Hmmm... I wasn't familiar with this belief system.

Secular Humanism a non-theistically based philosophy which promotes humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the free thought movement of the 19th Century.

Some factors that most Humanists share:

Either they do not believe in the existence of a deity, or they don't really care about the topic.

They believe that excellent codes of behavior and morality can be created through reason.

Humans created the Gods and Goddesses in their own image.

They are very concerned about human rights and equal opportunities for all.

They tend to be at the liberal end of the spectrum.

You can't prove a negative. You walk out of a store, a Snickers bar is missing. Prove you didn't steal it.

Alright, bad example -- you can prove someone else did, but unless you find that Snickers bar and what happened to it, and they went through a complete inventory, and every other Snickers bar is accounted for, you can't.

Let's assume you can't sing. You're required to go to choir practice, and you try, but you suck. They say, "you're faking it" -- prove you're not. How?

I'm the same way about God -- I need proof for most of the things in my life (or at least, extrapolation). I need a reason to believe, not a reason not to.

interesting, where did you find that?

I find that it's pretty damn difficult—and arrogant—to claim absolutely the existence of a God. I also find that it is equally difficult and arrogant to claim absolutely that there is no God.

I also would be interested to hear how someone would justify hate for people and religions due to certain believers' outspoken condemnation of non-believers.

I find some parts of most religions to be fascinating. I am also willing to accept people with strong religious beliefs as intellectual equals. I think the broad disdain for religion isn't any more noble than the unfailing acceptance of religious doctrine.

Atheism is "faith" in that it is a belief--no different from any theist "faith". One believes in a god(s), one believes there is none.

There is no "proof" one way or the other, it all comes down to "faith".

There's also a big difference between holding a belief and claiming/pronouncing "fact" or "absolutes". Life would certainly be more pleasant if folks kept their beliefs private.

No, that is so wrong. Atheism is the complete lack of faith. And if that's not what complete lack of faith is, then I'm not an atheist -- I'm a person with a complete lack of faith. Whatever that is. I use the term, atheist, myself.

believe in God/Jesus? Yes
go to church? No
subscribe to particular religion? No
try to be a good person and live an honest life? Yes

Full circle, as usual. Been through this discussion a hundred times here.

Best answer yet (from a religious person).

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

I hate the church I went to, and I am uncomfortable around the people from the church when I see them, I don't hate the people though. I hate my experience there, and I hate how they were. I don't hate the religion though.
I don't know.

I don't think it is wrong at all. If you accept that there is no proof in the existence, nor in the non-existence of a god(s), then the atheist belief (that there is no god) is as much a faith-based (i.e. belief in the absence of proof) belief as any theist belief.

I suspect that what you are is agnostic. You do not believe in a god, yet you do not believe there is no god. You do not subscribe to one "belief" or the other because you take nothing on "faith". Absent proof, you profess to have abstained from any decision.

I've never understood agnosticism--I know what it is, I just can't fathom those who profess to adhere to it. One is confronted with what I find to be two mutually exclusive outlooks--one believes in the existence of a god(s), or one believes there is no such thing. The agnostics, to me, always seemed to be those who couldn't or refused to make up their minds.

That's a helluva convoluted way to say "agnosticism".

How?

They are the bisexuals of the straight/gay world.

why are there so many grey areas? When I was little I didn't know about different forms of Christianity, it was all one universal belief system to me. Then I found out about Baptists, and Methodists, etc. Now Athiesm has denominations as well? Weak and strong? Soft and hard? Why can't an atheist just be someone who doesn't believe in a higher power? That makes things far too complicated. "So what religion are you?" "Oh, i'm a soft atheist" (not that athiesm is a religion it's just a classification but you get what I mean) That just complicates things because then you have to explain what you mean whereas if you just said Atheist, the universal term for lack of belief in a god, you get the point across easily.
Religion and lack of religion is getting too complicated. I wish we didn't have to over-categorize our beliefs.
Not bitching at you, just bitching in general.

There is a difference between weak atheism and agnosticism. One simply lacks a belief and the other claims that we can never know whether god exists.

Kevin Smith said it best in Dogma...."its doesnt matter what you believe in...as long as you believe"

I consider myself to be agnostic, but I don't sit around worrying about existence or non-existence. I don't even really care. But for me to be so certain that God doesn't exist isn't all that different than being certain that he does exist.

Nonsense. They are the same animal--one who lacks a belief. Because some profess to justify the lack of belief with the claim that "one can never know etc." doens't change what they are, nor does it make them any more or less of an agnostic than the others who "lack a belief".

"Soft/negative/neutral atheism" is nothing more than an attempt to water down the language and obfuscate the issue. "Atheism" is a belief that there is no god. It's an active belief--the "theism" in which the belief is in "none"--hence the prefix "a". To "lack a belief" precludes atheism, plain and simple.

Im agnostic as well.

It's not that I dont wanna believe...I havent been given a reason to actually belive though..

im not gonna get sucked into a debate, cause i dont care enough about religion....personally, i find its for the weak..and i dont mean that negatively..im content on living my life kniwing there are some things that cant be answered.

has anyone ever died, gone to heaven, or hell or purgatory, or wherever, and come back to give all these details that we seem to have on these locations in the afterlife?

i feel, some people need some sort of belief system to grip onto, cause this earth poses so many different questions..

to me, god is not much more different then santa claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, or pedro martinez.......fairy tales that have stood the test of time..... 'God' or whatever religions version of 'god' being the most realistic, wide spreak, and accepted form of tale.

but thats just me.

i fully accept, commend, and admire those who do have a faith...it aint for me.


8dying in 60 years, and going into a box in the ground, and thats all folks.*

According to my belief system/religion, this can all be explained by reading a few, short chapters in the Bible:

I Corinthians 1


Romans 9-10.

Bingo!

I saw REM at a sports arena.

i stand corrected then.


the closest i ever came to thinking there was a god was when i met liv tyler a year ago, and she hugged me....I thanked god...but im pretty sure i had 'devilish' thoughts.