Question, I don't know if any gods exist or not, therefore I don't believe any do, what am I?

[Humanist_Activist]

I would put a poll, but I'm not a star member, so go ahead and define me.

[cbayer]

1. How do you define yourself?

[Humanist_Activist]

4. Agnostic Atheist...

as contrasted with a Gnostic Atheist(who KNOWS that a god or gods don't exist), Agnostic Theists and Agnostic Theists are the counterpoints, if you will, on the belief side.

[cbayer]

5. Great! You have now answered your own question and don't need a poll

[Humanist_Activist]

7. I'm more interested in how you would define me, since you have some odd beliefs...

when it comes to word definitions.

[cbayer]

9. I have absolutely no interest in defining you and

no interest in you defining me.

How I define words does not constitute a belief system, by the way.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. Of course not, that's what adjectives are for...

but again, to you, words seem to be meaningless, so I'm curious as to what you think.

[cbayer]

16. Words are not meaningless to me, of course.

What part of your humanism is expressed in the way you speak to others who disagree with you?

[goldent]

24. Wow, that didn't take long.

We need more threads like this in Religion!

[struggle4progress]

22. +

[robinlynne]

2. human.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Thanks for identifying my species, now that we got that out of the way...

have anything to contribute, or another attempt at failed snarkiness?

[robinlynne]

38. absolutely no snarkiness intended. it was simply empathy.

[dimbear]

3. Need a little help here. Are you smaller than a breadbox? n/t

[egold2604]

6. Unitarian

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Uhm, Unitarians believe in one, singular god, with an indivisible godhead...

as contrasted with Trinitarians.

Words have meaning, learn them.

[safeinOhio]

12. The poster may have been posting about UUs.

Our 7 principles say nothing about a god or gods. Most are Humanist too.

Here are the 7 principles that guide us.

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. True, but that's a specific organization, I was thinking more traditionalist Unitarians...

But, even if they did mean that, there wasn't enough information in my post to make that conclusion, in addition, I'm not a member of the UUA so its inaccurate anyways.

[Bad Thoughts]

13. You.

[asjr]

14. An anti Godist.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. While I am opposed to the idea of gods, that wasn't evident i my initial post. n/t

[cbayer]

19. No, but it's evident in your attitude. That might make you anti-theist, I suppose.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Having a bad attitude doesn't make one an anti-theist...

stop destroying the reasonable use of the English language, it is infuriating.

[rug]

17. Dymo.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Sounds like you're insecure if you need to ask others what you are.

Or maybe, like many people, you're looking for simple answers to pointless questions.
A poll? Really?

[LeftofObama]

21. What's with the attitude? Having a bad day?

"I'm more interested in how you would define me, "since you have some odd beliefs"...
when it comes to word definitions."

"Of course not, that's what adjectives are for...
but again, to you, words seem to be meaningless, so I'm curious as to what you think."

"Thanks for identifying my species, now that we got that out of the way...
have anything to contribute, or another attempt at failed snarkiness?"

"Words have meaning, learn them."

[MellowDem]

28. Many people on here mislabel atheism and agnosticism...

which I think is what the OP is getting at. Indeed, a full thread about how one should be an agnostic instead of an atheist was going on... which is funny, considering they're not either/or, they're completely different questions.

Also, a very common tactic of theists in debates (not necessarily always on here) is to mislabel what atheism is. A belief system, gnostic atheism, anti-theism, faith-based, etc., mostly as a way to stick to technicalities and avoid the unanswerable questions they receive. Considering theists are making the incredible claims, the burden of proof is on them, but this is a way to shift that attention away from themselves, or to pretend that atheists indeed have the same burden because they somehow make similar claims. "Moving the goal posts" by being indirect with definitions of words is a classic defense of many theists, which is why the definitions of words are so important for any meaningful discussion to occur.

Most of the snarky non-answers on here are very similar to the snarky non-answers many theists in the real world usually give, which probably explains the frusteration of the OP.

The OP asked, in the religion forum, how others would label him based on his beliefs, in order to have a discussion about labels and definitions of words. Instead, he's getting a lot of snark. Not surprising at all as to why he's frusterated.

[hrmjustin]

23. I guess it makes you an atheist with some agnostic leanings.

[Iggo]

25. That sounds right.

[MellowDem]

26. No, it makes him an agnostic atheist...

Everyone is either an atheist or a theist, and everyone is either agnostic or gnostic when it comes to theism.

