Note that there is a big difference between fundamentalism and not being a Christian at all, whatever the fundamentalists may tell you. You may find that there are certain aspects of the spirituality or religion that you wish to hold on to, and there are plenty of non-fundamentalist churches you can look for.

captal Wrote:Never seen people gargle iodine here in Japan, but are you saying wearing masks doesn't help at all? I mean I'm sure 100% of the germs you sneeze/breathe into the mask don't stay there, but it must be better than sneezing your germs all over a room. Then again I'm just going with what feels logical. If it doesn't work at all, why are so many people, even in the US, advising using masks dues to the new swine flu?

I've never heard a person say cold water boils faster than hot- though I have heard that hot water freezes faster than cold- never looked into it though.

Ok I had to look it up- apparently it is possible for hot water to freeze faster than cold water- it's called the Mpemba effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba

Ah, sorry, I wasn't very clear. Masks do help you from getting other people sick when you are sick. However, many people wear them to try not to get sick (for example, all the teachers at my school when the kids first started getting swine flu). Many studies have been done about this, and all were ambiguous or showed it not to be effective.

Generally, only middle-aged and older people believe in the water thing. It used to be a bad idea to drink water from hot water heaters because of impurities (that could include lead), so when people were cooking it was common knowledge that one should use cold water. So, even if you wanted to boil the water you would use cold water. This is still a good idea in old houses. Somehow some people started to justify using cold water by saying that it boils faster. I haven't found any sources that say how common this idea is (so it was misleading of me to say 'many,' my bad!). I know my parents believed it, it was mentioned in a high school science textbook I had, as well as in an Anthropology class I took in a section about American cultural beliefs.

As for the iodine thing, it's actually very popular in schools. My school in Kyoto has iodine at all the sinks that teachers use, some of the student's bathrooms have it too. I've seen it at hot springs also.

Nukemarine Wrote:Igordesu, you kind of missed the point. You're capitalizing god which puts it in the realm of referring to the various Christian gods (and the Judaic and Muslim gods to boot). But what about those, such as the sun worshipers, that don't acknowledge any Christian gods? Are they de facto atheists? What about a Catholic that doesn't recognize any of the Jewish gods, is she atheist?

You're trying to define atheism to gods that may or may not exist. At least with sun worshipers, their god not only exists, they can point to it and prove it. Not so easy should your god be Zeus (manifested existence in thunderstorms) or Santa Claus (manifested every Christmas time) or Elohim (manifested in pillars of dust and fire). Nigh impossible should your god be the Christian type as it's been defined into impossibility and self contradiction at times.

So, I'd say atheism has nothing to do with denial of any particular god. If such, everyone is an atheism at some point. No, I'd argue a true atheist is one that does not worship beings or concepts. This removes problems about which god is the real god I'm supposed to not believe in. There's just so many to not choose from.

Yeah, I don't really think we're disagreeing on anything here. The only reason that I capitalized the "G" was because I figured that's what Carl Sagan was referring to (as opposed to Zeus and his merry men or something...).

I understand the point that you are trying to make. But you must understand that the word "atheism" like so many other words has more than one meaning. Any "one meaning" isn't really the "true meaning" any more than any other.

I agree that atheism can mean a belief in the nonexistence of all G/gods or a belief in the nonexistence of one particular G/god. In this sense, I've heard (and again, I've only heard this, so it may or may not be true) that early Christians were also called the equivalent of "atheists" because they refused to acknowledge other Greek or Roman gods. It's all a matter of perspective, but the scale that I gave you can still apply to either meaning of the term "atheism."

I think the word you are looking for is heretic. Atheist simple means godless, as in no gods at all. If you want to interpret that as no-abrahamic god, then that is just your interpretation, not the definition. Some fundamentalists also call atheists satanists, but that isn't at all reality. Calling a theist of a different religion atheist is just showing contempt for their religion, not an attempt to accurately describe their beliefs.

In short, calling followers of a different religion atheists says more about you than it does about them.

Can we say that most of the Japanese are atheist?

What is the best word to describe their religious view? 無神者? 無神論者? .... ? .... ?

Is this study accurate? is the non-belief in god(s) = atheism?



Can one believe in ghosts, spirits, magic, and other supernatural forces, and still called an atheist?

If yes, why? if no, why not?

I would consider atheism a broad term, with agnostics being one type of atheist. They don't believe in god, but they are open to the possibility.

I'd say that most religious activity is Japan is more tradition than actual belief. I've met virtually no-one who would describe themselves as a Buddhist or a Shintoist despite the fact that they have a butsudan and kamidana in their home, they goto shrines to pray on new years, etc. It's just tradition with no real thought to it.

