lables

[louis]

From Louis...

I would like some clear definitions of lables such as :
Agnostic, Atheist, Rationalist, etc.

All I know so far comes from one page in a Roman
Catholic encyclopedia. Their definitions were not very
clear ( and partly in Latin, which I don't understand ).

"Rationalist" came closest to describing me.
"Atheist" seemed to describe sort of a "negative believer".
"Agnostic" means someone who dismisses all religion
on the grounds that it cannot be PROVEN.
( I thought "Agnostic" meant the opposite of "Gnostic" -
an obscure sect who insisted they could PROVE their
beliefs, yet no outsider could comprehend their proofs
so they never became popular ).

Is there any place on this site containing better definitions ?

[samabudhi]

Try the dictionary.

I understand an atheist as someone who doesn't think there is a God or Gods and an agnostic as someone who suspends judgement and is happy to say that they don't know.

[louis]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Try the dictionary.

I understand an atheist as someone who doesn't think there is a God or Gods and an agnostic as someone who suspends judgement and is happy to say that they don't know.

From Louis..

Thanks, but I've tried dictionarys and listened to real
atheists and agnostics and I'm still puzzled.
All the atheists I've ever encountered were definitely
OPPOSED to God - not impartial like myself. It's as if
they really suspect there might BE a God and they're
just in DENIAL.
I rather agree with your discription of agnostics as
people who don't know and DON"T CARE but no
dictionary I've seen ever put it that way .

[I, Brian]

Most of the self-styled Atheists I meet online are simply reactionaries against Christianity. IMO that isn't Atheism because it's entirely fixated on Christian theology, rather than the deeper pholosophical question of Divinity. I went through a stage of that once as well.

[Marsh]

In the end the labels break down anyways. There are more than 6 billion people in the world, each with beliefs that differ from slightly to completely. I know that it's necessary to label things (and even people) for the purpose of study, but in the end they just cause divisions that can just as easily be arbitrary as rational. (For example, Martin Luther King Jr gets lumped together with the Crusaders as Christians).

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by Marsh

In the end the labels break down anyways. There are more than 6 billion people in the world, each with beliefs that differ from slightly to completely. I know that it's necessary to label things (and even people) for the purpose of study, but in the end they just cause divisions that can just as easily be arbitrary as rational. (For example, Martin Luther King Jr gets lumped together with the Crusaders as Christians).

Good point. They're just lables. So go with the dictionary. It's only there so we can agree. The Oxford English Dictionary is the most reputable 'English' dictionary.