Agnostic atheism is the only truly rational position IMHO, all others are variably intellectually dishonest or irrational. Most theists anymore are agnostic, because they have to be. Their religions have evolved to be so as well. It's the only way they've kept around, and even then, they're still being ditched as some of the power and social privilege of religion dwindles.

[hrmjustin]

27. I am just a plain Christian so I will take your word for it.

[MellowDem]

30. Don't take my word for it...

it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Deist or a Hindu or an atheist, anyone can know the definitions of words and their application. People aren't agnostic atheists because other agnostic atheists say it's so. It's just the definitions of words applied to beliefs, or lack thereof. I encourage you to look up the definitions yourself to get a better understanding of them, it can be pretty complicated if you're not familiar with it, and there is a lot of misinformation about them as well that doesn't help, mostly spread by certain religious interests that want to put atheism on the same level as theism for a variety of reasons (a Catholic website describes atheism as a belief system, for example).

Some people may think I'm wrong, in the sense that they may think there is no difference between knowledge and belief. But this is just a preference. I think there is a difference because I think it's a useful distinction, and it also would mean the words knowledge and belief would have less meaning and be less useful otherwise.

I think this video explains some of the definitional issues of atheism very well:

[hrmjustin]

32. Thank you very much, it was a helpful video.

Short and to the point!

[MellowDem]

33. No problem! nt

[westerebus]

34. He is what he decides to identify himself as.

[cbayer]

35. Exactly. That is why I defer to others when they tell me a term is offensive.

I might not see it as offensive, but if those it refers to find it so, then they should prevail.

[westerebus]

37. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

tight lines, cbayer

[MellowDem]

40. Whether something is offensive is completely subjective...

the definitions of words are not. So you are bringing up a different topic.

People may find things offensive, but that has nothing to do with whether they should "prevail" or not. Many conservatives find gay marriage disgusting and offensive, yet that fact doesn't mean you think they should "prevail" I would guess.

When someone tells you they find something offensive, all it tells you is that they think it's offensive, not whether their offense is in any way rational or logical or justified.

[cbayer]

41. I think I was not clear.

I tend to defer to the targets when possible. For example, I did not know that the term "gypped" was offensive to a certain group. When I was told by members of that group why this was offensive, I deferred to them and stopped using the term.

One could argue all day long that terms like retard or gay or gypped should not be offensive, but if they offend people within those groups, then I think is is rational, logical and justified to take their word for it.

[MellowDem]

42. Whether they are "targets" or not makes no difference...

for example, I call people who oppose gay marriage "bigots". This offends them. Yet, I don't retract what I said because they are offended. It's an honest assessment. Indeed, I call the current Pope a bigot, homophobic, and a misogynist. This is an honest assessment based on his own statements and confirmed belief system. Yet many people on DU are offended, but their offense is not logical, it's emotional. They like certain things about this particular Pope, or they were raised Catholic, etc. etc. that bias them so much that they cannot take honest criticism of the Pope on any subject very well. They'll even say it's rude. I've seen posts deleted based on irrational grounds by offended DUers, so it's something to keep in mind.

You didn't stop saying "gypped" because the target group was offended, you stopped saying "gypped" because you gained new information about its origins that lead you to believe that its use was justifiably offensive. That makes sense, that's a good way to go about it.

[cbayer]

43. I guess I am still not being clear.

You calling people who oppose gay marriage "bigots" is not what I am referring to. You calling white southerners "crackers" would be a better analogy. In addition, calling an individual or a group that has taken a particular stand bigoted, homophobic or or misogynistic is also not what I am referring to. I am talking about words used in a derogatory fashion (gay, retard, etc.) to describe any number of people and how those words may harm or offend people who are actually gay or mentally retarded.

I stopped saying gypped because I was told by Romani people that this was offensive and harmful to them. My gay friends got my kids to stop saying "That's so gay". In one particularly embarrassing, but very memorable, episode, my son used "jew" in a derogatory episode for the last time.

[MellowDem]

44. So you don't stop saying a word just because a group finds it offensive...

that's the whole point I'm getting at. Only for a certain class of words, ones you find "derogatory", do you stop saying the word.

More specifically, words that criticize a person for irreversible or inherent traits especially, from your examples, do you consider unjustifiably offensive. This makes sense. There is no logic behind attacking someone's character for their skin color, or ethnicity, or mental disability, or sexual orientation etc. etc., since it has nothing to do with character. I'm just trying to show you that this is really your reasoning, not the fact that some group considers the word offensive.