As for ghosts, spirits, magic, etc.. that has nothing to do with atheism so sure there can be atheists that believe in that stuff. Atheism is, for most people (other than in countries with current/recent state enforced atheism), a conscious choice/realization though (aka not something that they are raised as). The kind of person who makes that realization would in general be a sceptic and wouldn't believe anything which is not provable.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheism is actually a belief. While agnosticism is in itself neutrality as to the existence and/or nonexistence of G/god(s) usually due to someone claiming to not have had enough evidence to persuade them to either belief, atheism is a belief just like theism. However, whereas theism claims a *belief* in the *existence* of G/god(s), atheism claims a similar but belief in the nonexistence of God. In that manner, you can think of theism as a positive belief and atheism as a negative belief. Agnosticism = 0.

Apparently it's changing in Japan (like in most places); I interviewed a Japanese student about religion, and she said that many people in the younger generation don't believe in any of the religious things about Shinto/Buddhism, so they're effectively atheists (they're probably counted as atheists in the chart above). That doesn't mean they "reject" Shinto or Buddhism though, it's still part of the tradition.

She said that all the "religious" traditional events/holidays don't have much of a religious meaning -- I believe Christians in Japan do them too. So it's not like Western nations where, say, Easter or even Christmas is a fairly Christian thing.

I think agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism.

Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

ahibba Wrote:I think agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism.

Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

You can still be an atheist or theist without claiming your belief as knowledge It would just be considered a weaker belief than "knowing for sure." Belief: Agnosticism = 0. Theism = postive. Atheism = negative.

igordesu Wrote:The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheism is actually a belief.

No, actually agnosticism is a belief. Agnostics believe that it is impossible to have knowledge about the existence of god. They have no proof for this.

Atheists on the other hand are people, that don't see proof for the existence of god, so they chose to not believe in him, until proper proof shows up. They do not claim to possess any kind of knowledge.

And as ahibba rightly states, both atheists and theists can be agnostics. The combination of atheism and agnosticism is more common, because if no god exists, then they is probably no proof for this, as non-existence in general can't be proven.

Theism and agnosticism however is rare, because if god exists, then he could easily let us know about this, e.g. by sending his son to earth or writing a holy book or something.

Buddhists are Atheists (believe in non creator gods yet feel compassion for them as they are considered to have a less useful life than that of humans) yet most followers are very religious. Theists I know are mostly not religious and attend church one hour a week for social reasons.

Agnostics abandon their efforts to access the metaphysical realm and declare one way or another to be verifiably true or false, leaving the field open for faith-based proclamations or probability-based denials and gradations therein. As Meillassoux would say, the correlationist turn in philosophy has replaced metaphysical dogmatism with a sceptico-fideist opening that allows fanaticism to creep in. I used to say 'screw all these -isms, I won't dignify the pretext of these discourses with an acknowledgement', but I knew that was still tantamount to inaction that left the same sort of openings. After reading Meillassoux's arguments, however, I'm beginning to think it's possible to bypass the belief that we can't access the absolute with thought, and in accordance with empiricism reach rigorous, verifiable answers.

PS - You didn't hear of http://a.aaaarg.org from me.

However, what if one of Christian gods existed? Can one still be an atheist, acknowledge that the Christian god that throws everyone in hell but the members of the First Baptist Church of the Risen Son happens to exist, yet not worship it? Say that both the Catholic god (the first one, that still throws non-Catholics into Hell) happens to exist along side the Presbyterian god (more lenient on who she lets into heaven). Which of those two are atheists?

I'm saying the existence of gods are irrelevant to Atheists. We're atheists because we don't worship. Belief is irrelevant.

Smart assed argument aside, I think Atheism is defined better by how one worships (without religious persuasion). Agnosticism is best used as a term to define the more recent gods (not provable by the scientific method).

J. J. C. Smart Wrote:The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

Seems like even smart experts agree that there's a certain confusion between the two concepts. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/)

The basic definition of atheism seems pretty clear though:

Dictionary.com Wrote:atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnosticism:

1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. (Random House)

More definitions for agnosticism:
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. (American Heritage)

A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God. An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one. (cultural dictionary)

xaarg Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:The difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheism is actually a belief.

No, actually agnosticism is a belief. Agnostics believe that it is impossible to have knowledge about the existence of god. They have no proof for this.

Atheists on the other hand are people, that don't see proof for the existence of god, so they chose to not believe in him, until proper proof shows up. They do not claim to possess any kind of knowledge.

And as ahibba rightly states, both atheists and theists can be agnostics. The combination of atheism and agnosticism is more common, because if no god exists, then they is probably no proof for this, as non-existence in general can't be proven.

