In article <AT7R7.11006$5W5.4424759@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Cynic ©"

<kark_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If a Christian is asked what his religion is, he need only say

> "Christian" and you have a general understanding of what that person

> believes. However, I find it really difficult when using "atheist" or

> "agnostic".

First off, you're conflating the two. Atheism is about non-belief in

deity(s). Agnosticism is about lack of *knowledge* of deity(s) -and

this is a whole different matter entirely. It's is quite possible to be

an agnostic and a theist, and it's equally possible to be an agnostic and

an atheist.

Secondly, they are *not* in any ways, religion. If you are an atheist, and

you are asked what religion you are, the correct answer is, "I have no

religion" (actually there are some special cases, like atheist Buddhists

or some UU types where this wouldn't apply).

> I was wondering if someone could shed some light on the

> following use of the terms.... I used to refer to myself as an

> atheist. By using strict logic, I felt that I could disprove the

> existence of the mainstream concept of god.

Good trick, that. I doubt that you could, unless you are able to get a

concrete, non-self-contradictory definition of such - none of which

exist, as far as I am aware.

> I briefly abandoned this

> term, choosing to be more wishy-washy, and used agnostic, which I

> used to refer to my belief that one could not ever prove or totally

> disprove the existence of god.

That's an incorrect use of the term. The root is gnosis, meaning

knowledge. An agnostic is of the opinion that no one can have any

knowledge about deity. It says nothing about belief in same.

> Now, to summarize my beliefs: - I do

> not believe in a god of any kind.

Then you are an atheist.

> - I feel that religion is a disease

> that grips on to weak people.- I believe that religion is a major

> threat to liberty in the U.S.

And you have reasonable observational abilities.

> - Even if there IS a god, I have no

> interest in worshipping "him". In fact, I'd piss on "him" if I had

> the chance. What kind of being would create a world in which

> suffering played such a major role.

And you realize that the world is just the way it is, because that's the

way it is.

> - Science is incompatible with

> theism, and therefore at risk of being watered down (as is the case

> in Kansas and other fundamentalist places). Anyway, I find it hard to

> call myself an agnostic, but to be honest, aside from logic, I don't

> really have any proof that a "god" doesn't exist.

You needn't. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any

deity(s). A 'strong' atheist (like myself) will often claim that "god

does not exist" (in my case, it's "no god(s) can exist, as the term

"god" is fundamentally without useful meaning).

> So, I also have a

> hard time with atheist. Should I have a problem with this?

Not anymore. :)

> Is there a

> new term out there? what the heck am I? Uhg. When people ask me my

> beliefs, I can't sum it up with one word ("Christian") - I must go on

> for 20 minutes. -thanks for the suggestions. I know it's just

> language, but in this area, language means alot.

The problem is that you weren’t clued in to the proper use of the

terminology. I'd suggest you look up the weekly FAQ.