From your accounts, it sounds like you were ignorant of the derogatory nature of the word until you were informed by someone else, and once you knew of the derogatory nature, you stopped using it, not because a group found it offensive, but because you found out the meaning behind the word.

Lots of groups consider words offensive, but some of them are justifiably used against those groups.

Religion, oftentimes, is still conflated with being an inherent trait in many cultures, the same thing as skin color or ethnicity. It's not. So words that attack or belittle religious beliefs may be offensive to those that hold them, but they also may be justified, and the offense to the criticism is not logical. Belief systems are always fair game to criticism, and those that hold such beliefs will be subject to criticism as well.

For example, the Koran is a bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic religious text, and Islam is based on it. Islam itself is homophobic and misogynistic as a belief system. That makes all people who subscribe to Islam, Muslims, homophobic and misogynistic. If a Muslim says they are not homophobic or misogynistic, that simply means they are engaging in cognitive dissonance. It's like a member of the KKK telling you they aren't racist. It may be true, of course, but it's still cognitive dissonance and it's intellectually dishonest, they're essentially saying they don't believe what they say they believe. Now, because religion has so much privilege still, a post like that got deleted by a jury on DU, simply because people found it offensive.

That sort of logic is terrible, and should not be a reason to censor words or criticism.

[Jim__]

45. It's language that is not clear.

Wittgenstein had a good understanding of situations like this. Words have meaning, yes. But, the meaning of words change not only across time and place, but even across different conversations - what he referred to as language games. One difficulty is that the rules of any particular language game are implicit. Another difficulty is that the particular language game we are playing is also implicit. A participant in the conversation can swith games, either deliberately or not, at any point in the conversation leading to confusion and disagreement. Wittgenstein considered this to be one common cause of disagreements. I think he was right, and I think at least a part of the disagreement here is due to people using rules from different games in one conversation.

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.

[cbayer]

46. I think you are right about this.

I went off topic without really meaning to and we ended up talking around two different things.

[MellowDem]

39. Of course not.

Otherwise words have no meaning. A person may call themselves a fish. They aren't a fish.

Words have meaning, they are not completely subjective. Atheism and agnosticism are actually fairly clear definitions, compared to many other words.

Many people may think they are something they actually aren't, happens all the time. Usually it's because they want the benefits of the label without actually ascribing to what the label is. It's considerate to inform people that their beliefs don't actually match up with the label they've given themselves, so they can better understand reality and themselves. If they wish to continue to identify themselves that way, that's fine, no one can stop them, but all that says is that they identify that way, not that they actually are what they claim to be. And it shows they're intellectually dishonest.

It's called cognitive dissonance. This is something many theists have to engage in all the time, considering the inherent contradictions of many of their belief systems and religious texts, so perhaps the idea of saying they are one thing while holding beliefs that actually contradict what they just said is a usual practice. More likely, theists just ignore any contradicting ideas. That's what I did when I was a theist.

To recap: If you want words to have meaning, then people are not what they say they are simply because they identify as such.

[westerebus]

47. Then you will need to speak to the poster of the OP.

If he wishes to identify himself as an agnostic atheist that would be his concern not mine.

I don't find any fault with his description of himself and neither did you in your post #26.

As your post endorsed his position.

You may have a bit of cognitive dissonance. It happens.

[mindwalker_i]

29. You! You are a bunghole

And so am I

[LostOne4Ever]

36. An Atheist

Based on your question you would be defined as an atheist as according to the definition of the word. You also qualify as a non-theist, but that is implied by the term atheist.

I need more information to identify you further. Mind some questions?

1) Do you actively believe there are no gods? I know you said "therefore I don't believe any do" but the way that is phrased im not sure if you are saying you believe that there are no gods or that you simply lack a belief in any the possibility of god(s) existing.

If yes, then you are a strong atheist. You can also be called a positive atheist or my preferred term an explicit athiest.

If no, then you are a weak atheist. You could also be called a negative atheist or, as I call myself, an implicit atheist.

2) Do you believe that the existence of the non-existence of a God/gods is knowable?

If no, then you are an agnostic. So if you believe that the existence of god is unknowable and lack any belief then you are an agnostic atheists. You could go further and add the answer to 1 to the equation. If you believe there are no gods while also believing that its not possible to know if there are gods or not that would make you an agnostic explicit atheist.

3) Do you actively oppose theism?

If yes, then you could be defined as an anti theist also.

Honestly there are nearly an infinite number of question that could add other labels as well as synonyms for that lables to describe yourself.