Theism and agnosticism however is rare, because if god exists, then he could easily let us know about this, e.g. by sending his son to earth or writing a holy book or something.

What you've said about agnosticism isn't true. To be honest, I think you're trying to pin it all down a bit too tight by bringing in other elements to the equation. On the scale of belief about the existence of God (and specifically this scale, and no other), agnosticism is by definition not claiming a positive or negative belief on the issue.

You do not have to claim to "know" that it is impossible to know if God exists to be an agnostic. In fact, by making that statement, you just brought in another element (scale) of belief into the equation; specifically, you introduced the scale of belief about how "knowable" the concept of the existence of God is. That is an entirely different belief, and, while it may have an effect on your belief in the existence or nonexistence of G/god(s), it is a separate issue.

I think our misunderstanding is here. There are two types of agnostics--the "lazy agnostics" that don't feel like doing research/investigation and the "smart agnostics" who have done lots of reading/research yet still maintain their neutrality.

Edit: That being said, which "term" people use to identify themselves and their beliefs about such things is another matter entirely. Depending on the degree of "positiveness" or "negativeness" about their beliefs, whether people use terms like "atheist/theist" or "agnostic" will vary widely from person to person.

Edit2: I realize what the dictionary says about agnosticism, but usages of the word are much more diverse in the real world.

igordesu Wrote:On the scale of belief about the existence of God (and specifically this scale, and no other), agnosticism is by definition not claiming a positive or negative belief on the issue.

Do we really need a word for people that just don't care and never thought about these matters? Are there actually many people of this type around? Most people either believe in some sort of god or they don't.

I don't know anybody that claims he does not know if he believes in god or not. I do however know people that seriously claim that it is impossible to know if the believe in god is right or not. I also don't know any atheist that claims to know that god does not exists. If this is this kind of atheists exists, they must be incredible rare where I live.

So this using this definition to separate between atheism and agnosticism seems rather pointless to me. I have the feeling it has been originally created by theists to discredit most atheists as some sort of believers.

Not sure what you meant in some parts, but, like I said, try not to introduce other elements like " X = the difficulty of knowing the existence/nonexistence of God." When you do, you start to discriminate among people based on things like intelligence, education, etc. There are stupid atheists, just like there are stupid theists. Of course you're not going to run into crowds of people claiming to know God doesn't exist, but those people do exist. They're probably stupid, but they are there (and their belief deserves a spot on the spectrum of belief just as much as an educated person). Just like people who claim to "know God exists" are probably stupid (St. Anselm and Moses excepted, lol...).

Additionally, just because a word isn't used very often or in its correct context doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. How many people learn things like dead languages and really old Kanji just for fun? Exactly.

xaarg Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:On the scale of belief about the existence of God (and specifically this scale, and no other), agnosticism is by definition not claiming a positive or negative belief on the issue.

So this using this definition to separate between atheism and agnosticism seems rather pointless to me. I have the feeling it has been originally created by theists to discredit most atheists as some sort of believers.

Actually, I was first presented this scale by a very well educated atheist. He actually refused to use the word "atheist." He thought it was a dirty word because, although it can be used to refer to people like himself, some people (like some in this discussion) take it to mean the absolute end of the spectrum where (stupid) people claim to "know" whether God exists.

Hmm, I think I was misreading what this thread's developed into. It's actually just a semantic p*ssing contest? Or are you laying the lexical groundwork in order to make some sort of point. Apologies if I'm missing something. ;p

Valid point. This discussion is pointless. I have no idea why we're squabbling over this. I guess it was kinda fun in the beginning, but it is stupid now...

By the way igordesu, are you an atheist/agnostic/theist?

Deist. On the scale that I mentioned, I have a somewhat weak theistic belief that's kinda near agnosticism (but not quite).

igordesu Wrote:Deist. On the scale that I mentioned, I have a somewhat weak theistic belief that's kinda near agnosticism (but not quite).

Are you influenced by the world's most notorious atheist?

ahibba Wrote:

liosama Wrote:My favourite athiest however, is Carl Sagan.

liosama, Carl Sagan is not an atheist! Sagan denied that he was an atheist and said:

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."

Okay here we're going off basic definitions of words and what not. No matter what Carl Sagan says he is doesn't matter because the one thing he said which is most important was along the lines of saying
"Adding "God did it into the equation" is unscientific, unfounded and false, there are better questions people can ask and should ask as human beings"

So no matter how you define agnosticism, atheism or whatever what he said there is enough evidence that he thinks and doesn't accept brainwashed doctrine.


Anyway I know I have other posts to respond to but I haven't the time right now.