reason..." I don't understand why you feel the need to ridicule it in the first place. You can't really cry foul about being petty when you make a statement like this. Again...no better than theists in this regard, you're one and the same. And really, if agnostic is subject to ridicule. Is it really the safe route? I'm sorry you feel you have to crush those who blaspheme against YOUR religion.

@Boise_Lib is quite right on this. Atheists really need to take a chill pill. The defensiveness, and quite frankly anger, when it comes to the atheist reaction to agnostics only serve to illustrate that you're no better than theists. Atheism always seemed to be more about getting revenge on theists instead of being logical and rational.

Try loving instead of hating, you'll live longer.

If I claim that your house will be destroyed by aliens today, will you stay away from home?
>> ^VoodooV:

I can't reject what I don't know exists or not.

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

I'm an atheist, can I be under YOUR umbrella? I think both theists and atheists are under the agnostic umbrella. You can't know...hence why there's still a debate. Theists claim something that cannot be proved false. Russell's teapot and all...>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

@VoodooV
Humans can speak firmly, loudly, emotionally, impatiently and disrespectfully on subjects they care about. This doesn't mean they are angry, could just be passionate (lol, but also could be angry)

If you perceive Atheists as being angry in the face of Agnosticism, I suggest (where possible) informing them what your position actually is as I've met some and heard of others who erroneously thought it was a position of no opinion.. and that's what would get them agitated.

The number of times I've felt I've had to go in to bat for Agnostics is far greater than the times I've had to bat for Atheists, by these experiences I do understand the negativity, but feel some more recent comments were categorizing a bit extensively.. remember, some people are just assholes, regardless of their stance on a subject.

Main reason for this post: Atheism is not a religion. (think that was the first time I've gone bold on the sift)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I don't like going to the dictionary, but I really want to distance Atheists and Agnostics as far from religions as possible.. had too many conversations where people try to tell me Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing and are also a religion.. *grits teeth*

So, in every dictionary definition you will notice that 'religions' relate to the having of a belief, not the lack there of (note that i don't actually doubt you already know this).
If you want to make this claim, then by the same logic you must also accept that you and I are also in the Afairyist religion, and the Aunicorn religion, Acookie-monster religion, and A etc etc religion (I took the assumption you didn't believe in some things, please do correct me if I'm wrong). Hopefully this points out how absurd it is to claim 'not believing something is real' is a religion.

It's incorrect on more counts than this (no practices/rituals, no rules/guidelines, no faith/acceptance of a supernatural entity) and imo comes from one of 2(3) things, either you're wrong and don't know it, or you're trying to agitate people. You've made too many good points for me to suspect the former without additional reason to suggest you weren't sure of the legitimate meaning of religion.

I don't like religions, and if by 'religion' you did know the meaning, and weren't trying to agitate people, then i suspect you were referring to the dogmatic fanaticism that some Atheists display.. in which case, OK, yeah, but would rather you just say we're 'whining little bitches that too-aggressively make their stance and don't shutup', that i could accept without posting.

Agree with everything you said in your previous post except 'Atheist religion', 'anger' and 'revenge'.

>> ^VoodooV:
Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"


If you're not agnostic, you're either a liar (falwell, robertson, et al) or insane (bush, shinyblurry).
>> ^VoodooV:

two sides of the same coin. different beliefs...same fanaticism.

Good to know that your position is "the only sane choice" but somehow it's the rest of us are the fanatics.