If 'God' is defined as he who created the Universe, then I am truly an atheist. I have no doubt whatsoever the existence of the Universe is NOT the result of cause and effect. The phenomenon of 'Existence' is explained by a principle, not a process.Greg Bernhardt said:Can anyone truely be atheist or are they merely agnostic?
I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.Icebreaker said:Depends how one defines "God". I do not believe in most common definitions of "God".
huh? how do you figure?Pensador said:By the way, agnosticism suffers from the same kind of incoherence. To declare one cannot say anything about God is a self-contradictory statement. For one thing, it is a statement about God.
By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.TheStatutoryApe said:I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.
Of course people can be 'true' atheists. An atheist is just one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing to really constrain what people can believe or not believe. Justification of belief is another issue, but really, what is to stop anyone from merely believing (or disbelieving) anything? If I were suitably deceived (or suitably insane), I could believe that a talking banana follows me wherever I go, or that I don't have hands, or pretty much anything else.Greg Bernhardt said:Can anyone truely be atheist or are they merely agnostic?
The basic dictionary definition of a theist is one who believes in a god or gods but I don't think it neccisarily needs to stop there. Most Buddhists belive in some sort of higher order as far as I understand it, they just don't label it "god". As far as my own personal beliefs go I woundn't label what I believe in "god" but nor would I consider myself an atheist. The particular word "god" has certain conotations to it that do not translate into many religious views. Simply because a religion does not project their higher power/order into a male or female personafied form does that make them atheists? It seems to me that the "god" problem is far more complex and diffuse than most people give it credit for. If it isn't boiled down to an arguement against christianity it's still usually one pointed toward monotheists in particular.Icebreaker said:By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.
That's not quite what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the position that we can never know whether or not a god or gods exist. Basically, agnosticism is an epistemological position (we cannot know if god/gods exist), whereas atheism is an ontological one (disbelief in the existence of god/gods). Being an agnostic is compatible both with being a theist and with being an atheist.ShawnD said:Agnostic = God's existence is doubtful (scientist perhaps?)
That is the same is if I say:ShawnD said:Atheist = OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!1 (angry used-to-be christian?)
Sure, athiests exist. They're just as annoying as Christians.
That's incorrect, agnostics do not have any faith, nor do they "oscillate" between faiths.sneez said:Agnostics may oscilate but they oscilate between faith so it makes no difference.
I do not see it any more diffilcult than this.
oh, then I'm an antitheist atheist.Dissident Dan said:Agnostic means believing that one cannot know the nature of god. ("a+gnosis"=without knowledge). An atheist does not have a theology ("a+theist"). Antitheists are a subset of atheists who believe that there is no god. I am an antitheist...."truly"