Backroom Poll. The (major) Religious Affiliation in Backroom...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You missed out Agnostic and Ignostic. I am personally an ignostic.

Edit: You stuck Agnosticism and Ignosticism in with "everyone who believes in God". It is actually arguably closer to athiesm due to agnostics having no definition stance on the existence of any god and ignostic view of "What do you mean by god?" with a default position accepting current explanations. There is also Antitheism which is pretty much "militant athiesm",

These terms and athiesm could/should be put under a nonthiest category.

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All you Christians are atheists just like me. I simply happen to not believe in just one more god than you do.

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.

Only my creed of atheism is right. Agnostics must burn at the stake for their heresy.

[gaelic cowboy]

All you Christians are atheists just like me. I simply happen to not believe in just one more god than you do.

Only my creed of atheism is right. Agnostics must burn at the stake for their heresy.

Hear hear

[CountArach]

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.

The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

[Beskar]

The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

There is also concepts such as Metaphysical naturalism which readily get dismissed. [definition: see below]

So technicially, I would be more of an athiest-antitheist-metaphysical naturalist-ignostic as I ascribe to different thoughts at different levels, in form of a construct.

To explain this, I will explain the order of importance and thought.

Main fundamental aspect is the ignostic.

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

If god means wolves to those in that tribe, means the river in another, or means the king in that culture, and all those other definitions and examples, how can you actually talk about the existance of god? Also, that wolf is just a wolf, that river is just a river, that king is just a king. If they are something I term 'Massively Powerful Being', then they are just that, a massively powerful being, may it be an advanced Artifical Intelligence UFO at the centre of the galaxy which can manulipate things at a quantum level or otherwise. The application of 'god' to these things is seemingly and obviously meaningless.

Secondly, as some one with a background in science (Since I have a BSc and a MSc), I am a metaphysical naturalist.

Metaphysical naturalism regards nature as all that exists or can exist, and assumes that observable events in nature are explainable only by resort to empirically observable causes. Consequently, supernatural agency is discounted, as are some abstractions thought to be independent of the physical universe (e.g., numbers).

Though, if we cannot currently observe or measure events, I believe in that we can do in the future, thus nature is everything is that exists or can exist.

Due to these points, I tend to hold an antitheist opinion.

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The etymological roots of the word are the Greek 'anti-' and 'theismos'. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

Since organised religion conflicts with the first two points (plus the fact they are generally a means of control and power), I tend to have an antitheist element.

Finally, as god cannot be defined, and most definitions of god attempt to say he is supernatural, and as a naturalist, I am opposed to this, and the fact all these organised religions are obviously not correct. I take the final stance that there must not be a 'god;.

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

I am not sure if the people who are selecting "atheist" agree with my reasoning or my points, for what reasons they have of their own. However, I think the underlying thinking and stance I sort of laid out above explains why I naturally conclude as I do.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not sure if the people who are selecting "atheist" agree with my reasoning or my points, for what reasons they have of their own.

I would vehemently agree or disagree, but I guess I'm just too much of an apatheist. I simply don't believe in (any concept of) a Christian God no more than I believe in re-incarnation or animism.

The conflicting notion to me is not atheist - 'Christian' deity. It is, rather, no belief - belief. I don't have a ready philosophy that disputes each and every single form of belief, every single god. The number of gods being virtually infinite - such is the scope of human imagination - it would be a practical impossibility too to have a ready negation of all of them.

I am simply atheistic towards all of them in much the same way a Christian is atheistic towards all of them. With the sole difference that I don't believe in one more god.

[Centurion1]

Didn't the catholics burn heaps of books containing advanced knowledge (in comparison to their own) during the reconquista?
That's what we learned in highschool anyway, that the moors were quite advanced in fields like medicine and the catholics burned all their libraries etc. regardless.

Yes but typically in the make us feel bad brand of western education they don't mention the libraries worth of books Christians saved from the ravaging barbarians of the dark ages nor the thousands of books that monks and other clergy wrote during this time. Even the crusade which is Christianity's worst moment (debatable in my mind) the Crusade's lasting legacy was the spread of culture and technology.

Edit: and thank you Louis for confusing me even further. I assume your comment was not serious as well. Ah well we know all Frenchmen are all Catholics they just try to appear more cultured and cosmopolitan

and lol at Strike, i find myself in sympathy with that view speaking as a Brit.

Please are you referring to COE? That was a political split more than anything else. Your sister church in the Us are Anglicans, no? Basically Catholics except you have women priest, which is a capital idea.

Imagine for a moment if the Church had given the king that divorce and he hadn't made the split....... Oh Mr. Turtledove I have your next idea

[Furunculus]

Please are you referring to COE? That was a political split more than anything else. Your sister church in the Us are Anglicans, no? Basically Catholics except you have women priest, which is a capital idea.

Imagine for a moment if the Church had given the king that divorce and he hadn't made the split....... Oh Mr. Turtledove I have your next idea

yup, and the reason why it is so awesome (speaking as an apatheist) is that it does not submit to the authority of rome. nuff said.

that would have been a great shame, we achieved awesome things ever since henry found away to keep on chucking his junk around!

[Hax]

Buddhist (gosh).

Specifically, Tantrayana Esoteric Buddhism

Even more specifically, I'm following the teachings of Kobo Daishi, who founded Koyasan Shingon-shu.

[Furunculus]

The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

ooohh *claps hands* that sounds like me! cheers CA.

and lol at Strike, i find myself in sympathy with that view speaking as a Brit.

[miotas]

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.

An agnostic is a person who doesn't know if there any gods or believes it is impossible to know. An atheist is someone who knows that there are no gods. It would be far more accurate to put the Christians and Muslims in with the Jews since they all worship the same god.

My particular brand of agnosticism is actually bordering on the apathetic, but since I am replying to a religious question here, I can't be completely apathetic can I